Colossians 3:5

[savagewind]

no, thats not correct.

I am sure error is sin. Are you of the mind that sin means crime?

 

[Big_TJ]

Ok; where to start:

ok; let's start here :

firstly, i didnt say pornography was 'ok'

I said that what a couple did in their bedroom is between themselves and God. I've never seen an article written by the WT on the view they take of married couples taking pornographic images of themselves. And I would guess that the reason they havn't is because they also dont to tell married couples what they can do in their own bedrooms.

You are missing the point. The Watchtower article stated "GOD HATES PORNOGRAPHY" and use Colossian 3:5 as their scriptural evidence. But, according to what you are saying, God does not really hate pornography; he only hates it when it is fornication; correct?

But Colossians 3:5 is clear that 'fornication' which is 'pornea' which is 'all improper use of the sexual organs' is against Gods laws.

But this is about Fornication - not pornography. There is nothing in Colossian 3:5 that speaks about porn; you (or the JWs) are including porn as fornication. As i indicated, this is not correct, since a married couple can make porn and that could never constitute fornication. Therefore, to suggest that "God hates fornication and porn is fornication therfore God hates porn" is simple illogical; what do you think?
Secondly, how do you decide what constitue "improper use of sexual organ?" And, who decides if a particular use is "improper"? And, why didnt the bible, in any scripture that i know of, tells what is the "proper" use of a sex organ? In fact, what do you YOU think constitutes a "proper" use of a sex organ?

if couples want to take naked picks of themselves, there is nothing wrong with that in itself.

But, according to the Watchtower, God hates this - right? Because this would be porn, and. according to the Watchtower, God hates porn.

we didnt make up the definition.

I understand; but you are not simply using the definition - you are using it so loosely in a way that i think it was not defined to be used. Why would "oral sex or anal sex" constitute fornication? Is there somewhere written in the bible that tells exactly how sex should be done? In my mind, this seem like you are using the bible the justify your bigotry - even if the bible does no such thing; agreed?

Excuse my ignorance here, but why would you think 'interracial' has anything to do with sexual matters???

Simply because of how loosely you use the word fornication. You cannot prove, for instance, that interracial marriage does not constitute "unlawful sex" as defined by the term fornication. In fact, "interracial marriage" would be closer to "unlawful sex" than porn is to "fornication." There is no reference material that you can give me (i think) that include "pornography" into the category of "fornication." This is simply you (or JW) including it as fornication simply because of your (or JWs) personal distaste for it; It is not biblical. Interracial marriage in the states, for example, was illegal in certain states until as early as 1967. In the bible, God had spoken about the mixing of the races, for example (in fact, this was one of the reasons why he supposedly distroyed the earth with flood). So, interracial marriage would fit nicely in he definition of fornication sincce it was "unlawful intercourse" or "unlawful marriage."

 

[savagewind]

secondly, the Watchtower is always truthful.

What does this mean to you please?

no, thats not correct.

I'm sorry I posted too much in one post.

The question is; what does "the Watchtower is always truthful" mean to you please?

 

[Pegg]

Ok; where to start:
ok; let's start here :
You are missing the point. The Watchtower article stated "GOD HATES PORNOGRAPHY" and use Colossian 3:5 as their scriptural evidence. But, according to what you are saying, God does not really hate pornography; he only hates it when it is fornication; correct?

pornography is not usually a private matter between married couples. You've pulled that out of your hat after a long discussion about 'pornography' as it is found out in public. The sort of pornography which degrades and dehumanises the natural affection between a man and woman.

God does hate that because it is a form of fornication.

Then you moved the goal posts and asked what if its between a husband and wife alone. Now to that, i said i dont know. Plain and simple 'dont know'

But this is about Fornication - not pornography. There is nothing in Colossian 3:5 that speaks about porn; you (or the JWs) are including porn as fornication.

If you are looking at a woman who is not your wife, in a sexual act of any sort, you are committing fornication with your eyes.

If its your own wife, then my answer is 'i dont know' Perhaps that is a conscience matter for you & your wife to decide. When a husband and wife engage in sex, they do see each other anyway...this is why i dont know if taking video images or still photos of each other constitutes pornography. It is pornography, but its certainly not the same form of pornography we find in adult book stores.

As i indicated, this is not correct, since a married couple can make porn and that could never constitute fornication. Therefore, to suggest that "God hates fornication and porn is fornication therfore God hates porn" is simple illogical; what do you think?

I think we can sometimes twist the scriptures to suit our needs. If we really want something, we can make the bible say whatever we want. In this case you've chosen to not view pornography to be an act of fornication. That is between you and God. In my view, pornography certainly is an act of fornication and it would fit perfectly well in Colossian 5:3.

Secondly, how do you decide what constitue "improper use of sexual organ?" And, who decides if a particular use is "improper"? And, why didnt the bible, in any scripture that i know of, tells what is the "proper" use of a sex organ? In fact, what do you YOU think constitutes a "proper" use of a sex organ?

When God assigned the man and woman the job of procreation, he fully expected them to use their sex organs to fulfil that mandate. So God has sanctioned sexual relations in two ways:
1. between a man and woman bound to each other
2. as a means of procreation

Anything outside of these two prerequisites is improper.
Paul speaks of the improper use of the sex organs in Romans 1:26*That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27*and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

in the two scenarios above, sex was being used in a way contrary to what God purposed. 1. women/women
2. men/men
neither of these are proper because it is not between a man and woman, and it does not lead to procreation. So that is why its improper.

Pornography is not usually between a married man and woman. And certainly the 3rd person who is looking in is not a part of the marriage. So pornography is improper by its own very nature. It is strangers have sexual intercourse for money which is akin to prostitution. Im sure you know that prostitution is most certainly a grave sin in the bible.

Some forms of pornography brings animals into the act. So that is beastiality. Males having sex with males would require anal sex being carried out, which is 'improper' because it is contrary to Gods purpose for sex as a means of procreation.

Even masturbation is contrary to what is proper because masturbation is self-serving and has no intention of leading to procreation, nor is it between a man and wife.

But, according to the Watchtower, God hates this - right? Because this would be porn, and. according to the Watchtower, God hates porn.

I know God hates the sort of pornography mentioned above because his word clearly tells us. But i cant say what he thinks of married couples who keep it between themselves. Does God view their intimacy as the sorts of vile pornography being mass marketed today?

I dont know. Will the couple try to sell it and let others see it? that would make it no different to the pornography you buy in an adult store.

I understand; but you are not simply using the definition - you are using it so loosely in a way that i think it was not defined to be used. Why would "oral sex or anal sex" constitute fornication? Is there somewhere written in the bible that tells exactly how sex should be done? In my mind, this seem like you are using the bible the justify your bigotry - even if the bible does no such thing; agreed?

the Bible word for fornication includes all those practices.

Interracial marriage in the states, for example, was illegal in certain states until as early as 1967. In the bible, God had spoken about the mixing of the races, for example (in fact, this was one of the reasons why he supposedly distroyed the earth with flood). So, interracial marriage would fit nicely in he definition of fornication sincce it was "unlawful intercourse" or "unlawful marriage."

im sorry, but the bible was written by middle easterners, not americans.

American bigotry and slavery has nothing to do with God or his word. Gods word does not state in ANY passage that intermarriage is unlawful or amounts to fornication.

You are making up things that dont exist because you are looking for ways to justify the behavior. Its unfortunate that people do this.

If you want to view pornography, just view it. Why would you care what anyone else thinks? Why does our opinion matter to you? We apply our opinion to ourselves, not to you.

 

[Big_TJ]

Why does our opinion matter to you? We apply our opinion to ourselves, not to you.

Pegg

I want to just comment on this section. Is this correct? I would understand if I asked around on the JW's view or attend the congregration and hear the view, that this view is an opinion applied to your congregation. However, when I am waken in the day to be handed a magazine and urged to read it (which i did), this is now a view that is in public which can be questioned - what do you think?


Another thing - the claim that "all swams are black" is contradicted by seeing one white swam; agreed? If that is the case, then the claim that "God hates pornography" or whatever thing that God is supposed to hate is contradicted by showing one case where it is seen that God does not hate that "it." So your stance that "you don't know" God's view on pornography in a marriage situation itself nullifes the claim that "God hates it" or essentially reduce the claim to "God hates it in certain situation"; what do you think?

American bigotry and slavery has nothing to do with God or his word. Gods word does not state in ANY passage that intermarriage is unlawful or amounts to fornication.

Agreed; but that was the law; right? So that would make it unlawful - correct?

 

[Pegg]

Pegg

I want to just comment on this section. Is this correct? I would understand if I asked around on the JW's view or attend the congregration and hear the view, that this view is an opinion applied to your congregation. However, when I am waken in the day to be handed a magazine and urged to read it (which i did), this is now a view that is in public which can be questioned - what do you think?

the fact that we make our teachings and views public does not mean we expect you to comply. We are offering the public a choice because people are looking for guidance and we believe the bible provides the best guidance available. You can take it or leave it. And yes, you are welcome to question it... we would encourage you to do so. That is why we always provide scriptures that back up our views. Our views and teachings are based on the scriptures, and we are letting people know what the scriptures teach so they can make an informed decision about which direction they want their lives to take. And when there are no direct laws on a certain subject, we follow principles as outlined in the scriptures.

Another thing - the claim that "all swams are black" is contradicted by seeing one white swam; agreed? If that is the case, then the claim that "God hates pornography" or whatever thing that God is supposed to hate is contradicted by showing one case where it is seen that God does not hate that "it." So your stance that "you don't know" God's view on pornography in a marriage situation itself nullifes the claim that "God hates it" or essentially reduce the claim to "God hates it in certain situation"; what do you think?

just because I said i personally dont know the answer to your question, doesnt mean that God must approve of it.
All it means is that I personally dont know the answer in that circumstance.

the reason is because you changed the situation from a pornographic one to a the intimacy between a husband and wife.

We take nude photo's of our babies when they are first born...in such a situation it is perfectly innocent to do so. But if I was taking naked pictures of my children and selling them or posting them on the internet for peodphiles to view, then the situation is not so innocent anymore.

But let me just say this. If my own husband wanted to take some film or picture of me, even if it was just to be kept between us, I would not be ok with that. And if I was not ok with that, or viceversa, then it would be a sin in Gods eyes for him to do so. Love does not behave indecently, nor does it disregard the feelings of the other person. Sexual intimacy is a gift and should be treated with respect, dignity and honour.

Agreed; but that was the law; right? So that would make it unlawful - correct?

Would you be able to provide a scriptural reference to a law forbidding interracial marriage?

 

[Big_TJ]

the fact that we make our teachings and views public does not mean we expect you to comply. We are offering the public a choice because people are looking for guidance and we believe the bible provides the best guidance available. You can take it or leave it. And yes, you are welcome to question it... we would encourage you to do so. That is why we always provide scriptures that back up our views. Our views and teachings are based on the scriptures, and we are letting people know what the scriptures teach so they can make an informed decision about which direction they want their lives to take. And when there are no direct laws on a certain subject, we follow principles as outlined in the scriptures.

Noted . . .

just because I said i personally dont know the answer to your question, doesnt mean that God must approve of it.
All it means is that I personally dont know the answer in that circumstance.

the reason is because you changed the situation from a pornographic one to a the intimacy between a husband and wife.
etc, etc.

Pegg, you keep missing the point. As I said, the claim that all swams are black is contradicted by you seeing one white swam. The point of this is that the Watchtower claim that "god hates pornography" can only be shown if there are no case of pornography that "could" be accepted by God. By your own admission, you do not know the bible's stance on porn within a marriage context. So, at the very least, your claim shouldnt be so general . . not even considering that it is not biblical.

Would you be able to provide a scriptural reference to a law forbidding interracial marriage?

Actually, there is more biblical evidence of this than there is for "God hates porn" or for your claim that "porn is fornication." I dont want this to turn in a race discussin, but Deuteronomy 7 is a good chapter to support my case. Furthermore, you do not have to see this written so clearly - the point I am making is that Fornication, by definition, include "unlawful sex." So any sex that is unlawful is fornication. Laws are defined within societal norms and mores, so what is deemed "unlawful"in a society can be different in another society." If you agree that the word "fornication" covers "unlawful sex" then you should agree that (depending on where you live and when you lived there), interracial marriage was (and perhaps is, in some society) fornication.

 

[kjw47]

Noted . . .


Pegg, you keep missing the point. As I said, the claim that all swams are black is contradicted by you seeing one white swam. The point of this is that the Watchtower claim that "god hates pornography" can only be shown if there are no case of pornography that "could" be accepted by God. By your own admission, you do not know the bible's stance on porn within a marriage context. So, at the very least, your claim shouldnt be so general . . not even considering that it is not biblical.




Actually, there is more biblical evidence of this than there is for "God hates porn" or for your claim that "porn is fornication." I dont want this to turn in a race discussin, but Deuteronomy 7 is a good chapter to support my case. Furthermore, you do not have to see this written so clearly - the point I am making is that Fornication, by definition, include "unlawful sex." So any sex that is unlawful is fornication. Laws are defined within societal norms and mores, so what is deemed "unlawful"in a society can be different in another society." If you agree that the word "fornication" covers "unlawful sex" then you should agree that (depending on where you live and when you lived there), interracial marriage was (and perhaps is, in some society) fornication.

Did you ever read the bible? There are two prevelant tables in existence--Gods table and the table of demons. Gods word says-- One cannot partake of both. So which table would you think porn originates from?

 

[Pegg]

Actually, there is more biblical evidence of this than there is for "God hates porn" or for your claim that "porn is fornication." I dont want this to turn in a race discussin, but Deuteronomy 7 is a good chapter to support my case. Furthermore, you do not have to see this written so clearly - the point I am making is that Fornication, by definition, include "unlawful sex." So any sex that is unlawful is fornication. Laws are defined within societal norms and mores, so what is deemed "unlawful"in a society can be different in another society." If you agree that the word "fornication" covers "unlawful sex" then you should agree that (depending on where you live and when you lived there), interracial marriage was (and perhaps is, in some society) fornication.

The passage of scripture in Deuteronomy are the instructions to the Isrealites about not forming marriage alliances with people who do not worship Jehovah.

Deut 7:3*And you must form no marriage alliance with them. Your daughter you must not give to his son, and his daughter you must not take for your son. 4*For he will turn your son from following me, and they will certainly serve other gods;

You can see that the purpose is so that the Israelites would not turn aside from the worship of Jehovah.


But there is a flaw in your reasoning. YOu seem to have forgotten that people from other nations could join the Israelites in worship. They were called Proselytes. There are no laws forbidding the marriage of an Isrealite and a proselyte....and considering there were egyption proselytes, cananite proselytes and even moabite proselytes (a moabite woman was an ancestor of King David), your reasoning falls down. Isrealites could intermarry as long as the person was a proselyte.

 

[Big_TJ]

YOu seem to have forgotten that people from other nations could join the Israelites in worship. They were called Proselytes. There are no laws forbidding the marriage of an Isrealite and a proselyte....and considering there were egyption proselytes, cananite proselytes and even moabite proselytes (a moabite woman was an ancestor of King David), your reasoning falls down. Isrealites could intermarry as long as the person was a proselyte.

Really Pegg? How is the reasoning flawed? I was merely mentioning that interracial marriage, at least in some societies, (presently or in the past) was illegal so it would constitute unlawful sex (regardless of what the bible stance on this is); Is this ascertion right or wrong? If it is right, then this would be "fornication" since one of definitions for "fornication" is "unlawful sex." Therefore, by the same reason you used to defend the claim that "God hate porn because it is fornication," you would also be advocating that God hate(d) interracial marriage because it is/was fornication. See the link? This is what happen when bigotry takes place of sound reasoning.


Furthermore, what do you think about your (and the Watchtower) reasoning; isn't it flawed? Your reasoning is that "God hates xxx because it is fornication" when it can be clearly show that xxx is NOT always fornication.

 

[Pegg]

Really Pegg? How is the reasoning flawed? I was merely mentioning that interracial marriage, at least in some societies, (presently or in the past) was illegal so it would constitute unlawful sex (regardless of what the bible stance on this is); Is this ascertion right or wrong? If it is right, then this would be "fornication" since one of definitions for "fornication" is "unlawful sex." Therefore, by the same reason you used to defend the claim that "God hate porn because it is fornication," you would also be advocating that God hate(d) interracial marriage because it is/was fornication. See the link? This is what happen when bigotry takes place of sound reasoning.


Furthermore, what do you think about your (and the Watchtower) reasoning; isn't it flawed? Your reasoning is that "God hates xxx because it is fornication" when it can be clearly show that xxx is NOT always fornication.

Your reasoning is wrong because, as I pointed out, proselytes were of other nations and they could marry hebrews. King Davids Great Grandmother was Ruth the Moabite woman. She married Boaz. Thats intermarriage, yes? The Hebrews married people of other nations if the person was a worshiper of Jehovah.

And no I dont think the WT reasoning is flawed. The pornography discussed in the recent awake is the sort you find online or in bookstores. If pornography is being paid for, then it is displaying acts of prostitution. The people in the images are being paid for sexual services and they are not married...they are selling sex.

Its fornication at its worse.

 

[Big_TJ]

Your reasoning is wrong because, as I pointed out, proselytes were of other nations and they could marry hebrews. King Davids Great Grandmother was Ruth the Moabite woman. She married Boaz. Thats intermarriage, yes? The Hebrews married people of other nations if the person was a worshiper of Jehovah.

Actually, I am not claiming that interracial marriage is wrong; I was suggesting that you use fornication too loosely; if it can be used for porn, oral sex and anal sex as you suggested (none of which is illegal in several societies), then it can also be used for interracial marrigage (which is/was actually illegal).

And no I dont think the WT reasoning is flawed. The pornography discussed in the recent awake is the sort you find online or in bookstores. If pornography is being paid for, then it is displaying acts of prostitution. The people in the images are being paid for sexual services and they are not married...they are selling sex.

But when the Awake quoted Colossians 3:5, they implicitly stated " in short, God hates pornography." They did not make any differentiation; it was just a blanket statement that suggested that God hates all porn. I dont see any evidence provided that that blanket statement is correct, and base on our discussion, you do not see evidence of the accuracy of this blanket statement either.

Its fornication at its worse.

And this is my point; the JW is trying to use the Colossian 3:5 to suppport a bigotry. They hate something then try to use the bible to justify their hatred. That's like using the bible to promote sexist or racist views, in my opinion.

 

[Pegg]

Actually, I am not claiming that interracial marriage is wrong; I was suggesting that you use fornication too loosely; if it can be used for porn, oral sex and anal sex as you suggested (none of which is illegal in several societies), then it can also be used for interracial marrigage (which is/was actually illegal).


But when the Awake quoted Colossians 3:5, they implicitly stated " in short, God hates pornography." They did not make any differentiation; it was just a blanket statement that suggested that God hates all porn. I dont see any evidence provided that that blanket statement is correct, and base on our discussion, you do not see evidence of the accuracy of this blanket statement either.



And this is my point; the JW is trying to use the Colossian 3:5 to suppport a bigotry. They hate something then try to use the bible to justify their hatred. That's like using the bible to promote sexist or racist views, in my opinion.

I respect your right to your opinion on the subject. We also have an opinion on the subject and we base that opinion on our study of the scriptures.

What we are trying to do is bring our moral standards into harmony with what we know about God and his laws. If we seriously want to live in harmony with Gods sentimentality, then we need to put everything under the microscope and really analyse it.

I feel that pornography is something that promotes an animalistic view of sex. I think if we've been created in Gods image, we need to keep animal behaviors right out of our life. While sex is a natural act, it is something that should be respected and I dont feel that pornography is a respectful portrayal of it. Pornography certainly doesn't highlight the loving relationship that should be the motivating force for a couple engaging in sex and it doesnt uphold Gods standard of marriage and committment.

I do believe God hates pornography, 100%. It degrades everything about human relationships and the purpose for which sex was designed.... so how can God like it? He can't like what has been distorted and twisted from the purpose for which he set it.

 

[Big_TJ]

I respect your right to your opinion on the subject. We also have an opinion on the subject and we base that opinion on our study of the scriptures.

What we are trying to do is bring our moral standards into harmony with what we know about God and his laws. If we seriously want to live in harmony with Gods sentimentality, then we need to put everything under the microscope and really analyse it.

I feel that pornography is something that promotes an animalistic view of sex. I think if we've been created in Gods image, we need to keep animal behaviors right out of our life. While sex is a natural act, it is something that should be respected and I dont feel that pornography is a respectful portrayal of it. Pornography certainly doesn't highlight the loving relationship that should be the motivating force for a couple engaging in sex and it doesnt uphold Gods standard of marriage and committment.

I do believe God hates pornography, 100%. It degrades everything about human relationships and the purpose for which sex was designed.... so how can God like it? He can't like what has been distorted and twisted from the purpose for which he set it.

And this comment I can totally agree with! What I take offence about is an attitude of "I dont like it so God can't like it" and, worst, the attempt to use the scriptures to justify that mindset which i think is bigotry.

 

[Pegg]

And this comment I can totally agree with! What I take offence about is an attitude of "I dont like it so God can't like it" and, worst, the attempt to use the scriptures to justify that mindset which i think is bigotry.

do you think pornography has produced good things in society?

In what way does it benefit women or men?

 

[Pegg]

And this comment I can totally agree with! What I take offence about is an attitude of "I dont like it so God can't like it" and, worst, the attempt to use the scriptures to justify that mindset which i think is bigotry.

do you think pornography has produced good things in society?

In what way does it benefit women or men?

 

[Big_TJ]

do you think pornography has produced good things in society?

Great question! I am not an expert on porn nor its effect on society, but various studies has shown respondents reporting that porn have had positive effect on their attitude towards sex, their attitude towards the opposite sex and their overall sex life (Hald and Malamuth for example).

Also, according to Dr Diamond at University of Hawii's Pacific Center for Sex and Society:

In every country in which it has been scientifically examined (Croatia, The Czech Republic, Denmark, West Germany, Poland, Japan, Sweden, the United States) according to governmental records, that as the amount and availability of sexually explicit materials dramatically increased, the incidence of sex crimes decreased or remained about level. This would probably hold as well for the Irish Republic should the matter be scientifically studied.
[emphasis mine]

So if a study shows that persons life benefits from porn (even if you have studies showing that porn causes some to the society), then the answer to your question is yes; porn has produced good things in society. Do not forget, also, that the porn industry brings billion of dollars to the economy of several societies - which can only be good for the society.

On the other hand, I could not find any studies that conclusively link pornography to the ill of society (or being "bad" for the society). For example, there is no studies that I could find that links the viewing of pornography to rape, for instance. Could you point me to any? I would really appreciate taking a look at that study.

I suspect that your line of thought has a lot to do with your personal thinking and your personal morals, which is absolutely fine. However, when you attempt to generalize these morals then you start running into problems.

In what way does it benefit women or men?

Seriously Pegg? Isn't the porn industry a multi billion dollar industry? Even discounting what I would call "personal porn" (porn involving partners), wouldn't it be benefiting men and/or women for it to be a billion dollar industry? At the very least, it does provide a means of income for hundreds of men and women. It also provide a means of comfort for several men and women (similar to the comfort provided by a football match), and the list goes on.

 

[Pegg]

Great question! I am not an expert on porn nor its effect on society, but various studies has shown respondents reporting that porn have had positive effect on their attitude towards sex, their attitude towards the opposite sex and their overall sex life (Hald and Malamuth for example).

Also, according to Dr Diamond at University of Hawii's Pacific Center for Sex and Society:



So if a study shows that persons life benefits from porn (even if you have studies showing that porn causes some to the society), then the answer to your question is yes; porn has produced good things in society. Do not forget, also, that the porn industry brings billion of dollars to the economy of several societies - which can only be good for the society.

On the other hand, I could not find any studies that conclusively link pornography to the ill of society (or being "bad" for the society). For example, there is no studies that I could find that links the viewing of pornography to rape, for instance. Could you point me to any? I would really appreciate taking a look at that study.

There are a whole list of studies in this one wiki article:

"Pornography, especially internet pornography, delivers increasingly novel and exciting sexual images, which causes users to become tolerant to less exciting images and to seek even more novel and extreme images. This tolerance may also translate to sexual experience in general, leading to erectile dysfunction as users of extreme pornography are not aroused by normal sexual experiences. Pornography users may need to fantasize about or mimic pornographic scenes in order to be aroused during sex.

Doidge, Norman (2007). "Acquiring tastes". The Brain That Changes Itself. Penguin Books. pp. 105–106.


Pornography addiction is a behavioral addiction characterized by compulsive, repeated use of pornographic material until it causes serious negative consequences to one's physical, mental, social, and/or financial well-being.[2][3]

Stein, Dan J.; Hollander, Eric; Rothbaum, Barbara Olasov (31 August 2009). Textbook of Anxiety Disorders. American Psychiatric Pub. pp. 359–. ISBN 978-1-58562-254-2. Retrieved 24 April 2010.

Parashar A, Varma A (April 2007). "Behavior and substance addictions: is the world ready for a new category in the DSM-V?". CNS Spectr 12 (4): 257; author reply 258–9. PMID 17503551.


In 'Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography', a review of pornography research conducted for the Surgeon General in 1986 Zillmann noted that inconsistencies in the literature on pornography exist, but overall concluded that extensive viewing of pornographic material may produce some negative sociological effects, including a decreased respect for long-term, monogamous relationships, and an attenuated desire for procreation.[5] He describes the theoretical basis for these conclusions stating:
"The values expressed in pornography clash so obviously with the family concept, and they potentially undermine the traditional values that favor marriage, family, and children... Pornographic scripts dwell on sexual engagements of parties who have just met, who are in no way attached or committed to each other, and who will part shortly, never to meet again... Sexual gratification in pornography is not a function of emotional attachment, of kindness, of caring, and especially not of continuance of the relationship, as such continuance would translate into responsibilities, curtailments, and costs."..Zillmann, pages 16-17


in 'The effects of Pornography: An International Perspective'. a paper written in 1965[10] called, Sexual Deviation as Conditioned Behavior: A Hypothesis, R.J. McGuire found that the viewing of pornography can serve as a source of a paraphilic "vivid sexual fantasy" which, when contemplated during masturbation, may condition men into perversion.[11]
McGuire, R.J.; Carlisle, J.M.; Young, B.G. (1964). "Sexual deviations as conditioned behaviour: A hypothesis". Behaviour Research and Therapy 2: 185–90.

In a prison interview conducted by Gail Dines, rape of a prepubescent child followed "habitual" consumption of child porn "within six months," although the men were previously "horrified at the idea".
'[Bindel, Julie, The Truth About the Porn Industry': Gail Dines, the Author of an Explosive New Book About the Sex Industry, on Why Pornography Has Never Been a Greater Threat to Our Relationships, in The (U.K.) Guardian, Jul. 2, 2010, section Life & Style, subsection Women, as accessed Jul. 17, 2010.


In 1986, a review of epidemiological studies by Neil M. Malamuth found that the quantity of pornographic material viewed by men was positively correlated with degree to which they endorsed sexual assault.
Malamuth, Neil M. (August 4, 1986). Do Sexually Violent Media Indirectly Contribute to Antisocial Behavior?. Public Health Service of United States. p. 38.

Malamuth's work describes about Check (1984) who found among a diverse sample of Canadian men that the more exposure to pornography led to higher acceptance of rape myths, violence against women, and general sexual callousness. In another study, Briere, Corne, Runtz and Neil M. Malamuth, (1984) reported similar correlations in a sample involving college males."


You dont have to go far to find that there have been many studies done highlighting the negative consequences of pornography on society.


And if you do a quick google 'porn addiction' you get a whole array of news articles and websites about this issue and thg problem its causing so many young men. Read some of the accounts in there about how pornography is destroying lives, it becomes very difficult to justify.

Seriously Pegg? Isn't the porn industry a multi billion dollar industry? Even discounting what I would call "personal porn" (porn involving partners), wouldn't it be benefiting men and/or women for it to be a billion dollar industry? At the very least, it does provide a means of income for hundreds of men and women. It also provide a means of comfort for several men and women (similar to the comfort provided by a football match), and the list goes on.

basically, you are advocating for prostitution on a grand scale. Men/boys are spending billions of dollars on prostitutes, and women are prostituting themselves for money.

Money is nice, but not at this cost. Im sure you know that prostitution is something the bible condemns. God certainly hates it. Anyone who is concerned about their relationship with God needs to seriously consider this.

 

[Big_TJ]

Pegg, I am fine if you wish to not continue this discussion, but if you wouldn't mind continuing, I would only wish that you be honest.

Here is and example of your dishonesty:

There are a whole list of studies in this one wiki article:

"Pornography, especially internet pornography, delivers increasingly novel and exciting sexual images, which causes users to become tolerant to less exciting images and to seek even more novel and extreme images. This tolerance may also translate to sexual experience in general, leading to erectile dysfunction as users of extreme pornography are not aroused by normal sexual experiences. Pornography users may need to fantasize about or mimic pornographic scenes in order to be aroused during sex.

Doidge, Norman (2007). "Acquiring tastes". The Brain That Changes Itself. Penguin Books. pp. 105–106.

Notice that you include a quotation mark at the beginning of pornography ("pornography, especially internet pornography, blah blah blah). You including the quote give the reader the impression that that entire section was quoted from the reference provided. This not the case; you copied that section directly from Wikipedia and there is no quotation on the site. Furthermore, the reference material that is provided is listed as a subscript on the last line which suggest that reference is in relation to the line "Pornography users may need to fantasize about or mimic pornographic scenes in order to be aroused during sex."

Furthermore, this book is NOT a study; it is a book written on how the brain works. Secondly, it does not deal with pornography; it dealt with pornography addiction. Also, it does not mention ANY effect of pornography on society so I am not sure why you use this reference.

Pornography addiction is a behavioral addiction characterized by compulsive, repeated use of pornographic material until it causes serious negative consequences to one's physical, mental, social, and/or financial well-being.[2][3]

Stein, Dan J.; Hollander, Eric; Rothbaum, Barbara Olasov (31 August 2009). Textbook of Anxiety Disorders. American Psychiatric Pub. pp. 359–. ISBN 978-1-58562-254-2. Retrieved 24 April 2010.

Again, this is about pornographic addiction; not pornography. We can agree that ANY addiction is usually bad.

Parashar A, Varma A (April 2007). "Behavior and substance addictions: is the world ready for a new category in the DSM-V?". CNS Spectr 12 (4): 257; author reply 258–9. PMID 17503551.


In 'Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography', a review of pornography research conducted for the Surgeon General in 1986 Zillmann noted that inconsistencies in the literature on pornography exist, but overall concluded that extensive viewing of pornographic material may produce some negative sociological effects, including a decreased respect for long-term, monogamous relationships, and an attenuated desire for procreation.[5] He describes the theoretical basis for these conclusions stating:
"The values expressed in pornography clash so obviously with the family concept, and they potentially undermine the traditional values that favor marriage, family, and children... Pornographic scripts dwell on sexual engagements of parties who have just met, who are in no way attached or committed to each other, and who will part shortly, never to meet again... Sexual gratification in pornography is not a function of emotional attachment, of kindness, of caring, and especially not of continuance of the relationship, as such continuance would translate into responsibilities, curtailments, and costs."..Zillmann, pages 16-17

Again, this is about addiction - we can agree that ANY addition is usually bad.

in 'The effects of Pornography: An International Perspective'. a paper written in 1965[10] called, Sexual Deviation as Conditioned Behavior: A Hypothesis, R.J. McGuire found that the viewing of pornography can serve as a source of a paraphilic "vivid sexual fantasy" which, when contemplated during masturbation, may condition men into perversion.[11]
McGuire, R.J.; Carlisle, J.M.; Young, B.G. (1964). "Sexual deviations as conditioned behaviour: A hypothesis". Behaviour Research and Therapy 2: 185–90.

Did you note that this is an HYPOTHESIS? Where is the study?

In a prison interview conducted by Gail Dines, rape of a prepubescent child followed "habitual" consumption of child porn "within six months," although the men were previously "horrified at the idea".
'[Bindel, Julie, The Truth About the Porn Industry': Gail Dines, the Author of an Explosive New Book About the Sex Industry, on Why Pornography Has Never Been a Greater Threat to Our Relationships, in The (U.K.) Guardian, Jul. 2, 2010, section Life & Style, subsection Women, as accessed Jul. 17, 2010.

Pegg, you copied this from the story in the Guardian. The story, itself, did not speak about any such study. What it spoke about is a book (Pornland) written by Dines that mentioned a study. Have you read that book? Also, Isn't Dines Gail an anti-pornography activist? If so, how unbias would her work have been?

In 1986, a review of epidemiological studies by Neil M. Malamuth found that the quantity of pornographic material viewed by men was positively correlated with degree to which they endorsed sexual assault.
Malamuth, Neil M. (August 4, 1986). Do Sexually Violent Media Indirectly Contribute to Antisocial Behavior?. Public Health Service of United States. p. 38.
Malamuth's work describes about Check (1984) who found among a diverse sample of Canadian men that the more exposure to pornography led to higher acceptance of rape myths, violence against women, and general sexual callousness. In another study, Briere, Corne, Runtz and Neil M. Malamuth, (1984) reported similar correlations in a sample involving college males."

You failed to copy this section when you were copying:

"Malamuth's work has been criticized by other authors, however, such as Ferguson and Hartley (2009) who argue Malamuth has exaggerated positive findings and has not always properly discussed null findings.[16]

It is dishonest, in my mind, that you only copy and paste sections that seemingly support your view - that's "quote-mining."

You dont have to go far to find that there have been many studies done highlighting the negative consequences of pornography on society.

NONE of what you copied from Wikipedia suggest such thing. At the most, they speak about pornography addiction - not pornography. As mentioned before, almost every addiction is bad.

And if you do a quick google 'porn addiction' you get a whole array of news articles and websites about this issue and thg problem its causing so many young men. Read some of the accounts in there about how pornography is destroying lives, it becomes very difficult to justify.

Agreed. What I had asked if there were any studies on porn that conclusively show it has any link to the ills of society. You haven't provided anything in that regards; you are just providing materials on "porn addiction."

basically, you are advocating for prostitution on a grand scale. Men/boys are spending billions of dollars on prostitutes, and women are prostituting themselves for money.

Money is nice, but not at this cost. Im sure you know that prostitution is something the bible condemns. God certainly hates it. Anyone who is concerned about their relationship with God needs to seriously consider this.

Actually I am not advocating anything, I simply provide an answer to the question that you asked. You asked how does men or women benefit from porn and that's what I answered. Was my answer incorrect? And why are you switching the discussion to "prostitution?" Is there a reason for this strawman?:thud:

 

[Pegg]

Pegg, I am fine if you wish to not continue this discussion, but if you wouldn't mind continuing, I would only wish that you be honest.

Here is and example of your dishonesty:
It is dishonest, in my mind, that you only copy and paste sections that seemingly support your view - that's "quote-mining."

now you are just being silly! I started and ended everything i pasted from the wiki article with quotation marks because it was a copy and paste from the article. That is what you do when you are quoting from somewhere.

you asked for a reference to anything suggesting pornogrpahy is negative and I gave you wiki article with a list of them. Take it up with Wiki and the authors of the various studies.

Actually I am not advocating anything, I simply provide an answer to the question that you asked. You asked how does men or women benefit from porn and that's what I answered. Was my answer incorrect? And why are you switching the discussion to "prostitution?" Is there a reason for this strawman?:thud:

what do you call it when someone is paid for sex? A prostitute.
What do you call a person who facilitates sex between strangers. A pimp.
And what do you call a person who pays for sex? A.....?

the porn industry is run by pimps and prostitutes and advocating for their industry is to support it. Of course God hates it, he outlawed that sort of behavior in the mosaic law and in the christian scriptures.