Possible solution to free oneself from lust and pornography

[ManofGrace]

I have stumbled across some interesting articles about these issues that really seem to hit the nail on the head in some areas. Some of the points and reasoning brought up in these articles seem to make a lot of sense but I just wanted some other opinions on them. One of the viewpoints brought up in these articles was that men aren’t actually visually stimulated but the reason why it seems so is because we truly believe we are. It goes on saying that we are conditioned by our sex saturated society to believe that we are visually stimulated when we are in fact relationally stimulated. Some interesting points and things to contemplate and consider. It also says that the hook of the pornography feeds on the false belief that we are visually stimulated and without this false belief one will lose all desire to view it.

Here is the link to the website and their articles:
Make sure you read them thoroughly and carefully otherwise they might give you the wrong intentions. These article are AGAINST pornography not for it.
mychainsaregone.org/MCAG-article-lies-intro.htm

Again thoughts and opinions on this are appreciated.

 

[Luke_K]

I agree that men can be conditioned to become aroused at any sight of the female figure, but I disagree that me aren’t naturally visually stimulated by it. I remember when I was a kid and beginning puberty, I was aroused by the feminine figure well before I ever saw pornography or conditioned myself. It quite simply happened without my being aware of what was going on. I only understood what happened a while later.

But the article is basically true in that we can train ourselves to not become automatically aroused at a naked image. However, when a man is first beginning to shake off the chains of lust, it’s good for him to avoid those images because he is weak. Only after a very long time will he be able to see those things and perceive them the way he is supposed to.

 

[ManofGrace]

I agree that men can be conditioned to become aroused at any sight of the female figure, but I disagree that me aren’t naturally visually stimulated by it. I remember when I was a kid and beginning puberty, I was aroused by the feminine figure well before I ever saw pornography or conditioned myself. It quite simply happened without my being aware of what was going on. I only understood what happened a while later.

But the article is basically true in that we can train ourselves to not become automatically aroused at a naked image. However, when a man is first beginning to shake off the chains of lust, it’s good for him to avoid those images because he is weak. Only after a very long time will he be able to see those things and perceive them the way he is supposed to.

The reason they say that we are not visually stimulated is not due to the visual aspect at all actually. They say that it is due to the communication that the women is giving with her body and body language. aka this is the nonverbal communication. They say that the female form is not actually that which is arousing but the way they communicate it is. For example a nude form of art would not invoke sexual desire in most people. For some it might but im talking about in most cases here. Pornography however has the women display her body in a way the communicates the type of things that men do find arousing. This reinforces the belief that we are aroused relationally not visually. Obviously in this regard it is completely wrong and an insult to God but it is not the body itself that it is evil it is the intention behind it. This is not trying to say that the solution to the problem is to look at naked women and not lust but to realize that sexual stimulation can be controllable and is not directly a result of the female form. So enjoy the beauty of a woman but don’t make her into a desire to gratify your sexual lust. Again just my two cents you gotta really read all the articles if you want a complete understanding of the concept they are trying to present.