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

[frenchdefense]

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?

Charlie would do that research and ask that question.

Charlie kept an alter ego type sock going for years.

You sound like Charlie.

Just saying.

 

[Antigone]

Charlie would do that research and ask that question.

Charlie kept an alter ego type sock going for years.

You sound like Charlie.

Just saying.

My sock's name is Sockophles and I thought that it would be really obvious that that was me. Personally, I thought it was hilarious.

Clearly I overestimated the OBOB clientele.

 

[frenchdefense]

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?

Well, as long as we're on the subject.

This is one letter from one person about whom, we know nothing.

How do we know she's not one of those uncomfortable with her sexuality, self hating, sex hating, pathologically modest women that you run across very so often ?

Perhaps her view of what's going on is askew. We don't know.

Can you address that for me ?

 

[Michie]

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.

LOL another evaluation by you when you say everyone else is doing it. Yeah, that works.

 

[Antigone]

LOL another evaluation by you when you say everyone else is doing it. Yeah, that works.

I thought you objected to the use of sarcasm?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

One wonders how anyone could be sympathetic to inappropriate content and be Catholic. I think the Catholic Catechism is fairly clear about the sin and gravity of inappropriate contentography.

LOL another evaluation by you when you say everyone else is doing it. Yeah, that works.

 

[Michie]

You know there are a million & one research articles on inappropriate content. Most do show a negative affect. You all can look it up since you seem to be up on all the latest in inappropriate content research & what is pseudo science or not.

The thing is it has effects on some people it will not have on others which makes it hard to define. But where you all are missing the point is that this is a Christian forum & it should be discussed from that perspective. To top it all off in Catholicism masturbation & other things depicted in inappropriate content are also mortal sins. So from a Christian perspective & even more so a Catholic Christian perspective there is no defense for inappropriate content. Ever.

And it is posted to be discussed from that perspective. I don't come to OBOB so I can get the latest in secular thought. These deflections from the actual OP & the links on the page are just that. Deflections.

If you disagree then show what you disagree with from the content & show why. A lot of us are getting tired of having to defend what may be in the OP with no proof from those pointing the fingers & ignoring the original post in favor of something the RCC is against.

 

[frenchdefense]

A string of posts:

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.

LOL another evaluation by you when you say everyone else is doing it. Yeah, that works.

One wonders how anyone could be sympathetic to inappropriate content and be Catholic. I think the Catholic Catechism is fairly clear about the sin and gravity of inappropriate contentography.

I rest my case.

 

[Rhamiel]

One wonders how anyone could be sympathetic to inappropriate content and be Catholic. I think the Catholic Catechism is fairly clear about the sin and gravity of inappropriate contentography.

well that kind of depends on what you mean by "sympathetic"

traditionally, sins of the flesh have been viewed as the most excusable/ easiest to fall into.

and our culture is over sexualized so it makes sense that many people are confused on the proper role of sexuality.


at the same time, as you pointed out, inappropriate contentography is clearly sinful, we can see this in Natural Law, Church Teaching and Sacred Scripture. To try and downplay this epidemic seems foolish

 

[Michie]

A string of posts:







I rest my case.

What case?!

 

[frenchdefense]

You know there are a million & one research articles on inappropriate content. Most do show a negative affect. You all can look it up since you seem to be up on all the latest in orn research & what is pseudo science or not.

The thing is it has effects on some people it will not have on others which makes it hard to define. But where you all are missing the point is that this is a Christian forum & it should be discussed from that perspective. To top it all off in Catholicism masturbation & other things depicted in inappropriate content are also mortal sins. So from a Christian perspective & even more so a Catholic Christian perspective there is no defense for inappropriate content. Ever.

And it is posted to be discussed from that perspective. I don't come to OBOB so I can get the latest in secular thought. These deflections from the actual OP & the links on the page are just that. Deflections.

If you disagree then show what you disagree with from the content & show why. A lot of us are getting tired of having to defend what may be in the OP with no proof from those pointing the fingers & ignoring the original post in favor of something the RCC is against.

Well, if I have to assume the women is completely correct and that her experience is typical and common and that all the studies about inappropriate content are basically secular to be dismissed by all good Catholics.

Well, then, i guess we're done.

 

[frenchdefense]

What case?!

Not down with the crazy, get your Catholicism questioned.

 

[Michie]

From NPR:

National Review: Getting Serious On inappropriate contentography

Imagine a drug so powerful it can destroy a family simply by distorting a man's perception of his wife. Picture an addiction so lethal it has the potential to render an entire generation incapable of forming lasting marriages and so widespread that it produces more annual revenue — $97 billion worldwide in 2006 — than all of the leading technology companies combined. Consider a narcotic so insidious that it evades serious scientific study and legislative action for decades, thriving instead under the ever-expanding banner of the First Amendment.


According to an online statistics firm, an estimated 40 million people use this drug on a regular basis. It doesn't come in pill form. It can't be smoked, injected, or snorted. And yet neurological data suggest its effects on the brain are strikingly similar to those of synthetic drugs. Indeed, two authorities on the neurochemistry of addiction, Harvey Milkman and Stanley Sunderwirth, claim it is the ability of this drug to influence all three pleasure systems in the brain — arousal, satiation, and fantasy — that makes it "the piece de resistance among the addictions."

Earlier this month, the Witherspoon Institute released a report examining "the social costs of inappropriate contentography," signed by more than 50 scholars representing a wide array of professions, academic disciplines, and political views. The report details the considerable social costs that inappropriate contentography exacts upon men, women, and children.

The findings of the report hit particularly close to home for me. By his own account, my husband of 13 years and high-school sweetheart, was first exposed to inappropriate contentography around age ten. He viewed it regularly during high school and college — and, although he tried hard to stop, continued to do so throughout the course of our marriage. For the past few years he had taken to sleeping in the basement, distancing himself from me, emotionally and physically. Recently he began to reject my sexual advances outright, claiming he just didn't "feel love" for me like he used to, and lamenting that he thought of me "more as the mother of our children" than as a sexual partner.

Then one morning around 2AM he called, intoxicated, from his office to announce that he had "developed feelings" for someone new. The woman he became involved with was an unemployed alcoholic with all the physical qualities of a inappropriate content star — bleached blond hair, heavy makeup, provocative clothing, and large breasts. After the revelation, my husband tried to break off his relationship with this woman. But his remorse was short-lived. Within a few months he had moved permanently out of the home he shared with me and our five young children. In retrospect, I believe he succumbed to the allure of the secret fantasy life he had been indulging since his adolescence.

My husband is not alone. According to Dr. Victor Cline, a nationally renowned clinical psychologist who specializes in sexual addiction, inappropriate contentography addiction is a process that undergoes four phases. First, addiction, resulting from early and repeated exposure accompanied by masturbation. Second, escalation, during which the addict requires more frequent inappropriate content exposure to achieve the same "highs" and may learn to prefer inappropriate content to sexual intercourse. Third, desensitization, during which the addict views as normal what was once considered repulsive or immoral. And finally, the acting-out phase, during which the addict runs an increased risk of making the leap from screen to real life.

This behavior may manifest itself in the form of promiscuity, voyeurism, exhibitionism, group sex, rape, sadomasochism, or even child molestation. The final phase may also be characterized by one or more extramarital affairs. A 2004 study published in Social Science Quarterly found that Internet users who had had an extramarital affair were 3.18 times more likely to have used online inappropriate content than Internet users who had not had an affair. Among other things, the Witherspoon report is a stern warning to all married women to take seriously the signs of a sexual addiction, before it is too late.

Perhaps the greatest hardship for women who fear they have lost (or are losing) a husband to Internet inappropriate content is the absence of a public consensus about the harmful effects of inappropriate contentography on marriage. Consider what we know. In a study published in Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, Schneider found that among the 68 percent of couples in which one person was addicted to Internet inappropriate content, one or both had lost interest in sex.

Results of the same study, published in 2000, indicated that inappropriate content use was a major contributing factor to increased risk of separation and divorce. This finding is substantiated by results of a 2002 meeting of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, during which surveyed lawyers claimed that "an obsessive interest in Internet inappropriate contentography" was a significant factor in 56 percent of their divorce cases the prior year.


inappropriate content use creates the impression that aberrant sexual practices are more common than they really are, and that promiscuous behavior is normal. For example, in a 2000 meta-analysis of 46 published studies put out by the National Foundation for Family Research and Education at the University of Calgary, regular exposure to inappropriate contentography increased risk of sexual deviancy (including lower age of first intercourse and excessive masturbation), increased belief in the "rape myth" (that women cause rape and rapists are normal), and was associated with negative attitudes regarding intimate relationships (e.g., rejecting the need for courtship and viewing persons as sexual objects). Indeed, neurological imaging confirms the latter finding. Susan Fiske, professor of psychology at Princeton University, used MRI scans to analyze the brain activity of men viewing inappropriate contentography. She found that after viewing inappropriate content, men looked at women more as objects than as human beings.

The social implications of these data are significant, but we need to know more. The American Psychiatric Association is likely to add inappropriate contentography addiction to their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual this year. Congress should fund a long-term, multidisciplinary analysis of the effects of inappropriate content addiction on marriage and family life. The National Institutes of Health are granted billions of taxpayer dollars for research on a wide variety of public-health problems, and yet inappropriate contentography addiction is not among them. Most health-insurance companies provide little to no coverage for treatment of this problem, and the health-care legislation signed into law last week promises more of the same. The fact is that the moral and financial needs of couples struggling with this form of addiction will remain unaddressed in a country that views inappropriate contentography use as a constitutional right.

I will never know with full certainty that inappropriate contentography caused my husband to abandon me and our children. Although I loved him deeply, I was far from a perfect wife. In retrospect, I wish I had understood what he was experiencing and had acted to help him. If anything is clear to me, it is this: We must learn more about this scourge and its effects on families. The Witherspoon report makes it clear that countless women — and increasingly many men — have experienced the devastating effects of their spouse's inappropriate contentography use. Countless more will experience it in the future. It is our obligation as a nation to pursue the truth for their sake, no matter how inconvenient for some the verdict may be.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125382361#

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125382361

 

[Michie]

Not down with the crazy, get your Catholicism questioned.

So you are saying Catholics are crazy & you say Catholics are calling you not Catholic? Yeah, ok.

 

[Michie]

Well, if I have to assume the women is completely correct and that her experience is typical and common and that all the studies about inappropriate content are basically secular to be dismissed by all good Catholics.

Well, then, i guess we're done.

I don't think she said anything of the sort. You did.

 

[Chrystal-J]

I've heard that when you watch inappropriate content, you're watching someone commit adultery--so, people shouldn't find that entertaining (if they're a Christian), since they're breaking one of the ten commandments.

 

[frenchdefense]

I don't think she said anything of the sort. You did.

No, I believe you did.

But I'm out either way.

Because it doesn't matter to me that I convince you.

I'm that way.

 

[Michie]

I've heard that when you watch inappropriate content, you're watching someone commit adultery--so, people shouldn't find that entertaining (if they're a Christian), since they're breaking one of the ten commandments.

That or fornicating. There is no excuse for a Christian to benefit from other's sins. Them commit their own. It has quite the ripple effect.

 

[Michie]

No, I believe you did.

But I'm out either way.

Because it doesn't matter to me that I convince you.

I'm that way.

I did? How so?

 

[Gwendolyn]

inappropriate content has become so deeply ingrained in our sex-saturated culture that most people are desensitised and don't believe it actually does have a negative effect on people who consume it. Being able to step outside of that apathy affords some clarity. When you look at inappropriate content and its effects from a different point of view, then you can begin to see just how problematic it is.

I can share some of how dealing with men who regularly consume inappropriate content has affected me in my search for a husband, if someone wants to hear it.