For Those That Think inappropriate contentography Harms Noone

[praying]

They don't show them going on.

Them=Condoms for those that have not read the whole thread.

they should if they don't they are promoting irresponsible behavior!!

no, ifs ands or butts!! (pun intended )

 

[Mϋzikdϋde]

I did some research on inappropriate content addicts. Did you know viewing that stuff can cause the person to become physically and sexually abusive? It can also cause the person to have anger problems and much more.

I did some extensive research on inappropriate contentography. In fact, I spent a large percentage of my time delving into the minute details of the industry. I found myself to have an addictive personality and realized inappropriate content is wrong...FOR ME...

I also believe that God teaches sexual immorality is a sin. When I viewed inappropriate content, and when I let it affect my entire life, I was being sexually immoral so for me, inappropriate content is sinful. My life was based on lust when I was at the apex of my addiction.

Not everyone is an alcoholic. Draw your own conclusions

BTW, I have NEVER been sexually abusive and have NEVER had the tendancy

 

[Lillithspeak]

people in the p orn industry.

which raises the question in inappropriate content movies do they show people putting on condoms, I know that would take away from the asthetic beauty and art of of the moment but hey should.

Not necessarily asking you ZaraDurden, anyone know the answer?

The asthetic beauty and art of the moment??? That requires two winks, not one.

 

[draper]

[edited by moderator]

 

[reverend B]

when we are defining the acceptability of inappropriate content, we have to define our terms. are we coming at it as christians or as citizens. as citizens, we have no legal leg to stand on to get rid of it. it is a first amendment issue and we have the right to turn it off, but not the right to turn it illegal. as christians, we have no leg to stand on defending it. it is gratuitous and does nothing to advance the cause of love. it is important to define the terms or we run the risk of blending christianity with our citizenship. they are not the same thing, despite the current administration encouraging an erasure of the line between them.
i personally know the harm that inappropriate content can cause. our 14 year old friend draper can't imagine himself losing control. we all do, draper. that is as good a definition of sin as any, losing control of the ability to live righteously. where you place the blame for that loss of control is another question, but we all do. if inappropriate content doesn't do it to you, feel blessed. many men do succumb to the lure of the lurid, and the fact that you surf the tv to see if any is on, "for lack of anything better to do,..." is not acceptable to the christian. there is ALWAYS something better to do. it's just we don't always do it. are u willing to say that there is any time that watching inappropriate content is the highest use of your time?
but we can not outlaw everything that might harm us, or we would all be walking to work. we have to realize what harms us personally, and then take responsibility for that. it can take something dramatic for us to realize that something is harming us, like an alcoholic having a drunken car wreck or a sex addict losing a job because of inappropriate content viewing at work. but once realized, it is on our plate. now what? the citizen may want to pass a law. the christian knows there is one, he has broken it, and now he must repent of the mistake. the citizen has the right to do wrong in the eyes of God, but not in the eyes of the state. the christian does not have that right, but sometimes has the obligation of defying the state.
long story short, yes, from my christian perspective, inappropriate content harms everyone that touches it. it dehumanizes, and us humans are pretty special to the Almighty. from a secular point of view, let the party begin, then punish the ones who can't handle it.

 

[daidhaid]

nevermind

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

But, honestly, how likely is it that the inappropriate content industry will begin to enforce regular condom use?? I'm thinking, not very. People don't pay money to watch them have "safe" sex, do they?? I don't think much will change, honestly.

well, i don't really care that i'm incriminating myself here, so i'll say it. of the many inappropriate contentography productions i have seen, i have yet to see any modern one that didn't include condom use (those made in the late 70s/early 80s in the pre-AIDS era didn't use them.) most of the tapes i have seen also have an announcement before the film starts encouraging monogamy, or at minimum condom use. so to say people don't pay to watch people have 'safe sex' is a falsehood.

i don't think inappropriate contentography is inherently bad...for those of you worried about the addiction factor, i have to say come on. there are going to be addicts of all sorts. some get addicted to gambling. some drinking. some inappropriate contentography. some shopping. some eating. some smoking. you name an activity, i can pretty much guarantee there is an addicted person. should we ban all of them? or only the ones which seem 'immoral' to some? where do we draw the line?

 

[Existential1]

I think that there is inappropriate content and inappropriate content. A lot of inappropriate content is bad: because its made by people whose values see them exploit weaknesses to make money; because it portrays people having relations to one another that are sensorially exploitative, rather than caring, and dieing to self so that the other can live better. Where the human values sponsored in inappropriate content were good, and caring, and society building; then that's fine: but most of the inappropriate content that I've seen, and all on the net, is just bad human relations stuff. I think that the addication that can be involved in consuming inappropriate content, burns in pathways of feeling and thinking, that can undermine determination to be as humans must, if we are to contribute to making the human project better.
Good inappropriate content, that supports good relation between people, could be good: the rest tends to be much like drugs purchasing, a vehicle for transferring social wealth to groups concerned, it would seem, only with personal sensory salvation.

 

[Rae]

in inappropriate content movies do they show people putting on condoms

I haven't seen any, but there are some where it's obvious that men are using them, yes.

 

[HeatherJay]

well, i don't really care that i'm incriminating myself here, so i'll say it. of the many inappropriate contentography productions i have seen, i have yet to see any modern one that didn't include condom use (those made in the late 70s/early 80s in the pre-AIDS era didn't use them.) most of the tapes i have seen also have an announcement before the film starts encouraging monogamy, or at minimum condom use. so to say people don't pay to watch people have 'safe sex' is a falsehood.

i don't think inappropriate contentography is inherently bad...for those of you worried about the addiction factor, i have to say come on. there are going to be addicts of all sorts. some get addicted to gambling. some drinking. some inappropriate contentography. some shopping. some eating. some smoking. you name an activity, i can pretty much guarantee there is an addicted person. should we ban all of them? or only the ones which seem 'immoral' to some? where do we draw the line?

Well, then I think that's a big step in a positive direction...I didn't know that.

Couldn't they just regulate the industry and require condom use? I guess probably not. But then that would be a risk that those actors must be willing to take...a personal choice. Although it seems that since those people DO go out and mingle with regular society on occassion, that there should be a certain level of responsibility there. But, you can't really regulate morality, can you?

 

[Outspoken]

News flash: HPV is not defered by condoms. It can get through. The AIDS virus is the same way. It can get through the microscopic holes in a condom. I would be like you throwing a tennis ball at a chain link fence where the holes were 3 feet by 3 feet.

 

[foolsparade]

I started a thread a while back about free speech and inappropriate contentography and some advocated that it was basically harmless adult fun. Well I don't think so and here is another example of why:

While I do have some complaints regarding inappropriate contentography, You might as well say that being an electrician is dangerous because one could be electrocuted.

 

[Mϋzikdϋde]

While I do have some complaints regarding inappropriate contentography, You might as well say that being an electrician is dangerous because one could be electrocuted.

That has been said, it is a fact, and that's why electricians need to be aware of the safety aspects as well as be properly trained.
Is that the point you were trying to make?

 

[foolsparade]

That has been said, it is a fact, and that's why electricians need to be aware of the safety aspects as well as be properly trained.
Is that the point you were trying to make?

yes, the topic of the thread is a bad argument against inappropriate contentography. {no offense mhatten}.

 

[Mϋzikdϋde]

yes, the topic of the thread is a bad argument against inappropriate contentography. {no offense mhatten}.

Hmmmm. You stated that like it was fact rather than your opinion.

 

[foolsparade]

it is a fact. if you disagree then state your case.

 

[Ampmonster]

what about the affect on those who are addicted to, not just enjoy, addicted to inappropriate contentography? you think their interaction with real life people is the same after years of fantasies?

 

[Zoot]

If inappropriate contentography were illegal, the OP would be a good argument for legalisation and regulation. As it stands, it's an argument for a whole lot of inappropriate content employers to be charged as criminals for what will amount to manslaughter from not providing the safest work environment possible.

 

[HeatherJay]

So, hypothetically, if a "civilian" (for lack of a better word) was to be infected by a inappropriate content star who contracted the disease during work, could they sue the industry??

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

So, hypothetically, if a "civilian" (for lack of a better word) was to be infected by a inappropriate content star who contracted the disease during work, could they sue the industry??

on what basis? you can't sue someone (to my knowledge) for giving you aids unknowingly. if so, could you sue the person who gave it to you, and the person who gave it to them, and the person who gave it to them, and so one and so on. i don't think you could. so how could you sue the entire industry?