cartoon inappropriate content

[tcampen]

"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.

I understand and accept the idea that inappropriate content can lead to objectification, but I was questioning your assertion that it necessarily and always does. Do you have any support for THAT assertion?

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.

I think you are creating a new definition for "lust." Sure, having a sexual encounter with another person without any regard for the experience of the other person is, at the very least, inconsiderate. But you would be extremely mistaken to say that always, or even usually, happens when a man is initially turned on by some external media, and then has a sexual encounter with his wife.

Applying your assertion to your analogy, any man who views sensual material, which then inspires him to have sex with his wife, necessarily has no concern over the fulfillment of his wife during that act - thereby leaving her "starving." Not only can I tell you from personal experience your assertion is proven false, but so could millions of others.

I'm inclined to believe you are relying more on your personal experiences than anything else. It's the only explanation that makes sense. This is not to say you objectify your spouse, but rather cannot comprehend how someone can be "turned on" by something external, and still not objective his/her spouse. But just because you personally don't understand how it is possible does not mean a vast majority of the rest of the population is wrong.

 

[Outspoken]

[/font]

I understand and accept the idea that inappropriate content can lead to objectification, but I was questioning your assertion that it necessarily and always does. Do you have any support for THAT assertion?



I think you are creating a new definition for "lust." Sure, having a sexual encounter with another person without any regard for the experience of the other person is, at the very least, inconsiderate. But you would be extremely mistaken to say that always, or even usually, happens when a man is initially turned on by some external media, and then has a sexual encounter with his wife.

Applying your assertion to your analogy, any man who views sensual material, which then inspires him to have sex with his wife, necessarily has no concern over the fulfillment of his wife during that act - thereby leaving her "starving." Not only can I tell you from personal experience your assertion is proven false, but so could millions of others.

I'm inclined to believe you are relying more on your personal experiences than anything else. It's the only explanation that makes sense. This is not to say you objectify your spouse, but rather cannot comprehend how someone can be "turned on" by something external, and still not objective his/her spouse. But just because you personally don't understand how it is possible does not mean a vast majority of the rest of the population is wrong.

"Do you have any support for THAT assertion?"

What is the main focus of inappropriate content? To sexually excite the person, it exsists for no other reason. This is objectification.

"Applying your assertion to your analogy, any man who views sensual material, which then inspires him to have sex with his wife, necessarily has no concern over the fulfillment of his wife during that act - thereby leaving her "starving.""

Exactly. Having sex with your wife can be a sin because its not the way God indended it to. If you're objectifiying her and using her as a means to satify your sexual desire ONLY then it could very well be a sin.

"how someone can be "turned on" by something external, and still not objective his/her spouse."

*sigh* please dont' use the subjective truth argument, it gets old. I'm not speaking out of experince. You cannot look at inappropriate content and not objectify people. That's its sole purpose. It turns things into a means to an end. An object for you to look at and "get off". That's its ONLY purpose. You can't prove any differently.

 

[tcampen]

"Do you have any support for THAT assertion?"

What is the main focus of inappropriate content? To sexually excite the person, it exsists for no other reason. This is objectification.

You have failed to show any evidence whatsoever that being sexaully excited by something external necessarily means the other person is objectified during the ensuing act. You have not connected the dots. That's my point.

"Applying your assertion to your analogy, any man who views sensual material, which then inspires him to have sex with his wife, necessarily has no concern over the fulfillment of his wife during that act - thereby leaving her "starving.""

Exactly. Having sex with your wife can be a sin because its not the way God indended it to. If you're objectifiying her and using her as a means to satify your sexual desire ONLY then it could very well be a sin.

"Could" is lightyears apart from "does." You're backing away from your initial statement now. There is no evidence that viewing sensual material even usually leads to a person only wanting to fulfill their own desires. NO EVIDENCE. Be careful not to confuse "could" with "always does."

You cannot look at inappropriate content and not objectify people. That's its sole purpose. It turns things into a means to an end. An object for you to look at and "get off". That's its ONLY purpose. You can't prove any differently.

I've already told you that I have viewed sensual material with my spouse AND was just as interested in her experience as my own. That alone is proof you are wrong. Either you are talking from a total lack of experience in the matter, or are incapable of not objectifying your significant other except under the most limited circumstances. There is no support that sensual material (beyond just inappropriate content) only or even usually leads to objectification, and have provided proof you are mistaken. What's left?

 

[Ampmonster]

inappropriate content makes me sick... i can't help but think about the souls of the people posing/acting. or in this case writing/drawing.

 

[tcampen]

inappropriate content makes me sick... i can't help but think about the souls of the people posing/acting. or in this case writing/drawing.

No argument there. Too many are exploited and that's wrong. People are exploited all over the world. Look at your tennis shoes we wear, or the clothes we buy at Walmart. It's all very sad.

 

[Ampmonster]

all Target here...LOL.

 

[Pastor_Benjamin]

Its wrong.