Sin vs. Sin!

  • Thread starter Thread starter bluezone7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bluezone7

Guest
I have an argument I am trying to develop for this forum. Are sexually explicit pictures/videos that are marketed more towards men the same as trashy romance novels/ magazines that are marketed more towards women? My point is that men by nature are more stimulated by what they see (visually) while women by nature are more stimulated by what they read and hear. This is my assumption based on all the biological and psychological data I have read. Since both trashy romance novels and sexually explicit pictures lead to lust and promote illegitimate sex. Do they both qualify as pornography? Opinions please.
 
Sounds right to me. I’ve read a few romance novels, and they are basically.porn. (Don’t read them anymore!)
 
40.png
bluezone7:
I have an argument I am trying to develop for this forum. Are sexually explicit pictures/videos that are marketed more towards men the same as trashy romance novels/ magazines that are marketed more towards women? My point is that men by nature are more stimulated by what they see (visually) while women by nature are more stimulated by what they read and hear. This is my assumption based on all the biological and psychological data I have read. Since both trashy romance novels and sexually explicit pictures lead to lust and promote illegitimate sex. Do they both qualify as pornography? Opinions please.
Click to expand...
YUP, they are semi-porn. Or garbage.
 
Porn exploits real people in those pictures/videos, trashy novels are fictional characters. I think both are wrong but porn is definately worse.
 
Both are evil in nature, but I would say the extent of the evil is graver in the porn. While both attack the same virtue of Chastity, reading only goes so far while a picture or video leave no doubt.😦 Thanks and God Bless.
 
I voted “no” because the romance novels only work for those who speak the language. The porn works for all sighted people.

To your assertion, I agree that novels can be just as trashy as porn because they affect different people differently. I wonder whether the average male OB/GYN would be enticed by porn, or just look at it like it was just work to be done.

Alan
 
Unfortunatly, as discusting as romance novels are, porn is infinently worse. It actually invoves REAL people doing illicet things. In the books, it’s the imagination. It is, however, targeted at women as a porn-like rescource, but the mental images they produce are not as long-term, or poisionious as veiwd porn (for many reasons)
 
I voted yes, but would qualify that response depending on how trashy the novel! Just as I see a difference, albeit in degree only, between the SI Swimsuit issue & Hustler magazine. (It’s been quite a few years since my “porn days.” Does Hustler even still exist, or has internet porn driven print porn out of business?)
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
I voted “no” because the romance novels only work for those who speak the language. The porn works for all sighted people.
Click to expand...
Actually, visual porn normanlly disgust me. I hate it. Yuck! . So I am one of those sighted people that it doesn’t work for. (At least I am sighted as long as I keep my contacts in.🙂 )

I would like to point out that not all romance novels are trashy. Jane AUstin was basically writting romance novels and they are not anything like porn.

I think that the real danger in very trashy romance novels is that most women don’t see it as a type of porn. They don’t kow how it influence them. As far as which is worse, I would say visual porn simply because, as one poster says, it involves real people.

I did vote yes on the poll.
 
40.png
rec:
I voted yes, but would qualify that response depending on how trashy the novel! Just as I see a difference, albeit in degree only, between the SI Swimsuit issue & Hustler magazine. (It’s been quite a few years since my “porn days.” Does Hustler even still exist, or has internet porn driven print porn out of business?)
Click to expand...
Oops, you got me there. I do own some Porn now that you mention it. In the 80’s, I bought the Miss America issue of Penthouse magazine, but after my not having seen it in decades, it got destroyed last month in a fire, all except part of the cover with Vanessa Williams in her crown, George Burns, and the headlines "Oh God, She’s Nude!’ More recently, probably about ten years ago, my wife bought me the Sports Illustrated 25 year swim suit issue. It may have survived the fire, but we don’t know yet.

Alan

P.S. For those who may not have known, George Burns once starred in a movie “Oh God” in which God (Burns) appears to give a message of faith to a store employee (John Denver).
 
40.png
rec:
IDoes Hustler even still exist, or has internet porn driven print porn out of business?)
Click to expand...
Hustler, apparently, still exists. Do you remember the young woman that was captured in Iraq? Jessica ?. Larry Flynt had acquired some nude photos of her taken, I think, with a boy friend. He was going to print them but the public outcry was great enough that he backed down and claimed that he had only purchased them to protect her from other pornographers. Thus far, those pictures have not been published on the internet or in the magazines.
 
If those novels cause one to become sexually aroused, I would have to say yes they are just as bad.
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
More recently, probably about ten years ago, my wife bought me the Sports Illustrated 25 year swim suit issue.
Click to expand...
:bigyikes: Let’s just say I wouldn’t do the same for my hubby!
 
Much different from porno in my opinion. I’ve read a few pages here and there of “romance” novels (my 70+ year old mother loves these things!), and I just consider them to be really bad writing.

Peace.
 
Yes, if sexually explicit and with desire to arouse the reader, they are sinful for the writer. When read, if one becomes sexually aroused and dwells on it/fanticizes, it is sinful for the reader. On the other hand, picture porn exploits people in the worst of ways and anyone purchasing them has an objective to become aroused. In addition, it encourages men and women to sin by paying them for exposing themselves and fornicating!

Love & peace in Christ,
Bob
 
40.png
rayne89:
Porn exploits real people in those pictures/videos, trashy novels are fictional characters. I think both are wrong but porn is definately worse.
Click to expand...
“Legitimate” (as if) child porn producers use sketches of fictional children and created digital images of fiction children in order to legally produce child porn.

I hardly commend for their efforts to “save” real children.
 
Timidity said:
“Legitimate” (as if) child porn producers use sketches of fictional children and created digital images of fiction children in order to legally produce child porn.

I hardly commend for their efforts to “save” real children.
Click to expand...

I do not recall the OP mentioning anything about child porn of actual children or other wise. Anything that uses children as sexual objects is horrid and should be illegal, but using a real child is still worse than digital one. A real child is suffering the mental anguish of abuse compared to a non-existant fictional one.

Are you equating for example seeing a video of an actual person being beaten to death the same as a digitally created scene of a person being beaten to death.
 
okay so i just wanted to point out James 2:10, go read it yourself you need the practice, just know that it is just as bad to read bad books as it is to watch bad movies, neither is worse, read the passage!!!

-Luke
 
First of all, I don’t think you can put all romance novels into one basket.
But, even more to the point is what several have all ready said:** porn movies use real people**. People who are degraded, who often are unhappy, disturbed people to start with, & then are dragged even lower. Many of them end up dying of aids…
Porn magazines also use real people, & are degrading to them.

I honestly don’t think that most people who read romance novels do so for sexual arousal. I know that the **only **purpose of porn is to arouse people.
I think that this is the big difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top