Why is pornography wrong?

[Danbha]

First off I want to thank you for correcting yourself. It takes a good person to admit that they were wrong and you should be proud of yourself for admitting to that falsehood.

Who better to define an activity than the participants? And it's not just the actors and actresses themselves who call it acting but also the audience. When you have a wide consensus like that it generally becomes accepted. And again I think it's also important to understand why so many involved including the performers themselves consider it acting.
They know it's not the real thing. The real thing is based on love and not being on a set. It may not be true for some on this site but anyone who has had sex based on love and not merely a performance recognize the very sharp difference between the two.

Firstly, I have no problem admitting to errors on my part. However, I still take issue with some of your unfounded assertions. You claim that the sex isn't real because there is no love involved. This is a very narrow definition of the word sex, and one not fitting with the "general consensus" when defining the word, i.e., the general consensus would define what those making porn are doing as "sex." So, either your argument from consensus is wrong, or it's correct and you would then have to concede that porn actors are indeed having sex with each other. I further notice that you consistently dodge certain questions I pose in my replies to you regarding what would be considered acting and not "real." You seem to be unwilling to comment on my question regarding murder. Furthermore, you seem to have a belief that acting excuses everything. As long as the participants and their customers consider it "acting" then nothing is real about it, and it doesn't count as sin. I would ask you this: when does God say in the Bible, "Thou shalt not murder (unless it's acting)?" "Thou shalt not commit adultery (unless it's done for entertainment purposes, then I don't care because doing immoral things to entertain people is fine)?" In other words, where do you find the "acting exemption" in the Bible? Where does God qualify His commands based on whether or not it's done for entertainment purposes?

 

[Rajni]

What would you say is causing you to enjoy the depiction of sexual immorality and violence - these sorts of activities that are not godly activities?

Thank you for including violence in there. Too many seem to think watching hate-based scenes is alright, while watching love-based ones isn't. It's really strange.

Let me find the studies for you, repeated viewing makes you stupid. Yes- I would discourage people from repeatedly doing things that decrease the connections in their brains. We need all the synapses we can get.

From what I read, it is not a case of can it make one stupid, but that it does actually make people who watch it more stupid.

I think I found something, though the problem was how the media conveyed the message. Long story short, the study wasn't saying it made one stupid: Calm down, porn is probably not making your brain smaller

Meanwhile, a link I shared earlier (see post 162) indicates that it actually reduces sex crimes, and as we all know such can involve violence, something which has been said to be a-okay to watch. But I guess since so many people indulge in violent shows, they've become desensitized to that, so they don't see the problem. Ironic.


-

 

[Galatea]

Thank you for including violence in there. Too many seem to think watching hate-based scenes is alright, while watching love-based ones isn't. It's really strange.


I think I found something, though the problem was how the media conveyed the message. Long story short, the study wasn't saying it made one stupid: Calm down, porn is probably not making your brain smaller

Meanwhile, a link I shared earlier (see post 162) indicates that it actually reduces sex crimes, and as we all know such can involve violence, something which has been said to be a-okay to watch. But I guess since so many people indulge in violent shows, they've become desensitized to that, so they don't see the problem. Ironic.


-

I didn't read the entire thread, but don't you think there is a difference between simulated violence (a pretend explosion, a pretend shooting,etc) and people who are actually having sex? I mean there is a distinction, here.

I'm not into watching lots of simulated violence. I'm not into simulated sex, either. I like my romance Disney style. I like my violence in films like Disney deaths, no blood and gore necessary. Have you ever seen Swiss Family Robinson? That's my kind of violence.

Anyway, even on the rare occasions I watch something more realistic, I always know it is not real, the blood is fake- the car exploded but no one was inside, etc.

Sex very often takes place in the mind. So, any time you watch pornography and imagine being with a different man, you are cheating on your husband emotionally. If you are not married, you are cheating on him before you meet him.

I just think it is important to present yourself to him pure and chaste, in body and mind. When you look at pornography, you are giving away a part of yourself that belongs to your husband, not to yourself.

I didn't want to go into personal beliefs here, but I guess it kind of always goes in that direction in these kinds of discussions.

If you are a Christian, this is what we are supposed to do "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." Philippians 4:8

This would go for watching whatever it is you watch, read, think about, whether it is sexual or violent.

We are called to bring every thought captive, and to abstain from every appearance of sin. Adultery is sin, whether or not you are married or not, if you engage in these behaviors prior to marriage, it is adultery before marriage.

 

[Rajni]

I didn't read the entire thread, but don't you think there is a difference between simulated violence (a pretend explosion, a pretend shooting,etc) and people who are actually having sex? I mean there is a distinction, here.

Sex very often takes place in the mind. So, any time you watch pornography and imagine being with a different man, you are cheating on your husband emotionally. If you are not married, you are cheating on him before you meet him.

I see a slight contradiction here between the two paragraphs quoted above. If having sex in one's mind and emotions is wrong, how can simulating shooting people be alright? In addition, those simulations had to start in the mind as well, so they don't even have to reach the simulation stage to be wrong.

The thing about acting is that it requires the actor to be "in character". They take on the personality of the character they're portraying, so often they will actually have the emotions and thoughts required to perform whatever it is they're simulating. I'd much rather those thoughts/emotions be affectionate than violent.

If you are a Christian, this is what we are supposed to do "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." Philippians 4:8

Yes, that verse occurred to me a few times going through this thread. That's why I'm persuaded that if I'm going to watch something, I'd be better off it it meets that verse's requirements, and I see very little of those requirements in portrayals of violence.

I think my point is that people are using a double-standard when decrying erotica (love-based behavior) while not batting an eye over violence (hate/anger-based behavior).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I remember seeing the movie "Frailty" in the theaters with my friend (in 2001). This was long before I rededicated myself back to the Lord in 2010. At the time, I recall that the movie was disturbing to me because this character in the film (played by Bill Paxton) was committing the sin of murder in God's name. Why was it disturbing to me? Because I knew murder was wrong by God Word and my conscience. In fact, Jim Jones got people to commit self murder (suicide) as a part of their belief in God. Most people know this is wrong. But people do all kinds of crazy sins trying to justify them in the Lord's name. This is evil. God's Word clearly condemns the sin of murder just as it condemns the sin of lusting at men and women who commit fornication. A person who justifies sin that most Christians know is wrong has been so hardened by the sin that they are partaking in. They cannot see the verses in the Bible that say that their sin is wrong. It is like a fog has covered their eyes and they see what they want to see to justify their evil. But one day God is going to judge them. Everything will be opened and exposed to them about what is truly good and right and they are going to be ashamed (and in some cases they will be angry, too).

I say this not to win an argument, or to say that I am superior, but I say this so as to lead men to Jesus Christ and the power He can bring to your life to overcome sin here upon this Earth.

For abiding in the love of Christ and His peace is far better than any temporary fleeting pleasure that sin can bring to you here.


...

 

[Galatea]

I see a slight contradiction here between the two paragraphs quoted above. If having sex in one's mind and emotions is wrong, how can simulating shooting people be alright? In addition, those simulations had to start in the mind as well, so they don't even have to reach the simulation stage to be wrong.

The thing about acting is that it requires the actor to be "in character". They take on the personality of the character they're portraying, so often they will actually have the emotions and thoughts required to perform whatever it is they're simulating. I'd much rather those thoughts/emotions be affectionate than violent.

Yes, that verse occurred to me a few times going through this thread. That's why I'm persuaded that if I'm going to watch something, I'd be better off it it meets that verse's requirements, and I see very little of those requirements in portrayals of violence.

I think my point is that people are using a double-standard when decrying erotica (love-based behavior) while not batting an eye over violence (hate/anger-based behavior).

Simulating violence- the people are not really being shot. In the verse, the simulated violence could be "whatsoever things are just". Let's say you are watching Swiss Family Robinson, the family is attacked by a band of pirates who want to kill them for no reason except just to kill them. So, the family protects themselves- women and children, included. Because it is Disney, it isn't explicitly stated in the film- but the women would most probably meet a fate worse than death if captured.

The pirates are defeated, and the family is safe. This falls under "whatsoever things are just".

Pornography is not acting like they are having sex. The people really are having sex. There is a difference, here. Plus, they are committing adultery really (not pretending to commit adultery).

There is no way to justify it, you are watching people actually having sex. They are not acting. They're not actors. I think legitimate actors would be highly insulted if people in pornography were called actors. People who act like they are killing each other are not really killing each other.

Pornography is wicked, there is no justifying it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also, watching porn is not consistent with these verses (among many others).

"That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world." (Philippians 2:15).

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Matthew 16:24).


...

 

[Torino]

I have often wondered why it never said it was a sin for Abraham to have sex with his servant and David and Solomon to have so many wives and girlfriends, to name but a few.

It's not a sin for a man to have multiple wives, even God himself is described as a polygynist. See Jeremiah 3.

The only law you see against it is a command in Deut. 17 for kings not to "multiply wives" which is hoarding wives. As you know, David had many wives and God said in 2 Samuel 12 that if it was not enough he would have given David more. Solomon indeed had many wives as well, and he was never faulted for it. Gideon had many wives, etc. None of them were ever charged with "multiplying wives".

 

[Torino]

Someone here is making an argument that porn is ok because it is "acting". This argument falls apart if one of the actresses is a married woman because with all the sperm and sperm from her male co-actor getting all over her and inside her body, this literally becomes adultery. "Adultery" is referring to the mixing going on when another man's seed is going into the field (the woman) that belongs to another man. The field has been adulterated.

 

[Rajni]

People who act like they are killing each other are not really killing each other.

However, as has already been said, it starts with the imagination. Just the thought is enough. And doesn't scripture mention avoiding even the appearance of evil?

Why would watching someone kill somebody, even if it's only make-believe, be entertaining? If this sort of thing happened in real life to any of the people in the movie theater gobbling up popcorn while watching this stuff, I can bet you they would no longer consider it 'entertaining'.

Again, all this hand-wringing over condemning people getting along while championing violence is a tad baffling to me.

Ah well, to each his own.

 

[Galatea]

It's not a sin for a man to have multiple wives, even God himself is described as a polygynist. See Jeremiah 3.

The only law you see against it is a command in Deut. 17 for kings not to "multiply wives" which is hoarding wives. As you know, David had many wives and God said in 2 Samuel 12 that if it was not enough he would have given David more. Solomon indeed had many wives as well, and he was never faulted for it. Gideon had many wives, etc. None of them were ever charged with "multiplying wives".

Way to take a verse out of context, considering the whole chapter of II Samuel 12 is God punishing David for taking Bathsheba. Verse 8 says God gave David the kingdom, including Saul's concubines, but the rest of the verse is "and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

Such and such things does not say more wives.

"Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of Ammon. Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised Me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife."

Solomon was not very happy. He had all these women, yet wrote the book of Ecclesiastes. If a glut of sex with hundreds of women satisfied the soul, Solomon would know. He found out it is not very happy, and warned against not being monogamous in many, many Proverbs. If he would have just kept himself married to the Shulamite- what a difference Ecclesiastes might have been. Maybe then he would not have been so jaded with everything.

 

[Galatea]

However, as has already been said, it starts with the imagination. Just the thought is enough. And doesn't scripture mention avoiding even the appearance of evil?

Why would watching someone kill somebody, even if it's only make-believe, be entertaining? If this sort of thing happened in real life to any of the people in the movie theater gobbling up popcorn while watching this stuff, I can bet you they would no longer consider it 'entertaining'.

Again, all this hand-wringing over condemning people getting along while championing violence is a tad baffling to me.

Ah well, to each his own.

It is mind boggling to me that you make zero distinction between people simulating killing other people and people actually having sex.

My point is, simulated violence could fall under "whatsoever things are just"- protecting the weak.

Actually watching people having sex is not pure, just, honest, true, has good report, praise worthy, has any virtue.

Would you watch it in front of your father? I mean your physical father? Would you be alright watching it in front of him?

 

[Rajni]

Like I said, to each his own. Nobody's going to be changing anyone's mind, obviously.

 

[Torino]

Galatea,

I'm not taking it out of context. That David had all that he had, including in the marital area, and that God would have given him more - even in the marital area - and yet took another man's only sheep, is part of why his sin was so grievous. This was my point.

About Solomon not being happy, I don't disagree that women are not a replacement for God. This still isn't a forbidding against polygyny. A lot of people like to appeal to some potential bad consequences, but this is fallacious thinking. You can get into a car crash, yet few will say that cars are bad.

The warnings in Proverbs are not against non-monogamy, they are warnings against sleeping with adulteresses - married women looking for a man not her husband. He would know, given the trouble it caused his father.

Also, the Shulamite woman was Solomon's 141st wife, did you know? Here is the reference:

8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.
9 My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her. - Song of Solomon 6:8,9

 

[Galatea]

Like I said, to each his own. Nobody's going to be changing anyone's mind, obviously.

Of course not, I don't think changing minds is the point on forums- generally. I think the point is who can defend their side better? I admit I am not much of a debater. Many times I know I've been trounced because I am not very good at debating. Clarity is a problem, with me, among other things.

But, even when I am trounced, my beliefs are not changed simply because someone presented a better argument for their side of whatever issue it may be.

I just find it strange that you think it is alright to look at pornography which is not a pure thing at all, while people who look at simulated violence are scummy.

I'm not into simulated violence, by and large. I think it can be gratuitous and harmful to the spirit. But there are plots where simulated violence can be considered "whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just"

War movies, for example, that tell us that war is hideous can be honest, true, just, praise worthy. All Quiet on the Western Front comes to mind. Anything that teaches us how evil war is is a good thing. I think movies about the Holocaust have merit. It is one thing to read of atrocities, another to see simulations of it.

 

[Rajni]

If people want their violence, they can have their violence. I'm over it; I'm even clicking on "Unwatch Thread" as we speak. Any further invitations to this dead-horse-beating party will simply be placed into the "Who are we really trying to convince, here?" file.

 

[Galatea]

Galatea,

I'm not taking it out of context. That David had all that he had, including in the marital area, and that God would have given him more - even in the marital area - and yet took another man's only sheep, is part of why his sin was so grievous. This was my point.

About Solomon not being happy, I don't disagree that women are not a replacement for God. This still isn't a forbidding against polygyny. A lot of people like to appeal to some potential bad consequences, but this is fallacious thinking. You can get into a car crash, yet few will say that cars are bad.

The warnings in Proverbs are not against non-monogamy, they are warnings against sleeping with adulteresses - married women looking for a man not her husband. He would know, given the trouble it caused his father.

Also, the Shulamite woman was Solomon's 141st wife, did you know? Here is the reference:

8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.
9 My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her. - Song of Solomon 6:8,9

Are there any instances in the Bible that show a happy man with multiple partners? I think not. Any time it happened, the poor man was miserble. Why make yourself miserable?

I disagree with you, there are many proverbs in the Bible about staying with one wife. Not with many, not with a multitude.

Marriage is one woman with one man, this is what God intended, this is what He meant. Adultery and fornication is not what He meant. He intended for people to be happy. This perversion of the truth does not make people happy.

 

[Torino]

About a happy polygynous man, does it matter? You think every monogamous marriage was bliss in scripture? A possible life of emotional misery doesn't make for a forbidding of polygyny. I will humor you though, and say that Gideon and Samuel's father are two examples of men where their large families weren't an issue.

Can you be more specific about the verses commanding as a point of law to have only one wife in Proverbs? I don't remember any.

The Bible doesn't teach "one woman, one man". Do you think God was committing adultery or describing himself in sinful terms when he was referring to his own multiple wives?

 

[redstang281]

Jeuss said "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matt 5:28

What if the woman is single? You can't commit adultery with a single woman.

The word woman in this verse can also be translated as wife. It depends on the context, and in the case of Matthew 5 it should be wife. It obviously doesn't make any sense that you couldn't lust after *any* woman because that would exclude your own wife and then there wouldn't be any more babies. Check the Tyndale bible on this verse, it uses the word wife.

If you look into church history sex was seen as bad for a long time, even things like sex between husband and wife used to be thought of as only necessary for procreation and not something we could use for pleasure. That's why most Bible translations chose to use the word wife in this verse because they had a very anti-sex theology. However this is not God's view of sex.

Lusting after a woman is fine as long as she is available and not belonging to another. The concern Jesus is expressing in Matthew 5 is over theft not sex.

 

[Torino]

Redstang281, not many people I come across are able to look past their biases, prejudices, and assumptions into what the scripture is actually teaching, but you are exactly right in what you wrote there. Peace bro.