cartoon inappropriate content

[Risen Tree]

That's like saying that murder is not inherently violent. If your opinion is correct, then can you link me to a story where a rape did not involve sex or attempted sex?

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Personally I only view cartoon inappropriate content. I find actual inappropriate content disgusting but cartoon inappropriate content arousing. So does my boyfriend. I don't see an issue with it. As stated elsewhere, it's not as though anyone is involved in the act of sex to produce it. You're not viewing others having sex- you're viewing a portrayal of people having sex in a drawn medium.


As for the country:

But bush has said that god tells him what to do. Also, haven't most presidents been christian?

Ew. I can't stand the man. I think the fact that he says that God tells him what to do is insulting to God. Really I do. We all laughed at David Keresh when he said it, and at all the other crazies who say it why does Bush saying it seem okay? Is is because he is already President? Because if that's it, it's a really bad reason. He's just proving to be another crazy justifying his actions by hiding behind: "God told me to do it"

 

[Rae]

Rape is not an attempt to have sex. It is an attempt to assert power and control over others USING sex. Rape is not sex, as any married person here (hopefully) knows. Rape is violence and assault.

Saying that watching sexual activity (aka "inappropriate content") causes someone to rape is like saying watching movies causes someone to commit crimes. People predisposed to commit crimes will commit them whether they watch movies or not; people predisposed to rape will do so whether they watch sexual activity or not.

 

[Marvel]

It's immoral, in my view, to view any form of inappropriate content. Although it's only a cartoon, you shouldn't be doing it, really..

 

[armed2010]

It's immoral, in my view, to view any form of inappropriate content. Although it's only a cartoon, you shouldn't be doing it, really..

because the human body is an evil and vile thing

 

[tcampen]

Rae, you're comparing apples to oranges. Eating bread is not an inherently sexual activity.

What kind of bread do YOU eat? Speak for yourself.


inappropriate content doesn't cause people to rape, violent movies don't cause people to kill, alcohol does not cause people to be violent, and video games don't cause people to steal. Any of these things may be a factor in how people commit these acts, but a vast majority of people can take part in these things and not become criminals. So, clearly, there is far more going on here.

And as for bread.......ever seen someone morbidly obese? You want to shut down McDonalds because of it?

 

[Outspoken]

because the human body is an evil and vile thing

wrong-o the lust of the human body is an evil and vile thing. Please do not add to misconceptions about christians. Thanks.

 

[Outspoken]

What kind of bread do YOU eat? Speak for yourself.


inappropriate content doesn't cause people to rape, violent movies don't cause people to kill, alcohol does not cause people to be violent, and video games don't cause people to steal. Any of these things may be a factor in how people commit these acts, but a vast majority of people can take part in these things and not become criminals. So, clearly, there is far more going on here.

And as for bread.......ever seen someone morbidly obese? You want to shut down McDonalds because of it?

You're making a false analogy here tc. Eating at McD's doesn't always make you mordidly obsese (sin of glutony). Looking at inappropriate content always makes you lust (ie lust is sin).

 

[armed2010]

wrong-o the lust of the human body is an evil and vile thing. Please do not add to misconceptions about christians. Thanks.

And why is the lust of the human body an evil and vile thing? Should not the human body be cherished?

 

[Kelly]

lust = cherished?

 

[Havoc]

lust = cherished?

In many cases yes. I lust after my wife, and I cherish her.

 

[The Archangel Aethariel]

I carry a column in my wallet written to Ann Landers, by Dr. Mary Anne Layden. Counselor at Philadelphia University. In her 15-20 years of counselling perpetrators AND VICTIMS of sexually violent crimes, she has NEVER had a case that did NOT involved inappropriate contentography.

Since when does correlation imply causation? Did you also notice that there is a strong correlation between burglars and not wearing neon pink?

I always ask the employee if the station sells inappropriate content, before I buy gas; I was approached by a young lady as I was filling the tank: "May I ask why?" I handed her the column. She looked at me, and said: "I have a three year old daughter; THANK YOU!"

I'm sorry, but then the lady was just a dolt. Again, correlation does not imply causation.

In the mid 80's Cincinatti banned inappropriate content; violent crimes against women and children fell nearly 90%; in 1999 they repealed the ban.

A) Cite that.
B) Demonstrate that the violent crime reduction was not due to other law enforcement measures taken in that year.

I'm not saying I don't believe you...wait, yes. Yes I am.

Sheer lunacy.

Of course, I agree-- but I doubt you really intended that as self-criticism.

I have received cartoon inappropriate content; on the account registered here I receive 300-500 spams per week; I filter 36 inappropriate contentographic words, but it still gets through. Whoever says that inappropriate content doesn't matter, is either severely IQ-limited, or living in a hermit's cave.

I guess it never hurts to combine a strawman and a broad ad hominem to solidify an already ludicrous argument.

No-one is saying inappropriate content has absolutely no effect on people. It obviously does, or there wouldn't be a business for it. However, there is no reason to demonstrate that inappropriate content consistantly causes social ills in a broad spectrum of the populace. Sure, it might not be too great for people with borderline psychotic personalities-- but most stuff isn't too good for them. (That's why they tend to be medicated and isolated.) Also, it is reasonable to think that inappropriate content might be used by people who are already prone to violence against women and children-- they utilize it as just another way of 'getting back' at whatever percieved ill those groups did to them. (Also, violent sex offenders generally don't look at normal, mainstream inappropriate content-- psychotic and delusional personalities by their nature develop fetishes.) But why on earth would you think that inappropriate content drives functionally normal people into deviant behaviour?

"Mmm, that was some great inappropriate content. In fact, those pictures of women made me enjoy myself so much I think I'll just go find a woman and beat her as a way of saying thank-you."

Of course, that's a bit of a strawman. But really, unless you assume a person already has a predisposition towards violent sex crimes or addictive behaviours, what property of inappropriate content would cause someone to develop them?

Like practically everything else in life, inappropriate content is best in moderation. Used responsibly, it isn't going to cause you to turn into some woman-beating, child-raping psychopath. Everything is harmful when used to an excess-- food, drugs, power, money, sex, entertainment, you name it. I would have thought this was common sense, hm?

~AA

 

[Kelly]

In many cases yes. I lust after my wife, and I cherish her.

touche!

 

[tcampen]

You're making a false analogy here tc. Eating at McD's doesn't always make you mordidly obsese (sin of glutony). Looking at inappropriate content always makes you lust (ie lust is sin).

Lust after a cartoon?

Furthermore, what does LUST mean?

Webster's:

: to have an intense desire or need : [size=-1]CRAVE[/size]; specifically : to have a sexual urge


So sexual urges are sinful? How do babies ever get conceived? If cartoon inappropriate content cause someone to get frisky with their spouse, how is that a sin? Lusting (having a sexual urge) towards my wife is a SIN? Come on, you can do better than that.

 

[Outspoken]

Lust after a cartoon?

Furthermore, what does LUST mean?

Webster's:

: to have an intense desire or need : [size=-1]CRAVE[/size]; specifically : to have a sexual urge


So sexual urges are sinful? How do babies ever get conceived? If cartoon inappropriate content cause someone to get frisky with their spouse, how is that a sin? Lusting (having a sexual urge) towards my wife is a SIN? Come on, you can do better than that.

anything that inspires lust is also wrong tc. Yes, cartoon inappropriate content inspires and causes lust. that is the only reason it exsists, to excite you sexually in a sex outside of marrage kind of way.

"If cartoon inappropriate content cause someone to get frisky with their spouse, how is that a sin?"

It objectifies the act and the person as a means to an end.

 

[TScott]

Is lusting after Betty Boop wrong? How about Daisy Duck?

 

[tcampen]

anything that inspires lust is also wrong tc. Yes, cartoon inappropriate content inspires and causes lust. that is the only reason it exsists, to excite you sexually in a sex outside of marrage kind of way.

"If cartoon inappropriate content cause someone to get frisky with their spouse, how is that a sin?"

It objectifies the act and the person as a means to an end.

I think that is a gross oversimplification of human sexuality and interpersonal relationships. We all don't objectify our spouse because something external initially got our motor running. Sexuality is not something to be so ashamed of when expressed between two people who love eachother. Such puritanical views not only take the fun out of sex, but reduce the act to a mechanical function for procreation, and little more.

And you think cartoon inappropriate content leads to deviant sexual behavior?

 

[Outspoken]

I think that is a gross oversimplification of human sexuality and interpersonal relationships. We all don't objectify our spouse because something external initially got our motor running. Sexuality is not something to be so ashamed of when expressed between two people who love eachother. Such puritanical views not only take the fun out of sex, but reduce the act to a mechanical function for procreation, and little more.

And you think cartoon inappropriate content leads to deviant sexual behavior?

"I think that is a gross oversimplification of human sexuality and interpersonal relationships."

No, is not. The purpose is a means to an end. Its only exsistance is to objectify. Thus its sin.

"And you think cartoon inappropriate content leads to deviant sexual behavior?[/"

It can, but regardless it is still sin, and its only reason for exsistance is to inspire lust and objectification.

 

[tcampen]

Its only exsistance is to objectify. Thus its sin.

"And you think cartoon inappropriate content leads to deviant sexual behavior? ....and its only reason for exsistance is to inspire lust and objectification.

I suppose if a person was an extremely simplistic individual, incapable of complex thoughts or emotions, with the intellectual capacity of a 4 year old, then YES, I would agree with you. But most people just happen to be slightly more sophisticated than that. Do you have any support that being initially turned to the idea of sexuality by some external source or media, means that individual then necessarily treats his or her spouse like an object during the ensuing sexual encounter? Are you speaking from experience? Because I simply have not had that experience.

By your argument, anything at all which is external to one's spouse that creates or inspires any feelings of sexuality which is then expressed with that spouse necessarily means that spouse is being objectified.

In fact, your whole premise that this always is the case is utterly without substance. People objectify others without inappropriate content, cartoons, women's magazines or any type of media. Women have historically been treated as objects throughout the world, which had nothing to do with any sexual media of any kind. In fact, it still exists in too many areas.

Lust means to have strong sexual desire. Please explain why a strong sexual desire for one's wife or husband whom the other loves and respects very much is a bad thing. Please explain why sexual desire necessarily means objectification. And please explain why all this isn't just the product of a puritanical sexual hangup.

 

[Outspoken]

"Do you have any support that being initially turned to the idea of sexuality by some external source or media, means that individual then necessarily treats his or her spouse like an object during the ensuing sexual encounter?"

People that look at inappropriate content use the person in the picture as a means to an end. That is called objectification. As for cartoon inappropriate content, is only purpose is to inspire lust. This also leads to objectification because its only purpose is to gratify a sexual need.

"By your argument, anything at all which is external to one's spouse that creates or inspires any feelings of sexuality which is then expressed with that spouse necessarily means that spouse is being objectified. "
This is a false conclusion/generalization.

"People objectify others without inappropriate content, cartoons, women's magazines or any type of media."

attempt to build a strawman. I have never said it was the only cause now did I? Please don't resort to underhanded debating practices.

"Lust means to have strong sexual desire. Please explain why a strong sexual desire for one's wife or husband whom the other loves and respects very much is a bad thing."

No, its not just strong sexual desire. In the christian faith, lust is the opposite of love. Lust inspires a self-seeking self-gratification experience, with no regard to how it effects others. The simlar analogy would be you being a glutton and eating all the food in the house while your spouse and childeren start to death.