inappropriate contentography Is Not True

[Phil.Stein]

But the real problem with inappropriate contentography is not that it's not real. The problem with inappropriate contentography is that it's not true. Even though Lord of the Rings isn't real, we value it because it is true. That is, through the story it is telling us something true about the world, ourselves and others, what it means to be brave, etc.

inappropriate contentography is the exact opposite of this. Not only is it fake, but it's also untrue. 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.

Lol. inappropriate content is not necessarily any more untrue or fake than the Lord of the Rings movie you spoke favourably of. The reason it is sinful is that it entices one to lust, and lust is as sinful as adultery.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I rest my case. There is no purpose discussing with you.

"because I said so" - not really inviting much discussion....

You love the matrix and refuse to see the reality that is beyond what you can see.

How could I see that which is beyond what I can actually see?

To you it seems like foolishness

Yes, I consider it quite foolish to ask someone to see beyond that which can actually be seen.

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).

What consequences? Are they real consequences? Or are those also only seen beyond that which can actually be seen?

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!

Appealing to your religious scripture as if it is an unquestionable authority on all matters, is not the same as presenting a reasoned argument.

One is preaching. The other isn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lol. inappropriate content is not necessarily any more untrue or fake than the Lord of the Rings movie you spoke favourably of. The reason it is sinful is that it entices one to lust, and lust is as sinful as adultery.

Without lust, nobody would have sex.
If nobody has sex, there wouldn't be any babies and the human race would go extinct.

So aiding in the survival of the human race, is apparantly "sinful" then.

 

[Freodin]

Without lust, nobody would have sex.
If nobody has sex, there wouldn't be any babies and the human race would go extinct.

So aiding in the survival of the human race, is apparantly "sinful" then.

Well, there's always the alternative method of forming them from clay. Though this seems to have fallen out of favour.

 

[Pope66]

So many people that do inappropriate content die early due to implications due to their involvement in it. It is mainly due to drug overdoses or suicide.

 

[Rajni]

So many people that do inappropriate content die early due to implications due to their involvement in it. It is mainly due to drug overdoses or suicide.

Can you cite any studies that support this claim?

 

[Pope66]

Can you cite any studies that support this claim?

The inappropriate content industry is in crisis following the deaths of five young women in 12 weeks, with sex workers revealing just how badly they are bullied.
http://danielrjennings.org/TheAverageLifeExpectancyOfAinappropriate contentStar.html

 

[Rajni]

The inappropriate content industry is in crisis following the deaths of five young women in 12 weeks, with sex workers revealing just how badly they are bullied.
http://danielrjennings.org/TheAverageLifeExpectancyOfAinappropriate contentStar.html

Sounds more like bullying and abuse that led to the deaths, rather than the line of work in and of itself. As long as it's stigmatized, such poor handling of the industry -- and those involved in it -- will persist.

According to another article, it isn't necessarily the work itself that's the problem, but the inconsistency of it, resulting in an unpredictable income:

https://nypost.com/2018/01/23/why-inappropriate content-stars-are-dying-at-an-alarming-rate/.

The industry needs more regulation, and, just like anyone in the acting business in general, those involved need to have a backup plan lined up for if and when their star-appeal wears off. Once all involved take things more seriously and conduct it more professionally, and the stigma is removed -- and it probably wouldn't hurt unionize the companies involved -- I wouldn't be surprised if the death toll dwindled down to nothing.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Years ago Craig Gross travelled around the country with Ron Jeremy debating the ethics of inappropriate contentography. One of Craig's opening arguments about inappropriate contentography being unethical is that "inappropriate contentography isn't real." The people that are seen in videos don't really have relationships, intimacy, or romance. They are actors playing roles. It's fake.

A pro-inappropriate content lady in the audience challenged this point in the Q&A time when she pointed out that we don't normally reject other things simply because they're not real. Lord of the Rings, for example, is not real and everyone knows it. Yet we still readily embrace the story and the films because it gives us something valuable.

But the real problem with inappropriate contentography is not that it's not real. The problem with inappropriate contentography is that it's not true. Even though Lord of the Rings isn't real, we value it because it is true. That is, through the story it is telling us something true about the world, ourselves and others, what it means to be brave, etc.

inappropriate contentography is the exact opposite of this. Not only is it fake, but it's also untrue. 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.

Of course it's fake. inappropriate content actors are actors and the stories aren't real. But it's greater problem is that it's not true. By engaging in inappropriate contentography consumption, we are consuming lies about the world that affect the way we do life and relate to others and actually undermine our relationships and our attempts at real intimacy.

Discuss.

I think the bigger danger is that the evil we subject ourselves to in life can come back later to haunt us through temptation. When I first became a Christian I was often haunted by past memories of terrible sins I had committed and it took a long time to finally get those thoughts out of my mind. I’m talking probably close to 2 years to get rid of them. Sure I still occasionally have terrible memories and of my past sins and sometimes even terrible thoughts of things I’ve never done. But it’s nothing like when I first became a believer. It was a truly hard time for me because I didn’t want to live that life anymore and I didn’t want those thoughts in my mind but they would still come no matter how hard I tried to think of something else. I remember the torment and the shame it caused me. Because of that I learned that the things we allow ourselves to see and do effect our thoughts and can come back to haunt us for a very long time. So I’m very careful what movies I watch and what music I listen to and the things I subject myself to. Even the crowd I hang around with. For me all of these can have negative consequences.

 

[Pope66]

Sounds more like bullying and abuse that led to the deaths, rather than the line of work in and of itself. As long as it's stigmatized, such poor handling of the industry -- and those involved in it -- will persist.

According to another article, it isn't necessarily the work itself that's the problem, but the inconsistency of it, resulting in an unpredictable income:

https://nypost.com/2018/01/23/why-inappropriate content-stars-are-dying-at-an-alarming-rate/.

The industry needs more regulation, and, just like anyone in the acting business in general, those involved need to have a backup plan lined up for if and when their star-appeal wears off. Once all involved take things more seriously and conduct it more professionally, and the stigma is removed -- and it probably wouldn't hurt unionize the companies involved -- I wouldn't be surprised if the death toll dwindled down to nothing.

Actually there is a greater acceptance of inappropriate content these days than a generation before and these days it is much easier to access inappropriate content. Yet more and more inappropriate content stars take their own lives or die from drug overdoes, even at the prime of their lives and appear attractive, happy and successful and still worked in inappropriate content just prior to their passing. Here is a video of many inappropriate content stars that have died:

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually there is a greater acceptance of inappropriate content these days than a generation before and these days it is much easier to access inappropriate content. Yet more and more inappropriate content stars take their own lives or die from drug overdoes, even at the prime of their lives and appear attractive, happy and successful and still worked in inappropriate content just prior to their passing. Here is a video of many inappropriate content stars that have died:

There's less stigma for watching inappropriate content, there's still plenty of stigma against performing in inappropriate content. Big difference.

 

[Pope66]

There's less stigma for watching inappropriate content, there's still plenty of stigma against performing in inappropriate content. Big difference.

However there are former inappropriate content stars that have found God and with it something much better than what they used to do such as the former inappropriate content star and now a preacher $40k-a-month inappropriate content star finds God
"I'm now a real estate agent and I make just as much as I did in the inappropriate content industry in a month in real estate and I don't have to take my clothes off, so I mean I think I'm much happier now," she said.

The couple lead the young adult ministry at their church while Ms De La Mora attends inappropriate content conventions to speak with performers.

"When I go to the inappropriate content conventions we set up a huge booth that says 'Jesus Loves inappropriate content Stars'. I get a really good reaction," she said.

"I absolutely hate when religious people demonise inappropriate content stars. That is not okay. When I was in the inappropriate content industry I actually used to get people that would have signs up that would say, 'You are going to hell', and to be honest, that does not work."

 

[Phil.Stein]

Without lust, nobody would have sex.
If nobody has sex, there wouldn't be any babies and the human race would go extinct.

So aiding in the survival of the human race, is apparantly "sinful" then.

Lust is thinking of sexually taking another's man's wife, or possibly, an unmarried lady, without concern either for the man or the lady or the consequences.

I disagree that desire - that is, wanting to engage in a legal, mutually beneficial and lifelong commitment with a consenting woman, constitutes lust. I know that some people equate the two, but as you say, if desire was equivalent to the sin of lust, God would have made a world whereby no one can marry without sin. I therefore disagree with such a position.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lust is thinking of sexually taking another's man's wife, or possibly, an unmarried lady, without concern either for the man or the lady or the consequences.

That is simply not true.
Lust is just sexual appetite. Not a single definition of "lust" includes that it is restricted to any specific person or type of person.

In other words, a sexual appetite you feel towards your wife, is lust too.

I disagree that desire - that is, wanting to engage in a legal, mutually beneficial and lifelong commitment with a consenting woman, constitutes lust.

You can disagree all you want. But, again, not a single definition of "lust" restricts it to any particular type of person. Lust is JUST sexual appetite towards "someone". This someone can be someone depicted on the cover of a magazine, it can be someone at work, it can be a friend, it can be a friend's wife and it can be your very own wife.

Once more: no definition of "lust" includes a restriction towards any particular type or category of person. No definition of "lust" includes a set of people towards the lust is directed.

I know that some people equate the two, but as you say, if desire was equivalent to the sin of lust, God would have made a world whereby no one can marry without sin. I therefore disagree with such a position.

You can disagree all you want, but your particular religious beliefs are just that: your particular religious beliefs. They don't change reality.

But I get it.... you have a psychological and emotional need to protect your beliefs.
The reality however, is what it is. And that is that lust is just sexual appetite and its definition doesn't include, at all, the subject towards which that lust is directed.


LUST | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

 

[Phil.Stein]

That is simply not true.
Lust is just sexual appetite. Not a single definition of "lust" includes that it is restricted to any specific person or type of person.

So you believe in a god that would cause people to sin to obey him? If so, I worship a different God to yours.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you believe in a god that would cause people to sin to obey him? If so, I worship a different God to yours.

I don't believe in gods, so I have no need to engage in mental gymnastics to marry reality with a priori religious beliefs.

 

[Phil.Stein]

I don't believe in gods, so I have no need to engage in mental gymnastics to marry reality with a priori religious beliefs.

Which is why we would have a different interpretation of scripture.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which is why we would have a different interpretation of scripture.

The fact that "lust" is a word that just means "to have strong sexual appetite" and that it does NOT, in any way, restrict this sexual appetite towards a particular group of people, has nothing to do with any scripture and everything with the meaning of words and the English language.

That you have a need to add things to definitions of certain words, just to make it consistent with your a priori religious beliefs, is your problem - not mine.

Meanwhile, the simple point remains: Lust means strong sexual desire / appetite. It doesn't include anything about towards whom that lust is directed. I have lust towards my wife. That lust resulted in a lovely little boy.

 

[Rajni]

Actually there is a greater acceptance of inappropriate content these days than a generation before and these days it is much easier to access inappropriate content. Yet more and more inappropriate content stars take their own lives or die from drug overdoes, even at the prime of their lives and appear attractive, happy and successful and still worked in inappropriate content just prior to their passing. Here is a video of many inappropriate content stars that have died:

Evidently the level of acceptance isn't enough to erase the stigma, and it's the stigma that seems to be at the root of the damage caused.

People working in iPhone and Samsung factories have also taken their own lives, yet I don't see much concern expressed for them. One might be devoutly opposed to inappropriate content but still contributing to the same problem through their purchase and ownership of their favorite gizmos and gadgets.

Again, better regulation, and unionization, would go a long way in rectifying this sort of thing.

 

[Rajni]

So you believe in a god that would cause people to sin to obey him?

Well, there is a prayer in which God is specifically asked not to lead us into temptation, so perhaps there's something to that belief.