inappropriate contentography Is Not True

[Ken-1122]

It tells lies about what women think and want, as you've mentioned. It tells lies about how sex affects relationships. Some popular forms of inappropriate content portray incestual relationships as if they were totally normal and healthy. It tells lies by affirming the viewer. inappropriate content is all about the viewer feeling as if a real person is really affirming and celebrating them but of course this is not true. It is a "false intimacy". Many others could be listed.

There are fetiches that you, I, and most people would consider sick and perverted; but that doesn't mean there aren't people who are into it. Every act that is done in the countless types of inappropriate content, there is always gonna be somebody out there who is into it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's telling us lies about the nature of relationships, what sex does to people, what women want, what sex does to relationships, the power of sex in our lives, the importance of sex, etc. We could list off a great many lies that are at the core of inappropriate contentography.

I wonder where you got this from.
inappropriate content is not about relationship education or what-have-you.
I'm not aware of any inappropriate content that pretends to be anything but inappropriate content.

And then there is also that "amateur" category, which is actually real people, real couples in real relationships filming their very real intimate sex.

In a sense, you could also say, how is it different from Marvel movies?
I mean, nobody is as strong, fast and courageous as Captain America. How is that different from no average male being able to naturally hold an erection that huge for that long?

In fact, the marvel movie is even less real then the inappropriate content, because some males actually ARE capable of doing that.

But no man is capable of doing what Captain America does.

In any case, you catch my drift.
Your argument is like a very broad brush that is so broad that it's anything but accurate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What about negative truth value? My claim about inappropriate contentography isn't that it has 0 truth value, but that it's actually deeply lying to consumers and warping their relationship with reality.

How so?
And are you talking about ALL inappropriate content, or just some forms of inappropriate content? If some: which ones and why?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This inappropriate content is also untrue even though it is real.

????

How is a very real sextape of a very real couple "untrue"?

It's just normal couple sex which just happened to be filmed.
Does it become "untrue" when a camera is rolling?

Is that what differentiates "true sex" from "untrue sex"? If it's filmed it's not true, but if it's not filmed it's true?

What kind of warped logic is that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The thing that makes inappropriate contentography bad is not that it is simply not true or not real; it is the damage that it does to people.

Such as? And how?

Think about the lust created when someone looks at pictures or videos.

Without lust, there are no babies.
Lust isn't bad. Lust is necessary for the survival of the human species.
You wouldn't exist, if it wasn't for the lust of your parents that enabled them to have sex.

Think about the amount of marriages that have been ruined because someone has a picture or video in mind that destroys their ability to have real intimacy with the one they are to be sharing life with or creates unreal expectations that their mate doesn't or can't live up to.

What about the marriages that were saved by watching inappropriate content and using it to spice up their tired and boring sex life? One of my friends is a sexuologists who gives couples relationship therapy. A lot of her patients are being helped with the use of inappropriate content. We had a laugh about it once, about how a doctor prescribes meds while she prescribes watching inappropriate content.

How can you lust for something else and really love the one you have?

For the simple reason that lust and love are 2 seperate things.
Love, is pickier.

I always say:
Sex with lust is great.
Sex with lust with the one you love, is amazing.

Think about the demonic oppression that people experience--the stories they tell of addiction to it and the shame they feel--keeping them from their life purpose which certainly isn't to make love to a picture or movie.

Haaaaa..... the "x and y are addicted" argument.
The exact same argument that can be made for just about ANYTHING else. Like mayonaise, ketchup, hamburgers, french fries, sports (yes: addiction to sports can get quite dangerous), weight loss, etc etc etc etc.

There's two sides to everything.
Everything that is neutral or good for you, becomes bad when you exaggerate.

And, since someone is getting paid for it, it is a form of prostitution--they are selling their body for money.

And who are you to tell them that they can't?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Y'all are not grasping my distinction between unreal and untrue.

Maybe that means that you didn't explain it well enough?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yup. No one gets to claim to know 'what women want'

Except Mel Gibson, off course.

As if they all want and think the same thing.

Well, I do have a theory that they are biologically pre-determined to make sure that their husbands/boyfriends aren't having too much fun without them....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Both are morally wrong.

Why?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hey Todd.

Watching other people have sex is immoral.

Why?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're underestimating the quantity and diversity of inappropriate content. I'd go so far to say that every person on the planet has some inappropriate contento that portrays what they like, even if they don't want to watch inappropriate content.

Rule 34 of the internet.

"if it exists, there is online inappropriate content about it".

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Such as? And how?



Without lust, there are no babies.
Lust isn't bad. Lust is necessary for the survival of the human species.
You wouldn't exist, if it wasn't for the lust of your parents that enabled them to have sex.




What about the marriages that were saved by watching inappropriate content and using it to spice up their tired and boring sex life? One of my friends is a sexuologists who gives couples relationship therapy. A lot of her patients are being helped with the use of inappropriate content. We had a laugh about it once, about how a doctor prescribes meds while she prescribes watching inappropriate content.



For the simple reason that lust and love are 2 seperate things.
Love, is pickier.

I always say:
Sex with lust is great.
Sex with lust with the one you love, is amazing.




Haaaaa..... the "x and y are addicted" argument.
The exact same argument that can be made for just about ANYTHING else. Like mayonaise, ketchup, hamburgers, french fries, sports (yes: addiction to sports can get quite dangerous), weight loss, etc etc etc etc.

There's two sides to everything.
Everything that is neutral or good for you, becomes bad when you exaggerate.




And who are you to tell them that they can't?

So, you understand why you won't be found in heaven, then, right? Because heaven would look just as fallen as this world. There would be no point. If you can anymore, and ever choose to come to truly come to and listen to God, you will have your answers. Otherwise, you won't. No sense me wasting our time, you don't really want to listen. You want to banter. But, you can't understand a 3D discussion, because you are stuck in 2D.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, you understand why you won't be found in heaven, then, right?

Let's stick to the issue and not start refering to places indistinctuishable from the imaginary, with implicit threats.
If you aren't interested in actually replying to the points I raised and instead are only interested in preaching, then I'll just say that you should save yourself the time and effort - because I'm not interested in your preaching.

Bring an actual argument.

Because heaven would look just as fallen as this world. There would be no point. If you can anymore, and ever choose to come to truly come to and listen to God, you will have your answers. Otherwise, you won't. No sense me wasting our time, you don't really want to listen. You want to banter. But, you can't understand a 3D discussion, because you are stuck in 2D.

I'm stuck in reality. I stick to demonstrable dimensions. You can call that 2D if it makes you feel better. If you are going to claim that you instead live in 3D, then I'm just going to ask you to demonstrate the existance of that third dimension. If you can't, then this dimension is indistuinguishable from the imaginary. As a result, it is meaningless and can be dissmissed at face value.

Again, if your only "argument" is that "inappropriate content is bad because bible", then you have no argument. Only religious preaching. And as I said, I'm not interested in your religious preaching.

Religious preaching, is not how actual moral reasoning works.

You said that it's damaging. I'll go ahead and assume that you were talking about actually real, observable and demonstrable damage.

I asked you what that damage is. To point it out. And to explain how inappropriate content apparantly inflicts this damage and how that suffices to call all inappropriate content immoral.

Your answer should not include any reference to religious beliefs.

 

[redleghunter]

Why?

Because I said so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because I said so.

Good argument, you got there.

You just undermined your entire case.
You loose by default. Unless you come back and share an actual argument off course. But it doesn't seem like that is going to happen.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, I do have a theory that they are biologically pre-determined to make sure that their husbands/boyfriends aren't having too much fun without them....

Or with them...

 

[redleghunter]

Good argument, you got there.

What makes it invalid in a discussion strewn with subjective opinion?

You just undermined your entire case.

I did not. My view is just as valid as all the other subjective arguments. Think on it a bit. What makes something moral or immoral?

You loose by default.

Yes I am not perfect but I neither see myself as a loose person nor does my daily interactions with others prove I am loose.

Unless you come back and share an actual argument off course.

I don't argue "off course" that would be a contradiction.

But it doesn't seem like that is going to happen.

I just did above and you can't prove me wrong in a system where everyone's subjective opinion or worldview has merit and cannot be judged unless of course is Christian.

 

[VCR-2000]

So, you understand why you won't be found in heaven, then, right? Because heaven would look just as fallen as this world.

Now what are you referring to about Heaven here?

 

[bhsmte]

Because I said so.

Opinion then.

I will ask again, is anyone forcing you to watch inappropriate content?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Good argument, you got there.

You just undermined your entire case.
You loose by default. Unless you come back and share an actual argument off course. But it doesn't seem like that is going to happen.

I rest my case. There is no purpose discussing with you. You love the matrix and refuse to see the reality that is beyond what you can see. To you it seems like foolishness, but the God you don't believe in isn't limited by your disbelief. In fact, your disbelief hurts only you, it has zero bearing on reality (well except for your consequences).

It seems like you don't want to hear us "preach" our morality; but you seem to think it is okay for you to preach yours. Funny!

 

[quatona]

Both are morally wrong.

The topic of this thread is not whether it´s moral or not, but whether it´s "true" or not.
I would like to get a better idea of what the OP means by "true", in this context.