A powerful letter from the wife of a inappropriate content addict...

[frenchdefense]

I'm not hysterical Fred.
**What Is Wrong With inappropriate content?
**inappropriate content Hurts Others
**The Science Of Internet inappropriate content - What Happens To The Brain & The Body
**The Cost of inappropriate content
**inappropriate contentography Research
**inappropriate content Is More Addictive Than Cocaine or Heroin!
**inappropriate content & Support For Same-Sex Marriage
**If You Aren't Convinced inappropriate content Is Destroying Our Culture - Read This!

Yes, of course you're not.

I'm not reading the article, I admit, but just look a the titles.

give me break.

Really.

inappropriate content > same sex marriage > destroying our culture > more addictive then heroin.

Which is just as not hysterical as:

abortion > culture of death > caused by contraception > genocide plot against blacks.

You really have a blind stop for this kind of thing.

 

[Michie]

Pseudoscience is not Catholic. inappropriate contentography is as old as mankind (those cavemen didn't just draw deer and mammoths on their walls, you know). Saying inappropriate contentography will lead to gay marriage and paedophilia and whatnot is not truthful and therefore not helpful. Catholic doctrine does not need to be supported by lies and half-truths.

Antigone, I'm not stupid when it comes to this matter. We all know what cavemen drew on the cave walls but not necessarily for the purpose you think of. The letter came with the links. We can discuss the letter & the links but you are going to have to come up with more than the tired line of pseudo science & come up with some facts yourself...not just objections.

We all know that inappropriate contentography & using it is a mortal sin in the RCC. It can destroy relationships & have long lasting damage to the user. There are sex rehab clinics for such things for individuals. So unless you have specifics concerning your claims then all you are doing is hopping on the bandwagon of objecting to the titles while knowing nothing of the content.

 

[Michie]

Yes, of course you're not.

I'm not reading the article, I admit, but just look a the titles.

give me break.

Really.

inappropriate content > same sex marriage > destroying our culture > more addictive then heroin.

Which is just as not hysterical as:

abortion > culture of death > caused by contraception > genocide plot against blacks.

You really have a blind stop for this kind of thing.

What are you objecting to exactly? You've posted this over & over. Your post says nothing Steve.

 

[frenchdefense]

What are you objecting to exactly?

I thought I made that clear:

The hysterical, hyperbolic, irrational nature of the kind of reaction to inappropriate content.

I mean, seriously, read gurnney post on the subject.

Evidently there is an epidemic of women being choked, slapped and forced into group sex.

And Gurrney, just what kind of inappropriate content are you looking at ?

 

[Michie]

I thought I made that clear:

The hysterical, hyperbolic, irrational nature of the kind of reaction to inappropriate content.

I mean, seriously, read gurnney post on the subject.

Evidently there is an epidemic of women being choked, slapped and forced into group sex.

And Gurrney, just what kind of inappropriate content are you looking at ?

The way I look at it if you cannot read the content of what you object to Chuck you have nothing to object.

Seems to be a habit with some people wanting to jump into a thread while reading nothing but the title. Arguing for arguments sake.

That's not addressing anything posted but arguing your personal ideologies.

The OP is posted from a Catholics perspective by a Catholic. The links came with the page. It was meant to be discussed from a Catholic Christian POV. It was not posted to promote a secular view.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Oh but it is no joke. This is something we struggle with. We even been to counseling. It's not really that I'm a inappropriate content addict, it's that she just doesn't rock my boat anymore. I tell her if she would just get back in shape I wouldn't need the inappropriate content anymore. And she does watches with me.

Just proof that it's all about you. Selfishness has no place in marriage.

I've been married 26 years, and went through a long time when viewing inappropriate content was normal for me. Eventually I got numb to it, and wanted more, so I started chatting with women. It devastated my wife. I focused on my wife and our marriage, and by the grace of God, my marriage is healing. Nobody 'needs' inappropriate content.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I too have a problem with inappropriate contentography at different levels starting
with being infatuated with women in high heel boots and at times
escalating to nudity. I have had this problem my whole life as I am
67 and I have erectile dysfunction.
Me and my wife have an effective sex life in spite of the ED. My
wife wears lingerie in the bedroom to spice up our sex life.
My hope and prayer is that my thoughts about women would be
confined to the bedroom with my wife.
I put this here because I cant post anything.


gusord

Can I suggest something? Stop looking at women as an object for your sexual pleasure. Look at your wife as a whole woman, and give your heart and all of yourself to her, and your issue might take care of itself. Do you pray before having sex? Ask God for fruitful sexual activity. Really. Yes, really.

 

[Root of Jesse]

if women no want us comparing them to inappropriate content.
they no compare us to romance novles & soap opras.

This is true. Romance novels tend toward written inappropriate content.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I know a few folks hate it when I reference Orthodoxy, but, the Lord gave me an insight one day when I was reading an article online about inappropriate content addiction in a thread on another forum. The Lord told me that inappropriate content is a REVERSE ICON. The Holy Spirit gave me that insight, and I've kept it with me whenever these topics pop up. It truly is.

For Orthodox, icons aren't just pretty pictures or cool decorations of saints, they are WINDOWS INTO HEAVEN. They are an ideal. Their idyllic representation of holiness, sanctity, a person made perfect in grace through Christ. The icon shows the best of mankind and the work of theosis in action. It is an endgame we all dream of--sainthood.

inappropriate content is a reverse icon. It displays humanity in its lowest base degradation. It is a sad perversion of the human condition....a twisting of something beautiful and a sick celebration of the Fall.

We must all do our utmost to pray for those with inappropriate content addiction and all addictions. We mustn't treat them as freaks or villains, but folks who are sick patients needing the Medicine of Immortality--the Eucharist, and the healing gauze of Confession.

I have described inappropriate contentography as the flesh made word, while our faith teaches us about the Word made Flesh...

 

[frenchdefense]

The way I look at it if you cannot read the content of what you object to Chuck you have nothing to object.

Seems to be a habit with some people wanting to jump into a thread while reading nothing but the title. Arguing for arguments sake.

That's not addressing anything posted but arguing your personal ideologies.

The OP is posted from a Catholics perspective by a Catholic. The links came with the page. It was meant to be discussed from a Catholic Christian POV. It was not posted to promote a secular view.

See, now here's the thing.

Charlie would read all the stuff.

Charlie would waste his time pointing out the biased, psudo-scientific, assuming facts not in evidence nature of all this.

Me.

I don' t have time for that. No one cares anyway, on this board if you're your not on board with the crazy you're not a Catholic.

So, while this Charlie of who you speak is burned out and continues to reevaluate his participation on this forum. I'm at peace with all this.

Go ye forth and do your thing. I'm not going to try to dissuade you. In a very real way none of this is for or about your feelings on the subject anyway.

I merely point out the obviousness of the crazy and let the readers decide.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I only read the one about what it can do to your brain. It's more shocking than I thought it was. So many young kids, it's abuse actually.
Here a testimony of someone from CF that was delivered from it:

Reckon Yourself [bless and do not curse] [bless and do not curse] [bless and do not curse]Dead.... - Home

It is very interesting what it can do to your brain. Some images, you never forget-they get burned in...Not so long ago, I was looking at some videos on Youtube, and one got my attention, two girls kissing. They were completely clothed, and did not touch each other, except their lips and tongues. Yes, that's inappropriate contentography.

And it scared the crud out of me...cuz I thought I was over it. Even a lot of television is inappropriate contentographic, either in content or secondarily, by mention.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This guy has a Charlie sound to him doesn't he?

The way I look at it if you cannot read the content of what you object to Chuck you have nothing to object.

Seems to be a habit with some people wanting to jump into a thread while reading nothing but the title. Arguing for arguments sake.

That's not addressing anything posted but arguing your personal ideologies.

The OP is posted from a Catholics perspective by a Catholic. The links came with the page. It was meant to be discussed from a Catholic Christian POV. It was not posted to promote a secular view.

 

[Michie]

See, now here's the thing.

Charlie would read all the stuff.

Charlie would waste his time pointing out the biased, psudo-scientific, assuming facts not in evidence nature of all this.

Me.

I don' t have time for that. No one cares anyway, on this board if you're your not on board with the crazy you're not a Catholic.

So, while this Charlie of who you speak is burned out and continues to reevaluate his participation on this forum. I'm at peace with all this.

Go ye forth and do your thing. I'm not going to try to dissuade you.

See that's the thing...people just like to throw names around without addressing content & then evaluate what it means to be Catholic. Which equates to Crazy. Yeah, that works Rich. I'm convinced!

 

[Root of Jesse]

Like I said, it would take discussion & I'd really rather not. But it contaminates everything. You could take your imagination anywhere you want to go with that & you'd probably not be too far off.

I understand the contamination part. It still contaminates my marriage, 8 years later. The distrust, especially. I'm (mostly) over it...

 

[Michie]

This guy has a Charlie sound to him doesn't he?

You've heard the saying: 'Birds of a feather flock together.' They sound & act alike too.

 

[Antigone]

Antigone, I'm not stupid when it comes to this matter. We all know what cavemen drew on the cave walls but not necessarily for the purpose you think of.

Well, why do you think they drew them on there? Enlighten me, please.

The letter came with the links. We can discuss the letter & the links but you are going to have to come up with more than the tired line of pseudo science & come up with some facts yourself...not just objections.

"inappropriate content Hurts Others": there is no definitive correlation between any of the atrocities mentioned in the article.
"The science of internet inappropriate content": sources are ill-referenced and cobbled together (for instance, the number of men watching inappropriate content vs. the number of women watching inappropriate content come from different sources and are differently phrased, so they cannot be compared). Also, many studies were conducted by organisations targeting a specific demograph, which makes the results questionable at the very least.
"inappropriate contentography Research": see above. I couldn't acces the real article but from the excerpts on the website we can conclude that there are a lot of assumptions and post hoc ergo propter hoc-conclusions, plus the terminology ("conjugal relations") is unscientific; a proper peer-reviewed article does not tend to use those.
"inappropriate contentography is as addictive as cocaine or heroine": first, that title does not betray a great sense of understanding of how the brain works. There is a difference between psychological and chemical-psychological addiction. Also, I take umbrage at the implication that Patrick Carnes supports Struthers' theory. He doesn't.
"inappropriate content and Support for Same-Sex Marriage": the author of the cited article does baffling things with a Gallup poll and extrapolates data from it in a way that would make the average statistics professor bang his head on his desk.
"If you aren't convinced...": IT'S THE DAILY MAIL.

Now that we got that out of the way, tell me, Michie, how exactly do we benefit, as Catholics, as a society, from trying to support Catholic doctrine with this tripe?

 

[Michie]

I understand the contamination part. It still contaminates my marriage, 8 years later. The distrust, especially. I'm (mostly) over it...

There is no denying inappropriate content is a problem in general. But in the Catholic faith it is a mortal sin. It affects people differently to different extents. To dismiss these things out of hand is not only a stupid & callous thing to do to those it has affected but not a Christian attitude as well.

Anyone can get on any thread & object to anything without reading the content. It does not take a brainiac to do that.

 

[Michie]

Well, why do you think they drew them on there? Enlighten me, please.



"inappropriate content Hurts Others": there is no definitive correlation between any of the atrocities mentioned in the article.
"The science of internet inappropriate content": sources are ill-referenced and cobbled together (for instance, the number of men watching inappropriate content vs. the number of women watching inappropriate content come from different sources and are differently phrased, so they cannot be compared). Also, many studies were conducted by organisations targeting a specific demograph, which makes the results questionable at the very least.
"inappropriate contentography Research": see above. I couldn't acces the real article but from the excerpts on the website we can conclude that there are a lot of assumptions and post hoc ergo propter hoc-conclusions, plus the terminology ("conjugal relations") is unscientific; a proper peer-reviewed article does not tend to use those.
"inappropriate contentography is as addictive as cocaine or heroine": first, that title does not betray a great sense of understanding of how the brain works. There is a difference between psychological and chemical-psychological addiction. Also, I take umbrage at the implication that Patrick Carnes supports Struthers' theory. He doesn't.
"inappropriate content and Support for Same-Sex Marriage": the author of the cited article does baffling things with a Gallup poll and extrapolates data from it in a way that would make the average statistics professor bang his head on his desk.
"If you aren't convinced...": IT'S THE DAILY MAIL.

Now that we got that out of the way, tell me, Michie, how exactly do we benefit, as Catholics, as a society, from trying to support Catholic doctrine with this tripe?

Well as I said, the intent was the letter the priest shared. The links came with the page. Is there anything specific you object to in these links instead of just a general objection of the sources?

 

[Antigone]

Well as I said, the intent was the letter the priest shared. The links came with the page. Is there anything specific you object to in these links instead of just a general objection of the sources?

I think I explained by objections in detail already. Surely you don't expect me to go through every statistic? Most of it is 101 academic research. And let's be fair Michie, I went way beyond saying that the sources were wrong.

Also, personally, I try to verify what I post so that I can support it rather than just copy-paste stuff a website tells me to copy-paste.

EDIT: I don't disagree with the fact that there is something very wrong with inappropriate contentography, but I really do hate it when pseudoscience is brought into it. I know you think I keep harping on about it as a convenient excuse not to read what you post, but I do read it. I abhor it because it only exacerbates the reputation that Christianity already has when it comes to science.

 

[frenchdefense]

See that's the thing...people just like to throw names around without addressing content & then evaluate what it means to be Catholic. Which equates to Crazy. Yeah, that works Rich. I'm convinced!

You can't be convinced anyway.

And besides not addressing content and evaluating everyone else's Catholicism is the main industry on this fourm.


so, whatever.