inappropriate contentography and the Christian viewpoint

[homewardbound]

Which you haven't shown enough convincing evidence for to make me change my mind and belief that it isn't a drug and thus is not physically addictive.

I don't care if you change your mind or not. You will believe what you choose to believe. There are literally hundreds of mental health professionals who recognize the addictive potential of inappropriate contentography. I don't see the need to debate this any further.

 

[Rae]

I don't care if you change your mind or not.

Then I'd guess any chance for debate is gone, isn't it?

Have a nice day. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who are not addicted to inappropriate contentography and never will be.

 

[homewardbound]

Then I'd guess any chance for debate is gone, isn't it?

Have a nice day. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who are not addicted to inappropriate contentography and never will be.

No, there's plenty of room for debate, but I don't care to debate something that is known fact (re: my statement that inappropriate contentography has clearly been established as being potentially addictive by the mental health community).

Of course there are hundreds of thousands of people who are not addicted and never will be. Who in the world would make such a statement to the contrary? Heck, there are literally millions of poeople who aren't addicted and never will be! But there are many, many who are. Again, at the risk of being repetitive, I'm not saying that anyone who views inappropriate content will become addicted. I'm merely stating that it presents the potential for addiction. Is that so hard to understand?

 

[proback2002]

That shows how little you know of art and figure drawing. One always starts learning figure drawing by drawing people in the nude. Learning how the body "fits" together is crucial in drawing it correctly. And learning the underlying form of the human body is also crucial in learning how to draw clothes on top of the body (since how clothing rests on the body is dependent on the underlying figure).

Pick up any art book on figure drawing and you'll almost inevitably see nude drawings.

I always think it funny when artists say foolish things like, "the body is beautiful." to condone nudes in art. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, this isn't a good reason for anything really. One doesn't merely say anything that comes to mind simply because one can, or because the vocal cords are beautiful or the lips moving are attractive or anything else. The "spiritual man makes judgements about all things." Being an artist myself, I am so sick of hearing non and Christian use this argument as a valid defense. Sex is beautiful too, but I think that God might have something to say about one just copulating with anyone one sets his heart upon. As a matter of fact...He has already said it.

 

[christalee4]

http://www.christianforums.com/t1722099-bush-backers-okay-with-inappropriate content-actress-appearance-at-repub-event.html

inappropriate contentography has been around for thousands of years. Ancients used to paint pictures of couples engaged in sexual activity, with exaggerated sex organs, for titillation. In America and England, during the sexually repressive Victorian era (the good old days), inappropriate contentography was especially popular. The more sexually repressive the society is, the more the men seem to be obsessed with sex, women's bodies, the modesty issue, and most importantly, the fighting the inner turmoil of desire and sexual repression.

However, with the advent of technology, inappropriate contentography has been pushed to new limits, and the reason is that it is BIG BUSINESS. There is no other way to describe it. We can show how it damages relationships, how it teaches young men a vastly unrealistic and unloving way of having sexual relationships (and it also teaches young women to accept that kind of behavior), how in dehumanizes sexuality into something that is done without responsibility or love.

I am not a consumer of inappropriate contentography, but I feel it has gone too far. The industry is not regulating itself, which is unfortunate, because now government is going to have to go in, prosecute and censor. And then who will decide what is obscene and not obscene? Is all nudity depicted in art and entertainment obscene? John Ashcroft had draped blue cloth around one of the Justice Department statues.

What irks me is that conservative fundamentalist leaders spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on issues pertaining to sex, like the abstinence issue and the inappropriate contentography issue. They are the most upset, because perhaps many in their ranks are struggling with it and are obsessed with it themselves! Then they turn out in force to support the Republicans (see the link above) in the election on the "family values" issues, and were served with a quick goodbye after going to bed with them! Heck, Pat Robertson didn't turn down Playboy when it paid to use one of his satellites - it's business first, then God.

I hope the above link to the issue about the hypocrisy of decrying a business that gives money to "the cause" will open a lot of Christians' eyes and help them think about the priorities of issues important to our lives as Americans.

 

[tgg]

Depending on what inappropriate contentography it is. I completely despise kiddie inappropriate content and stuff that includes animals and human waste material (bleeeaaarggh!)

However, it is a cultural thing. If one is raised in a continent like Europe where sex, inappropriate contentography and nakedness aren't considered that much of a big deal then it's likely that one will not be all that shocked or abusive because of it.

In America, I think because of the schizophrenic attitude they have towards sex and sexuality, inappropriate contentography is treated with much more complexity. I don't agree with governments messing about with the sex lives of their citizens. Back in the late 1990's, the police arrested an adult shop owner in Dallas, for the trading of 'obscene materials' (ie. vibrators) in her store.

Her husband had told the media: "You know, I don't know the statistics on such things, but I am willing to guess that in all recorded history there is not one single solitary person who has been killed by a vibrator."

Yet, how many Christians are willing to allow the trading of guns for the layman?


tgg

 

[1stebooks]

As a Christian, I stand firmly against inappropriate contentography. I have seen what it does in the lifes of those that view it. It destroys families. I have been a victim of a father that viewed inappropriate contentography, and then was unfaithful to his wife, and caused heartache and wreck in the lives of many. It degrades women! It degrades anyone that is invovled in it. We talk about freedoms, I want the freedom to be able to watch T.V., or view the interenet without having to worry about objectible material. I could never imagine the Savior of the World viewing inappropriate contentography. He denouced sin. He is our perfect example. We must denouce the sin of inappropriate content. We cannot tolerate it. it will destroy families and the lives of those that are invovled in it!

 

[christalee4]

Depending on what inappropriate contentography it is. I completely despise kiddie inappropriate content and stuff that includes animals and human waste material (bleeeaaarggh!)

However, it is a cultural thing. If one is raised in a continent like Europe where sex, inappropriate contentography and nakedness aren't considered that much of a big deal then it's likely that one will not be all that shocked or abusive because of it.

In America, I think because of the schizophrenic attitude they have towards sex and sexuality, inappropriate contentography is treated with much more complexity. I don't agree with governments messing about with the sex lives of their citizens. Back in the late 1990's, the police arrested an adult shop owner in Dallas, for the trading of 'obscene materials' (ie. vibrators) in her store.

Her husband had told the media: "You know, I don't know the statistics on such things, but I am willing to guess that in all recorded history there is not one single solitary person who has been killed by a vibrator."

Yet, how many Christians are willing to allow the trading of guns for the layman?


tgg

Good point - why should gun violence be acceptable and buying a vibrator not? That's what's crazy about America - we have a far greater percentage of violent gun crime than most other developed nations, but are very prudish when it comes to matters of sexuality and privacy for adults. But hey, I guess it's more moral for children to be killed by handguns accidents at home here in America, than it is for children to see the occasional bare breast or buttocks on television in Sweden!

I saw in Alabama that a law restricting sales of vibrators or "sexually stimulating devices" was passed - it's being repealed now. That's an absolutely ridiculously intrusive law that exposes the hypocrisy of zealots in government. Perhaps they should outlaw certain vegetables or electric toothbrushes. And I thought Republicans were about less government in people's lives.

 

[Seaside Mists]

How do you feel about inappropriate contentography? Do you look at it as free speech or as derogatory and demeaning? I was recently at a convention where the issue was discussed by feminists, who said that the Christian stance against inappropriate contentography is very weak. True? False?

 

I am very much against it, not for "moral" reasons but because I think it is very anti-women, and anti-men as well. The presumption is usually that women are objects for sex and that men are too stupid to control themselves. I'm offended by that. I also know that inappropriate contentography increases crimes against women like rape, etc. What do you think?

 

 

I voted for option number two. I don't use it, but I don't think it should be banned, as long as all parties involved are doing so legally and safely. Publications like Playboy are funny to me, since I know they're considered inappropriate contentography, but the content of it is actually (aside from the nudity) very tame. When my other half did photography school, they actually analyzed Playboy shoots for their artistic merit and structure, and compared them to nudes painted hundreds of years ago. Very interesting.

 

[Spherical Time]

As a Christian, I stand firmly against inappropriate contentography. I have seen what it does in the lifes of those that view it. It destroys families. I have been a victim of a father that viewed inappropriate contentography, and then was unfaithful to his wife, and caused heartache and wreck in the lives of many. It degrades women! It degrades anyone that is invovled in it. We talk about freedoms, I want the freedom to be able to watch T.V., or view the interenet without having to worry about objectible material. I could never imagine the Savior of the World viewing inappropriate contentography. He denouced sin. He is our perfect example. We must denouce the sin of inappropriate content. We cannot tolerate it. it will destroy families and the lives of those that are invovled in it!

A few points:

1) Are you sure that the viewing of inappropriate contentography led to his unfaithfulness or perhaps could the viewing of inappropriate contentography have been a symptom of his disinterest in his wife? Or perhaps it could have had no relationship at all to his infidelity. I know men that watch inappropriate content that have been happily married for many years.

2) inappropriate contentography is usually restricted to channels on television that you specifically have to pay for. If you dislike it, you don't have to pay for it. Similarly, on the internet, most inappropriate content can be avoided through the use of filters, and if you dislike what remains, I recommend avoiding the internet.

3) I hope you aren't suggesting that you're willing to take away other people's rights in order to impose your own morality on them. Not everyone in the world thinks the same things and believes in the same gods. Not even everyone in the USA does. That seems much more destructive than the erradication of inappropriate contentography.

 

[ImMrDurp]

I look at inappropriate contentography like this:

(A) If you don't like it, it really isn't hard to avoid it. There are many filters for the Internet, and TV inappropriate contentography must be specially ordered, and can be disabled as well.

(B) It's an outlet for men (and women!) with raging hormones. Would you rather them outlet their hormones on a picture/video, or on sex with someone else or even rape?\

(C) inappropriate contentography CAN be art, if by inappropriate contentography you're including the truely artful nude pictures that aren't meant as inappropriate contentography but as art.

 

[invisible trousers]

voted #2, free speech is pretty important.

 

[Toboe]

I don't see anything with inappropriate contentography. I think its a heathly way to explore your sexuality with aslong as it dose not become an adiction.

 

[AngCath]

inappropriate contentography contributes to committing adultery in your heart