A culture gorging on porn
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > > Mirriam-Webster defines it as:
> > > 1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing)
>>> intended to cause sexual excitement
> > > 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior
and
> >> is intended to cause sexual excitement
What is the different between porn and erotica? Again, where does the
Christian artist stand in the depiction of sex? I wrote previously about
Michelangelo and Vincent van Gogh - Christians who depicted sexuality in
some of their work These issues have not been addressed.
The Song of Solomon is regarded as erotioca. It is a song of seduction
which contains idioms of a sexual nature.
Chaucer (a Christian) wrote the Wife of Bath's tale in the Canterbury tales
...have you ever read it???? Rabelias can be quite crude - he waws a French
priest and a medical doctor as well as a writer.
C S Lewis told dirty jokes ALL through his life ...even after conversion to
Christianity.
>> And why would that be a bad thing Bradley?
It is seen as bad by pious Christians who separate the spiritual from the
physical.
HOWEVER ...
Our words spirit and soul (synonymous) are an attempt to translate the Greek
word psyche into English. In Greek psyche means mind / spirit (the
nonphysical part of our being). The Hebrew words translated spirit / soul
in English do not carry the same meaning as the Greek words! The Hebrew
word nephesh means breath ...and in particular the breath of Goid. Ruach
means wind ... particularly the wind of God. The purpose of both this
breath and wind is to animate life, to make vital,m to bring he WHOLE person
alive in both physical and nonphysical areas -body AND mind. Therefore in a
Hebrew sense being spiritual is being animated, vital, alive physically.
This is much different to the pious Chritian meaning of feeling "good with
God" or pure. I am very much "animated, vital, alive physically" when my
wife and I have sex. Karezza (Caressa) is a form of tantric sex that
reaches heights of transcendence and "out of this world" type experience.
> Off the top of my head in relation to myself:
> -It is lustful (outside of my marriage relationship) and is sinful
Sexual feelings are part of everyday life and are neither lustful or sinful.
EVERY member of the opposite sex is summed up by oneself (whether male or
female) as a prospective sexual partner ...even if it is subliminal.
Masturbation is normal and universal and involves imagination and sexual
feelings. There is NO passage in the bible condemimg the practice.
> -It is not fair on my wife and our relationship on many, many levels
My wife also looks at other men and does the same summing up.
> -It can lead to false ideals and numbs a person to real intamacy (just
like
> the effect continued exposure to violence can)
Au contraire, according to Australia's first sexologist (and a Christian),
Dr Richmond Rikard-Bell, erotica may dramatically HELP a flagging sexual
relationship. During his seminars he speaks about searching through
pornography stores and their books in order to find a photo for one position
which is good for men with impotence problems - the "areoplane". He also
speaks of how to tell (by sight) if a woman has reached orgasm - porns stars
tend to fake it with loud noises and arching backwards whereas a woman who
orgasms is more likely to curl. His book "Loving Sex" features a photo
taken by his daughter's husband of her face prior to orgasm.
> >How do you feel about ads for
> > bras and knickers?
>
> Are they "depicting erotic behaviour intended to cause sexual excitement"?
Yes! Sex is used to sell all manner of items!!!!! I suggest you read John
Berger's "Ways of Seeing" (based on the BBC tv series). Ever heard of the
term "phallic symbol" - the long red object belonging to the virile male.
Cavenous and enveloping images are used for the female. Artists are very
aware of this symbolic language and the best film directors use it to good
advantage.
Women use makeup as means to look "sexier". The red lipstick and blush is
an attempt to recreate the sexual flush on an unaroused female. Is makeup
pornographic????
> But yes, some "ads" are becoming more pornographic.
"pornography" literally means "pictures of prostitutes"
Its meaning changes with the culture. Other ages have had a much more
permissive view than the current conservative wowserism. One only has to
look at the art work in some of the medieval churches . Items depicted in
stain glass and bas relief like Eve examining Adam's penis, sexual congress,
naked men and women, erect penises, the Sheenanagog (sp?) of Irish churches.
This is well documented in art books and the history of art.
It is only that modern Christians know SO LITTLE about art hat the
prevailing prudishnes is able to exist. If Christians were educated in the
arts there would be a completely different opinion.
My next post will have some quotes from Wayland Young's "Eros Denied" which
I think is essential reading in this area.
Bradley
news:3fe9...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Bradley" wrote:
>
> > > > Mirriam-Webster defines it as:
> > > > 1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing)
> >>> intended to cause sexual excitement
> > > > 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior
> and
> > >> is intended to cause sexual excitement
> What is the different between porn and erotica?
Not a lot... perhaps erotica is just a more culturally accepted version!
> Again, where does the
> Christian artist stand in the depiction of sex? I wrote previously about
> Michelangelo and Vincent van Gogh - Christians who depicted sexuality in
> some of their work These issues have not been addressed.
Was the intent to cause sexual excitement? I suspect not.
> The Song of Solomon is regarded as erotioca. It is a song of seduction
> which contains idioms of a sexual nature.
But whose purpose is not "intended to cause sexual excitement".
> Chaucer (a Christian) wrote the Wife of Bath's tale in the Canterbury
tales
> ...have you ever read it???? Rabelias can be quite crude - he waws a
French
> priest and a medical doctor as well as a writer.
>
> C S Lewis told dirty jokes ALL through his life ...even after conversion
to
> Christianity.
Perhaps not good form on his part!
> >> And why would that be a bad thing Bradley?
>
> It is seen as bad by pious Christians who separate the spiritual from the
> physical.
Firstly... "It is seen as bad ..". What is _IT_? Are you talking about sex
generally? Or are these "pious" Christians those who are only trying to but
sex into the context God intends? (ie. that is it good but should be
practiced and honouring within God's boundaries?)
> HOWEVER ...
>
> Our words spirit and soul (synonymous) are an attempt to translate the
Greek
> word psyche into English. In Greek psyche means mind / spirit (the
> nonphysical part of our being). The Hebrew words translated spirit / soul
> in English do not carry the same meaning as the Greek words! The Hebrew
> word nephesh means breath ...and in particular the breath of Goid. Ruach
> means wind ... particularly the wind of God. The purpose of both this
> breath and wind is to animate life, to make vital,m to bring he WHOLE
person
> alive in both physical and nonphysical areas -body AND mind. Therefore in
a
> Hebrew sense being spiritual is being animated, vital, alive physically.
> This is much different to the pious Chritian meaning of feeling "good with
> God" or pure. I am very much "animated, vital, alive physically" when my
> wife and I have sex.
>
> Karezza (Caressa) is a form of tantric sex that
> reaches heights of transcendence and "out of this world" type experience.
Whose purpose would seem carnal and selfish.
> > Off the top of my head in relation to myself:
> > -It is lustful (outside of my marriage relationship) and is sinful
>
> Sexual feelings are part of everyday life and are neither lustful or
sinful.
We are not talking about sexual feeling, we are talking about the object of
your desire and the lust for those outside of the marital relationship.
> EVERY member of the opposite sex is summed up by oneself (whether male or
> female) as a prospective sexual partner ...even if it is subliminal.
>
> Masturbation is normal and universal and involves imagination and sexual
> feelings. There is NO passage in the bible condemimg the practice.
But it is the object of your thoughts is the problem eh? The is plenty the
Bible has to say on that.
> > -It is not fair on my wife and our relationship on many, many levels
>
> My wife also looks at other men and does the same summing up.
There is a big difference between "summing up" and lusting after them.
> > -It can lead to false ideals and numbs a person to real intamacy (just
> like
> > the effect continued exposure to violence can)
> Au contraire, according to Australia's first sexologist (and a Christian),
> Dr Richmond Rikard-Bell, erotica may dramatically HELP a flagging sexual
> relationship.
I doubt that very, very much. The best way to help your sexual relationship
is to develop intimacy.
> During his seminars he speaks about searching through
> pornography stores and their books in order to find a photo for one
position
> which is good for men with impotence problems - the "areoplane". He also
> speaks of how to tell (by sight) if a woman has reached orgasm - porns
stars
> tend to fake it with loud noises and arching backwards whereas a woman who
> orgasms is more likely to curl. His book "Loving Sex" features a photo
> taken by his daughter's husband of her face prior to orgasm.
Why do I want to see someone else's wife in the most intimate of
expressions????!!!!!
> > >How do you feel about ads for
> > > bras and knickers?
> >
> > Are they "depicting erotic behaviour intended to cause sexual
excitement"?
>
> Yes! Sex is used to sell all manner of items!!!!!
Yes, I agree (as I went on to say).
> I suggest you read John
> Berger's "Ways of Seeing" (based on the BBC tv series). Ever heard of the
> term "phallic symbol" - the long red object belonging to the virile male.
> Cavenous and enveloping images are used for the female. Artists are very
> aware of this symbolic language and the best film directors use it to good
> advantage.
>
> Women use makeup as means to look "sexier". The red lipstick and blush is
> an attempt to recreate the sexual flush on an unaroused female. Is makeup
> pornographic????
Is it inappropriate?... perhaps it can be.
> > But yes, some "ads" are becoming more pornographic.
>
> "pornography" literally means "pictures of prostitutes"
>
> Its meaning changes with the culture. Other ages have had a much more
> permissive view than the current conservative wowserism. One only has to
> look at the art work in some of the medieval churches . Items depicted in
> stain glass and bas relief like Eve examining Adam's penis, sexual
congress,
> naked men and women, erect penises, the Sheenanagog (sp?) of Irish
churches.
> This is well documented in art books and the history of art.
One would hope these things are not intended for sexual excitement (re:
definition)
> It is only that modern Christians know SO LITTLE about art hat the
> prevailing prudishnes is able to exist. If Christians were educated in
the
> arts there would be a completely different opinion.
Nope. I would still have the same ideals when it comes to sex.
--
Bradley
Software Developer www.hrsystems.com.au
A Christian Response www.pastornet.net.au/response
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > What is the different between porn and erotica?
>
> Not a lot... perhaps erotica is just a more culturally accepted version!
LOTS ... according to university studies in art. ;-)
> > Again, where does the
> > Christian artist stand in the depiction of sex? I wrote previously
about
> > Michelangelo and Vincent van Gogh - Christians who depicted sexuality in
> > some of their work These issues have not been addressed.
>
> Was the intent to cause sexual excitement? I suspect not.
How can you tell the intent? How do you read the work of art? What is
wrong with causing sexual excitement? Is lust merely sexual excitement?
> > The Song of Solomon is regarded as erotioca. It is a song of seduction
> > which contains idioms of a sexual nature.
>
> But whose purpose is not "intended to cause sexual excitement".
How can you tell the intent? How do you read the work of art? For the
people of day it was written in it would have caused sexual excitement. It
contains erotic descriptions.
> > >> And why would that be a bad thing Bradley?
> > It is seen as bad by pious Christians who separate the spiritual from
the
> > physical.
>
> Firstly... "It is seen as bad ..". What is _IT_? Are you talking about sex
> generally? Or are these "pious" Christians those who are only trying to
but
> sex into the context God intends? (ie. that is it good but should be
> practiced and honouring within God's boundaries?)
I am asking questions about the portrayal of sex in Christian art. Some
Christians see any portrayal of sex as pornography. I have written about
some Chreistian artists who have portrayed sex in their art. Is their
Christian art pornography as a result? How do you read the artwork in order
to know the intent of the artist? Is it possible??? Whatis the definitiopn
of "sexual excitemet'? Is their a difference between sexualk excitement and
lust? What is the difference?
> > Karezza (Caressa) is a form of tantric sex that
> > reaches heights of transcendence and "out of this world" type
experience.
>
> Whose purpose would seem carnal and selfish.
Are you saying that some forms of sex are not "Christian" because they
invoke too much pleasure? Should Christians have boring sex? Should
Christians not enjoy sex? Sex, by its very nature, is both carnal and self
gratifying ...if it wasn;'t then nobody would be interested in it!
> > EVERY member of the opposite sex is summed up by oneself (whether male
or
> > female) as a prospective sexual partner ...even if it is subliminal.
> >
> > Masturbation is normal and universal and involves imagination and sexual
> > feelings. There is NO passage in the bible condemimg the practice.
>
> But it is the object of your thoughts is the problem eh? The is plenty the
> Bible has to say on that.
Not really. If you sexually desire another and would follow through in
reality and take the object of your desire ...that is lust (This is what
Jesaus spoke about). If you sexually desire another but it is fantasy and
you would never follow through in reality and take the object of your desire
...that is not lust but sexual fanrtasy. Sexual fantasy is important for
all people in the development of their sexuality. It is normal.
> > > -It is not fair on my wife and our relationship on many, many levels
> > My wife also looks at other men and does the same summing up.
>
> There is a big difference between "summing up" and lusting after them.
That is what I am talking about. How much 'sexual excitement' constitutes
"lust"???? The 'summing up" is a reaction to sexual stuimulus of the
opposite sex.
> > > -It can lead to false ideals and numbs a person to real intamacy (just
> > like the effect continued exposure to violence can)
>
> > Au contraire, according to Australia's first sexologist (and a
Christian),
> > Dr Richmond Rikard-Bell, erotica may dramatically HELP a flagging sexual
> > relationship.
>
> I doubt that very, very much.
Read up in any journal of sexology.
>> His book "Loving Sex" features a photo
>> taken by his daughter's husband of her face prior to orgasm.
>
> Why do I want to see someone else's wife in the most intimate of
> expressions????!!!!!
I am stating what a Christian doctor working in the field of sexology has
done.
> > Women use makeup as means to look "sexier". The red lipstick and blush
is
> > an attempt to recreate the sexual flush on an unaroused female. Is
makeup
> > pornographic????
> Is it inappropriate?... perhaps it can be.
...but not necessarily so. ;-)
> > "pornography" literally means "pictures of prostitutes"
> > Its meaning changes with the culture. Other ages have had a much more
> > permissive view than the current conservative wowserism. One only has to
> > look at the art work in some of the medieval churches . Items depicted
in
> > stain glass and bas relief like Eve examining Adam's penis, sexual
> congress,
> > naked men and women, erect penises, the Sheenanagog (sp?) of Irish
> churches.
> > This is well documented in art books and the history of art.
>
> One would hope these things are not intended for sexual excitement (re:
> definition)
Does it matter if it is???? How do you know the artist's intent? How do
you read the artwork??? How much 'sexual excitement" is good / evil???? The
'summing up" is a reaction to sexual stuimulus of the opposite sex.
> > It is only that modern Christians know SO LITTLE about art hat the
> > prevailing prudishnes is able to exist. If Christians were educated in
> the arts there would be a completely different opinion.
>
> Nope. I would still have the same ideals when it comes to sex.
YOU may ...other Christians may not. ;-)
Theo Bekkers
> Are you saying that some forms of sex are not "Christian" because
they
> invoke too much pleasure? Should Christians have boring sex?
Should
> Christians not enjoy sex? Sex, by its very nature, is both carnal
and self
> gratifying ...if it wasn;'t then nobody would be interested in it!
The Christian method, sex without arousal.
I'll bet you enjoy sex much more than Bradley Mark.
:-)
Theo
Bradley
> "Bradley" wrote:
<snip>
> > > Karezza (Caressa) is a form of tantric sex that
> > > reaches heights of transcendence and "out of this world" type
> experience.
> >
> > Whose purpose would seem carnal and selfish.
>
> Are you saying that some forms of sex are not "Christian" because they
> invoke too much pleasure?
No. I am suggesting that some ways of seeking pleasure are not helpful for a
Christian.
> Should Christians have boring sex? Should
> Christians not enjoy sex? Sex, by its very nature, is both carnal and
self
> gratifying ...if it wasn;'t then nobody would be interested in it!
Your arguing with the wrong guy... I've never suggested anything different.
I am talking about when it is perverted from what God intended.
> > > EVERY member of the opposite sex is summed up by oneself (whether male
> or
> > > female) as a prospective sexual partner ...even if it is subliminal.
> > >
> > > Masturbation is normal and universal and involves imagination and
sexual
> > > feelings. There is NO passage in the bible condemimg the practice.
> >
> > But it is the object of your thoughts is the problem eh? The is plenty
the
> > Bible has to say on that.
>
> Not really. If you sexually desire another and would follow through in
> reality and take the object of your desire ...that is lust (This is what
> Jesaus spoke about).
What does "follow through in reality" mean? Didn't Jesus say that even to
think it was bad enough? (Although Jesus' point I suspect in that was to
show that none can be perfect).
> If you sexually desire another but it is fantasy and
> you would never follow through in reality and take the object of your
desire
> ...that is not lust but sexual fanrtasy. Sexual fantasy is important for
> all people in the development of their sexuality. It is normal.
What does your wife think when you fantasise about other women?
> > > > -It is not fair on my wife and our relationship on many, many levels
> > > My wife also looks at other men and does the same summing up.
> >
> > There is a big difference between "summing up" and lusting after them.
>
> That is what I am talking about. How much 'sexual excitement' constitutes
> "lust"???? The 'summing up" is a reaction to sexual stuimulus of the
> opposite sex.
"Summing up" > You may recognise someone as being attractive
"Lust" > You look at them with sexual desire/entertain a sexual fantasy in
your mind
> > > > -It can lead to false ideals and numbs a person to real intamacy
(just
> > > like the effect continued exposure to violence can)
> >
> > > Au contraire, according to Australia's first sexologist (and a
> Christian),
> > > Dr Richmond Rikard-Bell, erotica may dramatically HELP a flagging
sexual
> > > relationship.
> >
> > I doubt that very, very much.
>
> Read up in any journal of sexology.
Read up on the damage porn has done to men's lives!
> >> His book "Loving Sex" features a photo
> >> taken by his daughter's husband of her face prior to orgasm.
> >
> > Why do I want to see someone else's wife in the most intimate of
> > expressions????!!!!!
>
> I am stating what a Christian doctor working in the field of sexology has
> done.
And I am stating that to see share in someone else's intimate moment is
wrong.
BTW. The initial post was about pornography and the harm it is having... I
really did not want to get into the art debate again as that is a tangent to
the main point.
Bradley
news:D_THb.69088$aT....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Why do you assume that because I am making a stand against pornography that
I must then also think sex is bad and not enjoyable??? My wife would have a
big laugh hearing me called a "prude"! lol
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > Not really. If you sexually desire another and would follow through in
> > reality and take the object of your desire ...that is lust (This is what
> > Jesaus spoke about).
>
> What does "follow through in reality" mean?
It means you would have sex with that person if possible.
> > If you sexually desire another but it is fantasy and
> > you would never follow through in reality and take the object of your
> desire
> > ...that is not lust but sexual fanrtasy. Sexual fantasy is important
for
> > all people in the development of their sexuality. It is normal.
>
> What does your wife think when you fantasise about other women?
Not in the least bit concerned ...just the same as I am not concerned about
her fantasy. We attended Dr Bell's sex classes together many years ago.
> > That is what I am talking about. How much 'sexual excitement'
constitutes
> > "lust"???? The 'summing up" is a reaction to sexual stuimulus of the
> > opposite sex.
>
> "Summing up" > You may recognise someone as being attractive
> "Lust" > You look at them with sexual desire/entertain a sexual fantasy
in
> your mind
Your definitions are the same thing same thing as far as I am concerned!
Lust is when you would have sex with the person in reality if it were
possible.
Imagination is not evil! The mind is not evil! An artist MUST have
imagination and vivid use of his / her mind! Art is not possible without
that!
> Read up on the damage porn has done to men's lives!
That is what we are talking about .... What IS porn and what IS NOT porn.
Someone having sex with a goat is porn. A sex scene in a movie is not porn.
> And I am stating that to see share in someone else's intimate moment is
> wrong.
Yet that is what art is all about!!! The artist gives an intimate moment of
him / herself. Is art wrong????
> BTW. The initial post was about pornography and the harm it is having... I
> really did not want to get into the art debate again as that is a tangent
to
> the main point.
It is CENTRAL to the main point as one's definition of "porn" may impact on
the Christian artist who is falsely accused of creating porn!
Mark and Bev Tindall
> Why do you assume that because I am making a stand against pornography
that
> I must then also think sex is bad and not enjoyable???
In Christian circles the two usually go together!
Bradley
> "Bradley" wrote:
>
> > > Not really. If you sexually desire another and would follow through
in
> > > reality and take the object of your desire ...that is lust (This is
what
> > > Jesaus spoke about).
> >
> > What does "follow through in reality" mean?
>
> It means you would have sex with that person if possible.
What did Jesus say? Even if you think about adultery you have sinned
(Regardless of whether or not it was in reality possible to do or not).
> > > If you sexually desire another but it is fantasy and
> > > you would never follow through in reality and take the object of your
> > desire
> > > ...that is not lust but sexual fanrtasy. Sexual fantasy is important
> for
> > > all people in the development of their sexuality. It is normal.
> >
> > What does your wife think when you fantasise about other women?
>
> Not in the least bit concerned ...just the same as I am not concerned
about
> her fantasy. We attended Dr Bell's sex classes together many years ago.
My wife would be deeply concerned and rightly so. It would erode the
intamacy I have with her.
> > > That is what I am talking about. How much 'sexual excitement'
> constitutes
> > > "lust"???? The 'summing up" is a reaction to sexual stuimulus of the
> > > opposite sex.
> >
> > "Summing up" > You may recognise someone as being attractive
> > "Lust" > You look at them with sexual desire/entertain a sexual fantasy
> in
> > your mind
>
> Your definitions are the same thing same thing as far as I am concerned!
>
> Lust is when you would have sex with the person in reality if it were
> possible.
I'm sorry but you're the first I've heard come up with that defenition.
(Mirriam-Webster)
2. usually intense or unbridles sexual desire
3. an intense longing (craving, enthusiasm, eagerness)
Nothing about reality there.
> Imagination is not evil! The mind is not evil! An artist MUST have
> imagination and vivid use of his / her mind! Art is not possible without
> that!
It is what the imagination does that can be evil. Hold captive to ones
thoughts we are told!
> > Read up on the damage porn has done to men's lives!
>
> That is what we are talking about .... What IS porn and what IS NOT porn.
No, we are talking about the harm done by what is commonly known as porn is
society (debating the definition is a tangent and takes the focus away from
the harm and the people afected).
> Someone having sex with a goat is porn. A sex scene in a movie is not
porn.
Why is sex in a movie not porn if it is explicit?
God meant for the most intimate expression to be done in private and not
shared with others.
> > And I am stating that to see share in someone else's intimate moment is
> > wrong.
>
> Yet that is what art is all about!!! The artist gives an intimate moment
of
> him / herself. Is art wrong????
Perhaps sometimes it is. Some things are meant to not be expressed outside
of the relationship they are in.
> > BTW. The initial post was about pornography and the harm it is having...
I
> > really did not want to get into the art debate again as that is a
tangent
> to
> > the main point.
>
> It is CENTRAL to the main point as one's definition of "porn" may impact
on
> the Christian artist who is falsely accused of creating porn!
To you perhaps it is... but to me I am primarily concerned about the harm
been done in our society.
Barry OGrady
>
>"Mark and Bev Tindall" <m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3ff2...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> "Bradley" wrote:
>>
>> > > Not really. If you sexually desire another and would follow through
>in
>> > > reality and take the object of your desire ...that is lust (This is
>what
>> > > Jesaus spoke about).
>> >
>> > What does "follow through in reality" mean?
>>
>> It means you would have sex with that person if possible.
>
>What did Jesus say? Even if you think about adultery you have sinned
>(Regardless of whether or not it was in reality possible to do or not).
God gave us lust so that we would mate often and produce many offspring.
God never intended for everybody to live so we need to produce more than
we need.
>> > > If you sexually desire another but it is fantasy and
>> > > you would never follow through in reality and take the object of your
>> > desire
>> > > ...that is not lust but sexual fanrtasy. Sexual fantasy is important
>> for
>> > > all people in the development of their sexuality. It is normal.
>> >
>> > What does your wife think when you fantasise about other women?
>>
>> Not in the least bit concerned ...just the same as I am not concerned
>about
>> her fantasy. We attended Dr Bell's sex classes together many years ago.
>
>My wife would be deeply concerned and rightly so. It would erode the
>intamacy I have with her.
Humans have advanced beyond their God given design.
>> > > That is what I am talking about. How much 'sexual excitement'
>> constitutes
>> > > "lust"???? The 'summing up" is a reaction to sexual stuimulus of the
>> > > opposite sex.
>> >
>> > "Summing up" > You may recognise someone as being attractive
>> > "Lust" > You look at them with sexual desire/entertain a sexual fantasy
>> in
>> > your mind
>>
>> Your definitions are the same thing same thing as far as I am concerned!
>>
>> Lust is when you would have sex with the person in reality if it were
>> possible.
>
>I'm sorry but you're the first I've heard come up with that defenition.
It's the way God made us.
>(Mirriam-Webster)
>2. usually intense or unbridles sexual desire
>3. an intense longing (craving, enthusiasm, eagerness)
>
>Nothing about reality there.
>
>> Imagination is not evil! The mind is not evil! An artist MUST have
>> imagination and vivid use of his / her mind! Art is not possible without
>> that!
>
>It is what the imagination does that can be evil. Hold captive to ones
>thoughts we are told!
Did God make a mistake in our design?
>> > Read up on the damage porn has done to men's lives!
>>
>> That is what we are talking about .... What IS porn and what IS NOT porn.
>
>No, we are talking about the harm done by what is commonly known as porn is
>society (debating the definition is a tangent and takes the focus away from
>the harm and the people afected).
>
>> Someone having sex with a goat is porn. A sex scene in a movie is not
>>porn.
>
>Why is sex in a movie not porn if it is explicit?
>
>God meant for the most intimate expression to be done in private and not
>shared with others.
Where did God go wrong?
>> > And I am stating that to see share in someone else's intimate moment is
>> > wrong.
>>
>> Yet that is what art is all about!!! The artist gives an intimate moment
>of
>> him / herself. Is art wrong????
>
>Perhaps sometimes it is. Some things are meant to not be expressed outside
>of the relationship they are in.
>
>> > BTW. The initial post was about pornography and the harm it is having...
>I
>> > really did not want to get into the art debate again as that is a
>tangent
>> to
>> > the main point.
>>
>> It is CENTRAL to the main point as one's definition of "porn" may impact
>on
>> the Christian artist who is falsely accused of creating porn!
>
>To you perhaps it is... but to me I am primarily concerned about the harm
>been done in our society.
If we assume that the Bible description of all things being possible for God
is accurate we can determine what God wants by how we behave.
Do you think that God had any idea of the problems he would cause by
giving humans the same desires and emotions as other animals?
Is God incompetent?
>--
>Bradley
-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
Barry OGrady
>"Mark and Bev Tindall" <m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3fef...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> "Bradley" wrote:
><snip>
>> > > Karezza (Caressa) is a form of tantric sex that
>> > > reaches heights of transcendence and "out of this world" type
>> experience.
>> >
>> > Whose purpose would seem carnal and selfish.
>>
>> Are you saying that some forms of sex are not "Christian" because they
>> invoke too much pleasure?
>
>No. I am suggesting that some ways of seeking pleasure are not helpful for a
>Christian.
Do you believe that God gave us those desires so that we would have something
to fight?
>> Should Christians have boring sex? Should
>> Christians not enjoy sex? Sex, by its very nature, is both carnal and
>self
>> gratifying ...if it wasn;'t then nobody would be interested in it!
>
>Your arguing with the wrong guy... I've never suggested anything different.
>I am talking about when it is perverted from what God intended.
Clearly God intended for men to have unprotected sex with as many woman
as possible. If God had intended us to only have sex with one partner he
would have made that our desire. If God had intended us to have sex with
no possibility of procreation he would have given us a switch to easily turn
fertility on and off.
>> > > EVERY member of the opposite sex is summed up by oneself (whether male
>> or
>> > > female) as a prospective sexual partner ...even if it is subliminal.
>> > >
>> > > Masturbation is normal and universal and involves imagination and
>sexual
>> > > feelings. There is NO passage in the bible condemimg the practice.
>> >
>> > But it is the object of your thoughts is the problem eh? The is plenty
>the
>> > Bible has to say on that.
>>
>> Not really. If you sexually desire another and would follow through in
>> reality and take the object of your desire ...that is lust (This is what
>> Jesaus spoke about).
>
>What does "follow through in reality" mean? Didn't Jesus say that even to
>think it was bad enough?
Could Jesus have said something so stupid? Was Jesus unaware that God
gave us lust to encourage us to produce offspring?
>(Although Jesus' point I suspect in that was to
>show that none can be perfect).
I can't imagine Jesus being so critical of God.
>> If you sexually desire another but it is fantasy and
>> you would never follow through in reality and take the object of your
>desire
>> ...that is not lust but sexual fanrtasy. Sexual fantasy is important for
>> all people in the development of their sexuality. It is normal.
>
>What does your wife think when you fantasise about other women?
>
>> > > > -It is not fair on my wife and our relationship on many, many levels
>> > > My wife also looks at other men and does the same summing up.
>> >
>> > There is a big difference between "summing up" and lusting after them.
>>
>> That is what I am talking about. How much 'sexual excitement' constitutes
>> "lust"???? The 'summing up" is a reaction to sexual stuimulus of the
>> opposite sex.
>
>"Summing up" > You may recognise someone as being attractive
>"Lust" > You look at them with sexual desire/entertain a sexual fantasy in
>your mind
As long as you don't follow up no harm is done.
>> > > > -It can lead to false ideals and numbs a person to real intamacy
>(just
>> > > like the effect continued exposure to violence can)
>> >
>> > > Au contraire, according to Australia's first sexologist (and a
>> Christian),
>> > > Dr Richmond Rikard-Bell, erotica may dramatically HELP a flagging
>sexual
>> > > relationship.
>> >
>> > I doubt that very, very much.
>>
>> Read up in any journal of sexology.
>
>Read up on the damage porn has done to men's lives!
Did God know the harm that sexuality would cause when he created it?
Why did God gives humans the same lusts and desires as other animals?
>> >> His book "Loving Sex" features a photo
>> >> taken by his daughter's husband of her face prior to orgasm.
>> >
>> > Why do I want to see someone else's wife in the most intimate of
>> > expressions????!!!!!
>>
>> I am stating what a Christian doctor working in the field of sexology has
>> done.
>
>And I am stating that to see share in someone else's intimate moment is
>wrong.
Unless that person wants to share.
You obviously believe that God made a terrible mistake when he created sex.
Moira de Swardt
other than my own feelings about the subject.
My theology of the liberal female variety.
When examining the question of the value of pornography to society
in general, to couples and individuals and to the money making
moguls, then I have no doubt that the ultimate winner is the money
making moguls.
Pornography has some rather limited legitimate uses within the role
of relationship counselling where sexual problems *may* be addressed
with a "prescription" of pornography. However, the harm
pornography does to most relationships where it starts to intrude,
and the damage done generally to society by pornography is far
greater than any amount of good.
Pornography is damaging to one's self image, and the image of one's
sexual partner. Pornography tends to be airbrushed and perfect.
Women have wonderful hairstyles and perfectly applied make up and no
blobs and blotches. Men have smooth bodies, nicely proportioned and
permanent erections. Pornography doesn't have embarrassing human
sound effects except maybe unrealistic gasping. Real people have
blotches and pimples and cellulite and wind. And even flaccid
penises. We don't look like porn stars when we've been up at night
to check on burglars or to mop up a child's vomit or to let the dog
out. Yet the reality is that it is often in the mundane things of
life that we will be engaging in the sex act. Within established
relationships one is seldom "dressed to kill" when the overtures to
sex begin. Where unrealistic expectations of sexual partners are
built up by regular exposure to pornography the flaws of one's
sexual partner, and even one's own flaws, become damaging to the
self esteem of the person or people concerned.
Pornography is particularly damaging to the self esteem of young
people who have not yet learned to accept their own bodies and those
of their sexual partners "warts and all".
Where pornography becomes an addiction for one of the partners it is
tremendously damaging to the self esteem of the other partner,
regardless of whether "better" sex results or not. There is a very
real sense in which we all seek to be desired for ourselves.
I grew up in South Africa where pornography was not available
legally. I never saw any. I, in my extreme innocence, thought a
blue movie was a movie where the filming was done in blue, like
sepia or black and white, only in shades of blue. Films were cut to
ribbons to ensure that nudity and sex were excluded. People still
had healthy sex lives. And people still had no sex lives.
Sex, within relationships, has multiple roles and these roles
include expressions of desire, physical release of tension, comfort,
companionship and assurance. Sex within relationships depends far
more on the emotional state of people than on the physical.
Pornography is about the physical, not the emotional. Thus whether
one has a good sex life or a bad one will depend largely on whether
one has a good relationship or a bad one not purely on what physical
stimuli one receives.
I have two friends with cancer. One is a woman, married for thirty
something years to a man who adores her. They have no time or
inclination for pornography within their relationship. She has had
one breast removed and the other is scarred. She has lost all her
hair twice. She tells me that her physical relationship with her
husband has never been better, although it has been equalled at
other points in her marriage. Her husband assures her with his body
that he still loves her, finds her feminine and sexually desirable.
I assume she responds in ways which make him realise how true this
is.
The other friend with cancer is a young man with testicular cancer.
He has been fed on a diet of pornography, and even though he knows
that his one testicle is visually indistinguishable from the other
he has tremendous problems with his sexual self-image - to the point
of impotency - which in turn has a horrible impact on his sexual
self-image (and so the vicious cycle continues).
As regards pornography in society. I suspect that pornography has
an equally negative effect on society. There is no doubt in
anyone's mind that pornography is used in *many* instances of child
abuse, either to desensitise the child to his or her own natural
inclination to not do "that" or to stimulate physical sexual
responses. Where something is used to bring harm to young people it
is always inappropriate. Thus pornography is always inappropriate
for children. We have already looked briefly at the damage to the
self-esteem of less than physically perfect teenagers. And to
(some) adults in relationships.
In my opinion there is so little benefit in pornography that it is a
waste of money and effort for individuals, sexual relationships and
society. Except that it's a multi-million dollar industry. Where do
we go to from here? The truth is that there is a market for
pornography, but that market is not usually found within homes where
truly loving relationships are valued and truly enjoyable sex lives
are exercised.
Just my unsolicited five cents worth.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Mark and Bev Tindall
> My theology of the liberal female variety.
A viewpoint that needs to be heard more often.
> When examining the question of the value of pornography to society
> in general, to couples and individuals and to the money making
> moguls, then I have no doubt that the ultimate winner is the money
> making moguls.
True.
> Sex, within relationships, has multiple roles and these roles
> include expressions of desire, physical release of tension, comfort,
> companionship and assurance. Sex within relationships depends far
> more on the emotional state of people than on the physical.
This is not as true for a young male.
My question was: What is pornography?
The professor I had for Aestheitics showed us her collection of photographs
by a female artist in the USA. They seemed to be a series of photos of
naked females standing on top of logs / boulders, over grown with vines.
the stance of the females was one of power and beauty. The students in her
class were all wrong!
The pictures were selected views of various men's penis & testicles to which
she had superimposed the naked ladies.
Is this pornography or art?
A memorable story about Michelangelo the Christian painter.
Were his staues and paintings of nude males and females "pornography"?
The following extract comes from Vasari's "Lives of The Artists" (Translated
by George Bull, Penguin; Middlesex, England: 1965; p. 379)
*****************************
To return to the Last Judgement: Michelangelo had already finished more than
three~fourths of the work when Pope Paul went to see it. On this occasion
Biagio da Cesena, the master of ceremonies and a very high-minded person,
happened to be with the Pope in the chapel and was asked what he thought of
the painting. He answered that it was most disgraceful that in so sacred a
place there should have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing
themselves so shamefully, and that it was no work for a papal chapel but
rather for the public baths and taverns. Angered by this comment,
Michelangelo determined he would have his revenge; and as soon as Biagio had
left he drew his portrait frorn memory in the figure of Minos, shown with a
great serpent curled around his legs, among a heap of devils in hell; nor
for all his pleading with the Pope and Michelangelo could Biagio have the
figure removed, and it was left, to record the incident, as it is today.
****
My problem is not with pornography but how Christians (fundamentalists
especially) use the tag to censor art.
Mark and Bev Tindall
> God gave us lust so that we would mate often and produce many offspring.
> God never intended for everybody to live so we need to produce more than
> we need.
See you do make sense now and then. ;-)
> Do you think that God had any idea of the problems he would cause by
> giving humans the same desires and emotions as other animals?
That's a good question. There was a song a while back ..."you and me ain't
nothing but mammals" (?) .... we are more than spoirit. we are a
combionation of the seen and the unseen. Is being a good mammal sinful? I
don't think so.
Mark and Bev Tindall
> Do you believe that God gave us those desires so that we would have
something
> to fight?
...or to enjoy?
> >"Summing up" > You may recognise someone as being attractive
> >"Lust" > You look at them with sexual desire/entertain a sexual fantasy
in
> >your mind
>
> As long as you don't follow up no harm is done.
I tend to agree.
> Why did God gives humans the same lusts and desires as other animals?
Because we ARE animals.
Barry OGrady
I don't think the people who created God thought of that.
Theo Bekkers
> I'm just entering the debate now, and without any specific context
> other than my own feelings about the subject.
>
> My theology of the liberal female variety.
>
> When examining the question of the value of pornography to society
> in general, to couples and individuals and to the money making
> moguls, then I have no doubt that the ultimate winner is the money
> making moguls.
Agreed.
> Pornography is damaging to one's self image, and the image of one's
> sexual partner. Pornography tends to be airbrushed and perfect.
> Women have wonderful hairstyles and perfectly applied make up and no
> blobs and blotches. Men have smooth bodies, nicely proportioned and
> permanent erections. Pornography doesn't have embarrassing human
> sound effects except maybe unrealistic gasping.
I believe you're suggesting real people don't measure up to the
performers or the performances and therefore are made to feel
inferior. So why do we watch sports where elite athletes run, swim,
and jump higher and faster than we mere mortals could ever aspire to?
And yet people are motivated to jog (slowly) around the block to
improve their physical selves by watching these sports. Watching the
Tour de France cycling race does not make me feel inferior in any way,
but it does inspire me to get back on my bicycle.
Theo
Moira de Swardt
> > Pornography is damaging to one's self image, and the image of
one's
> > sexual partner. Pornography tends to be airbrushed and perfect.
> > Women have wonderful hairstyles and perfectly applied make up
and no
> > blobs and blotches. Men have smooth bodies, nicely proportioned
and
> > permanent erections. Pornography doesn't have embarrassing
human
> > sound effects except maybe unrealistic gasping.
> I believe you're suggesting real people don't measure up to the
> performers or the performances and therefore are made to feel
> inferior. So why do we watch sports where elite athletes run,
swim,
> and jump higher and faster than we mere mortals could ever aspire
to?
> And yet people are motivated to jog (slowly) around the block to
> improve their physical selves by watching these sports. Watching
the
> Tour de France cycling race does not make me feel inferior in any
way,
> but it does inspire me to get back on my bicycle.
Because our sexual identities form part of what we *are* while
sports forms part of what we *do*. What we are reflects directly on
our self-esteem while what we do reflects more indirectly on our
self-esteem. This is why one can find talented, successful people
with money, skills, adulation of the public and who are loved by
their families and friends who have poor and negative self-esteem.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Moira de Swardt
"Mark and Bev Tindall" <m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> My problem is not with pornography but how Christians
(fundamentalists
> especially) use the tag to censor art.
Yes. The one entrance to the city hall in Johannesburg (South
Africa) is flanked by two statues of David (why, I'm not sure).
However, these statues have been draped with little loin-cloths.
This is in post apartheid South Africa where there is actually very
little censorship. I keep meaning to write to someone about it, but
I'm honestly not sure where to address my letter.
Unless it's to protect David from ridicule. He is rather
underendowed, isn't he? :-)
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > My problem is not with pornography but how Christians
> (fundamentalists especially) use the tag to censor art.
>
> Yes. The one entrance to the city hall in Johannesburg (South
> Africa) is flanked by two statues of David (why, I'm not sure).
> However, these statues have been draped with little loin-cloths.
This is what I mean. ;-)
WWMT????? - What Would Michelangelo Think?
In a high school book on Renaissance Art Christian Community Schools cut out
every hint of genitalia in all the art works. Rewriting history is not a
help to Christianity.
Moira de Swardt
"Mark and Bev Tindall" <m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> In a high school book on Renaissance Art Christian Community
Schools cut out
> every hint of genitalia in all the art works. Rewriting history
is not a
> help to Christianity.
Renaissance genitalia in Judeo-Christian scenes offend me. There is
no hint of circumcision anywhere. What do good Jews think of
David's uncircumcised penis? And all those little cherubs...
Maybe the Renaissance Art Christian Community Schools are interested
in authenticity? :-)
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Theo Bekkers
> Renaissance genitalia in Judeo-Christian scenes offend me. There is
> no hint of circumcision anywhere. What do good Jews think of
> David's uncircumcised penis? And all those little cherubs...
I see you have been studying them _very_ closely. :-)
Theo
Barry OGrady
>"Barry OGrady" wrote:
>
>> Do you believe that God gave us those desires so that we would have
>something
>> to fight?
>
>...or to enjoy?
It seems that everything we enjoy has a down side.
>> >"Summing up" > You may recognise someone as being attractive
>> >"Lust" > You look at them with sexual desire/entertain a sexual fantasy
>in
>> >your mind
>>
>> As long as you don't follow up no harm is done.
>
>I tend to agree.
Yet the Bible says that lust alone is bad.
>> Why did God gives humans the same lusts and desires as other animals?
>
>Because we ARE animals.
Next question. Why didn't God make his special creations special?
-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
Voicemail/fax number +14136227640