Why is inappropriate contentography wrong?

[Armoured]

Basically because it cheapens women and children and projects them as objects of vulnerable degradation; all this in order to suit the lustful passions of the perps and reprobates who lust after them. The opposite of this is God's heart both towards the victims and perpetrators of inappropriate contentography. He desires us to be wholesome. God sees a persons true value and potential desires to free them from sin and degradation in order to redeem us all. He loves us even more than a parent loves their sons and daughters. If I had a son or daughter caught up in inappropriate contentography I would do everything in my power to rescue them before it ruined and depraved their soul. There is just a big difference between the way of the world and the way of God. God has a holy desires for us to be wholesome and gifted by His love and grace. He alone can bring wholeness to the human soul, no matter how broken they are. He loves the family unit. Sex and the marriage bed are undefiled because God has blessed that as a special union between husband and wife. Sex is a beautiful thing when used in the purpose God intended - to be fruitful and multiply. It is even more beautiful when we see that it produces beautiful babies that are cherished by their families. The Bible tells us that marriage actually symbolizes the union between Christ and the Church. Self gratifying desires without love only leads to destructive behaviors. Power corrupts and absolute power driven by fantasies acted upon physically or in the mind ultimately corrupts the soul of a human being. Almost all serial rapists and killers in prison will tell you their slide into the abyss of depravity started with inappropriate contentography. David's fall into murder started out by lusting after Bathsheba from the perch of his palace. He made her pregnant and decided to cover it by murdering her husband sending him on a suicide mission. Sin only begets more sin and takes us from the wholesomeness we find in God.
In Christ, John 17:20

Except for the minor point that many women find it empowering...

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

What I never really understood is why there's so much stigma surrounding seeing people getting along really (really, really) well while the viewing of people engaging in violence, murder, torture, war, crucifixion, etc. is (at least relatively) A-okay.

I mean, just sitting through the movie previews before the feature starts is virtually nothing more than a long series of shooting and explosions (American films, yay them ). Shouldn't the latter be stigmatized rather than the former? For example, why aren't there more posts on religious forums expressing guilt over watching violent footage?

I agree 100%. But you know, even non-violent Hollywood movies are drenched is Satanic agenda all right. As for inappropriate contentography, it's an evil dirty industry. Women are often drawn to it though criminal ways. Forced into it. Or even if they enter it by their will, they get taken advantage of. It's a form of slavery. There's drugs, disease, crime, money it this industry. To watch it is to support it.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

What is the rational explanation about why inappropriate contentography is wrong?

without God the Creator of All's authoritative moral decree, there is no rational explanation for why anything is wrong, to be honest.

you're left with peoples opinions and feelings.

 

[SPF]

Wait – the only way to determine if something is wrong is if the bible specifically spells it out for us?

No, and I certainly didn't say that. Scripture provides principles for us to live by. There are many situations (the majority in fact) that are relevant to us today that were not when Scripture was written. But the moral principles in Scripture are consistent and we can use those to determine if certain practices are right or wrong.

Where in scripture does it talk about looking at inappropriate contentography, specifically?

It doesn't need to, the principles are there. Sexual purity is an issue covered all across Scripture. As far as I know, a person who watches inappropriate contentography does so because of the sexual experience that it provides them. In order to attain that sexual experience, a person must engage in lust, which is sin. A person also covets something that does not belong to them in a way that does not glorify God, and is therefore sin. Do you actually disagree with that? Can you explain to me how a person can watch inappropriate contentography and either not lust or covet?

Scripture doesn’t talk about watching movies, at all, violent or otherwise.

Utterly irrelevant. Scripture doesn't talk about a lot of things. But we can determine whether or not certain practices are moral or not based upon the principles provided in Scripture.

However, violence stems from hate

Are you sure about that? Are you suggesting that when Jesus violently overturned the tables and drove the people out of the temple in Matthew 21 that His actions stemmed from hate? Are you really willing to say that? If someone breaks into my home and attempts to murder my wife, and I defend her - do you believe that my violent act of defense is stemming from hate? The obvious answer to both situations is no. Thus, we can safely say that violence does not always stem from hate.

In short, watching inappropriate contentography denigrates the the person to an object. It causes both lust and coveting. I cannot think of an example in which watching inappropriate contentography would be done for any other reason - can you provide one?

I certainly agree that there are way too many movies with gratuitous violence. I am in no way condoning overly violent movies as beneficial and good. But I would not go so far as to call it a sin to watch a movie like Black Hawk Down.

 

[Rajni]

Again, all the arguments against watching people get along can be used against watching people kill each other off. No need to try to justify either.

 

[Willie T]

Three simple questions, which if you cannot answer to your own satisfaction, show you the biggest problem.

1. Which do you find that you "need" to watch?
and
2. Why do you feel this need?
then
3. Why does it bother you enough to feel a need to come here and have others justify it?

 

[FrankDux]

What even constitutes inappropriate content is often subjective

I think that there are a fair number of people who are infatuated with others' sexuality because they themselves have unresolved issues with their own sexuality, and they tend to project this into the world around them to avoid taking time to resolve their issues

Personally, I think there is a difference between inappropriate content, eroticism, erotic literature, even art like Japanese shunga, and that the response one has to such material is really fundamentally based on their own sexuality and how comfortable they are with it

Some people see representations of genitalia everywhere , which is really a type of pareidolia, similar to how someone sees the number 666 everywhere in company logos, it comes from an unhealthy fascination with something

 

[SPF]

Again, all the arguments against watching people get along can be used against watching people kill each other off. No need to try to justify either.

I'm fairly sure my long response to you demonstrates that this is simply not true. I welcome a response to the content of what I wrote.

Surely you can at least concede that you're wrong about all violence stemming from hate. I don't believe you would be prepared to say that Jesus' violent act of clearing the temple stemmed from hate.

 

[Rajni]

I agree 100%. But you know, even non-violent Hollywood movies are drenched is Satanic agenda all right. As for inappropriate contentography, it's an evil dirty industry. Women are often drawn to it though criminal ways. Forced into it. Or even if they enter it by their will, they get taken advantage of. It's a form of slavery. There's drugs, disease, crime, money it this industry. To watch it is to support it.

I would bet a lot of that would be remedied if the stigma associated with sex was removed, and rules which protect those employed set in place as they would be in any line of work.

Right now erotic scenes in even big-screen movies, created by established directors and producers, and involving established actors, can be seen as 'evil' from a more puritan mindset. As long as that stigma is in place, the inappropriate content industry is going to be able to blackmail people into doing what they want because to have one's association with it outed would be humiliating for many. Most of it's draw is because of its "forbidden fruit" status, that status acting as something of an unintentional accomplice in inappropriate contentography's success.

Except for the minor point that many women find it empowering...

And that probably scares many in the good-old-boy network! It's one thing to watch a guy empowered with a machine gun going to town on a crowd, but heaven forbid women be empowered, no guns or violence needed, and not a drop of blood shed by the end of it.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Again, all the arguments against watching people get along can be used against watching people kill each other off. No need to try to justify either.

The problem is, a movie is an illusion. We have to be wise to understand that much. Getting along well, well, really well on the screen doesn't automatically reflect real life. In 99.99% of cases of inappropriate contentography it's not so. Why to be partakers of a lie? Make your own true reality, don't be a follower of lies.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

I would bet a lot of that would be remedied if the stigma associated with sex was removed, and rules which protect those employed set in place as they would be in any line of work.

Right now erotic scenes in even big-screen movies, created by established directors and producers, and involving established actors, can be seen as 'evil' from a more puritan mindset. As long as that stigma is in place, the inappropriate content industry is going to be able to blackmail people into doing what they want because to have one's association with it outed would be humiliating for many. Most of it's draw is because of its "forbidden fruit" status, that status acting as something of an unintentional accomplice in inappropriate contentography's success.

We have to take life the way it is. Idealistic notions, usually a trademark of youth, are broken against the cliffs of reality. It's good to imagine a world of global peace and co-existence, however, if one person receives, another person lacks as the result... There's really no way around it... The only solution is proper control. In my good old USSR, inappropriate contentography was strictly forbidden. Nobody was ever watching it. Therefore, the problem of female and male exploitation by the evil industry simply didn't exist. Probably not the best, but working solution. People created "sexaction" (not "inappropriate contento" = prostitution + "graphy" = image of) right in their marriage bedroom, by observing and taking active part in it. People of our civilization hate nudity, it humiliates them. Good or bad, it's fact. Deal with it.

 

[Rajni]

The problem is, a movie is an illusion. We have to be wise to understand that much. Getting along well, well, really well on the screen doesn't automatically reflect real life. In 99.99% of cases of inappropriate contentography it's not so. Why to be partakers of a lie? Make your own true reality, don't be a follower of lies.

I don't think portrayals of violence are justified, personally, which I realize is a blasphemous thing to say in American culture.

As for real life, I don't need a movie/TV screen for that. That's why if I waste spend my time watching a movie or show, I prefer it be something I wouldn't encounter in real life, because otherwise it would be redundant. That's why I dislike dramas, violent films, etc. Also, being highly empathic, I don't just go to a movie, I go through the movie. After The Hunger Games, which my family had to talk me into going to see, I was drained for the rest of the day; I may as well have been in that arena fighting for my survival. I can't just be a spectator at these things, so I have to choose wisely.

My preferred genre of film/show/video involves the paranormal, because even though I believe it to be real, it never happens (at least, nothing beyond subtle) in real life (with me). But paying to see a movie where, for example, Jesus gets the daylights beat out of him as in The Passion of the Christ? Um, no thank you. That's as much of a turnoff to me as watching erotica is to others.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

I don't think portrayals of violence are justified, personally, which I realize is a blasphemous thing to say in American culture.

As for real life, I don't need a movie/TV screen for that. That's why if I waste spend my time watching a movie or show, I prefer it be something I wouldn't encounter in real life, because otherwise it would be redundant. That's why I dislike dramas, violent films, etc. Also, being highly empathic, I don't just go to a movie, I go through the movie. After The Hunger Games, which my family had to talk me into going to see, I was drained for the rest of the day; I may as well have been in that arena fighting for my survival. I can't just be a spectator at these things, so I have to choose wisely.

My preferred genre of film/show/video involves the paranormal, because even though I believe it to be real, it never happens (at least, nothing beyond subtle) in real life (with me). But paying to see a movie where, for example, Jesus gets the daylights beat out of him as in The Passion of the Christ? Um, no thank you. That's as much of a turnoff to me as watching erotica is to others.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Depiction of violence or even any kind of human suffering (physical or psychological) is way, way, less attractive to our senses than visual imagry of pleasure.

What you point out - about the social acceptance of violence (anti-God actions) and hypocritical shying off of nudity and sex (God created part of being human) - that it's very very wrong, I agree.

The only thing I asked to consider, is that the image, the picture doesn't exist on it's own, though we tend to perceive it that way. There's something standing behind it. People who suffer, whose lives are broken. Not just the inappropriate contentography industry, but also the whole diablo of the entertainment biz - movies, video games, multimedia websites, pop-music, high achievement sports, etc. Anything that seeks to gratify our animalistic instincts and doesn't bring us to a higher truth of Spiritual realization is death and abomination.

The bottom line is honesty. Are we content with taking lies as truth, or do we press on to accept truth only? Not just on the surface (illusion), but it it's conceptual contents and background as well?

 

[Ken Rank]

What is the rational explanation about why inappropriate contentography is wrong?

Intent... inappropriate contentography is simply a way to achieve sexual gratification outside of the physical act. It requires no commitment, no covenant, no oath, no nothing but a heart that seeks it's flesh to be satisfied. When Yeshua revealed the spirit of the law (the intent of the law) when discussing adultery, he went well beyond the physical act by saying, "He that lusts in his heart for a women has committed adultery already." What is inappropriate content but the sexual lust in the heart be aimed toward women who, in SOME cases, can't even give consent for you to have such satisfaction.

 

[Rajni]

The only thing I asked to consider, is that the image, the picture doesn't exist on it's own, though we tend to perceive it that way. There's something standing behind it. People who suffer, whose lives are broken. Not just the inappropriate contentography industry, but also the whole diablo of the entertainment biz - movies, video games, multimedia websites, pop-music, high achievement sports, etc. Anything that seeks to gratify our animalistic instincts and doesn't bring us to a higher truth of Spiritual realization is death and abomination.

The bottom line is honesty. Are we content with taking lies as truth, or do we press on to accept truth only? Not just on the surface (illusion), but it it's conceptual contents and background as well?

Well, I'm not quite ready to disparage all of show biz, even though there's little in it that I'm attracted to personally. I think, too, if one realizes that a show is just that -- a show, then they're less likely to get derailed by that which it portrays, and therefore won't end up taking lies as truth (one reason I don't watch the news).

Heck, never mind images on a screen, what we consider "real life" isn't what it seems, either. It's been said that everything we see and seem is but a dream within a dream, and that all the world is a stage and we're the actors. I think those statements are on to something, but that's for another thread!

 

[SnowyMacie]

What is the rational explanation about why inappropriate contentography is wrong?

To be honest, I've been wondering the same thing lately. I want to be able to vilify inappropriate content and the inappropriate contentography industry, but when I looked into it so I could vilify it, I found myself unable to do so. I read into the psychological effects and ultimately came to the conclusion that "sometimes it is, sometimes it's not, and there's a lot we don't know." I looked into who was behind it, and all I found was just how painstakingly normal the majority of them are, sure there's bad people, but there's bad people everywhere. So far, the best non-spiritual explanation I've found holds weight is that it objectifies women, but so does a lot of things. That also doesn't mention what others have brought up that some feel empowered by it, and about 40% of women watch inappropriate content at least once a week.

1. You're lusting.
2. You're coveting something that isn't yours.

Actually, those are the same thing. Lust is coveting, what Jesus is saying is that when you are coveting your neighbor's wife, you are essentially doing nothing different than if you have already had adultery with her.

Except for the minor point that many women find it empowering...

And don't forget that many couples watch inappropriate content together and find that it helps improve their sex life

 

[SnowyMacie]

.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Intent... inappropriate contentography is simply a way to achieve sexual gratification outside of the physical act. It requires no commitment, no covenant, no oath, no nothing but a heart that seeks it's flesh to be satisfied. When Yeshua revealed the spirit of the law (the intent of the law) when discussing adultery, he went well beyond the physical act by saying, "He that lusts in his heart for a women has committed adultery already." What is inappropriate content but the sexual lust in the heart be aimed toward women who, in SOME cases, can't even give consent for you to have such satisfaction.

Technology makes dirty things seem to be "clean". It's a lie.

Let's imagine time before the invention of fast-changing pictures projected onto a screen to create the illusion of life.

What would be inappropriate contentography then? A realistic painting of sex? Paying a couple to perform a sexual intercourse in front of you? Would we rationally consider somebody ordering such paintings or paying for vouyeurism morally wrong? Most definitely, yes.

Today, when it's all just one click away and doesn't involve anybody else but you, when dead machines play it for you - it seems moral. Victimless. Free of any responsibility or cost.

But it's a lie.

There is a huge cost. To actors, their health and their eternal souls. To your own soul. In action and in lost potential. The time you could be using to save a life, or the technological resources that could be engaged in ending poverty and hunger worldwide. They're simply used to help in your physiological arousal. All the while filling your own soul with a lie.

 

[Rajni]

There is a huge cost. To actors, their health and their souls. To your own soul. In action and in lost potential. The time you could be using to save a life, or the technological resources that could be engaged in ending poverty and hunger worldwide.

Although the same could be said, for example, about the time I spend posting on CF when I could be out there ending poverty and hunger or saving a life. I haven't exactly been Mother Theresa over here.

It doesn't have to be something like inappropriate content to take one away from engaging in Honorable Activities. At the same time, however, it's not necessarily an either-or situation. One can be posting on CF or writing the prequel to 50 Hues of Charcoal one minute and then end up donating to the local shelter or rescuing that kitten from the oncoming train the next. The day is still young!

 

[DrBubbaLove]

What is the rational explanation about why inappropriate contentography is wrong?

It objectifies sexuality and the idea of becoming one is reduced to getting what one wants (lust over love). Not to mention it promotes and assists in habituating sexual sins.

Promotes Fish Love: