What is sinful about looking at pornography?

[Seeker2010]

Abu can write anyway he pleases. After all, freedom to publish whatever you like…

You are correct. I was asking for a courtesy, not suggesting that his post is (or should be) illegal. Quite the contrary.

Show us where this is written, or stated, or else stop telling gross untruths.

Pretty much every attempt to legislate morality has it’s roots in religious doctrine. Laws against sodomy, laws against sex toys, laws against pornography, blue laws. Fortunately, they’ve almost universally been struck down when challenged, but that doesn’t seem to stop ya’ll from trying.

Also show us where the courts have stated where “God said so” is declared abhorrent to the Constitution.

Lawrence v. Texas is probably the best case I can think of, though there are others. In the event you’re not familiar with Lawrence, a homosexual male couple were arrested and charged with sodomy. They were ‘guilty’ insofar as they did what they were accused of doing, but one of them decided to fight the charges on constitutional grounds, despite the fact that the penalty was merely a fine of some $300-something.

Ultimately he won, as the supreme court found no compelling state interest for Texas to outlaw sodomy, so they struck down the law. That had the effect of cancelling all similar laws in the country, and while they were all virtually completely unenforced, they existed in some places. Prior to Lawrence, in the state of Georgia, it was technically a felony to engage in oral sex with your spouse.

The founding Fathers wrote a Constitution expressly recognising Natural Law rights. The Catholic Church’s Catechism is a Natural Law document. So please, show us how one Natural Law document is abhorrent to another Natural Law document.

Apparently, they come to different conclusions as to what is, and what is not ‘natural law’. Otherwise contraception and pornography would be allowed to be banned, and they are not. In fact, banning them is not permitted as they are protected.

Demonstrably false? OK, start demonstrating.

Simple enough to do. The timeline laid out by the bible between Adam and Jesus was roughly 4,000 years. The timeline between Jesus and today is roughly 2,000 years. Ergo, humanity has existed for 6,000 years.

Except we know to a scientific certainty that humanity has existed for an order of magnitude longer than that. We know to a scientific certainty that a global flood never occurred.

What more do you need?

The US Constitution gaurantees freedom from religious persecution. When it suite you you will try and tell everyone the Constitution gaurantees almost absolute freedom, yet here you are suggesting that the Constitution will somehow allow persecution.

Actually, for the most part you are correct. The Constitution does indeed guarantee us freedom of religion, and guarantees us freedom from laws based upon nothing more than ‘god said so’. That doesn’t stop ya’ll from trying, though. Numerous laws have been passed (and subsequently struck down) attempting to regulate internet content. Laws presently exist, and sadly, are enforced, against broadcast content. I think that’s a fluke of timing, as when broadcast medium was invented people were much more likely to be okay with the idea of religiously based laws. Were TV invented today, it would not be the subject of so much regulation, and likewise had the internet been invented in the 40’s it probably would be, too.

You have a screwy marriage

Actually, I have an awesome marriage, and an awesome wife who loves me greatly, as I do her.

So again, I ask why you persist in coming to this forum?

Asked and answered.

 

[Seeker2010]

Sorry for being caught out trying to label the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church as wanting pornography banned.

I never said that. In fact, in the very post where I said it was the only one that I was personally aware of, I specifically stated that I expected there were others. And in fact, most, if not all groups calling for the prohibition of pornography have at their roots theological objections.

Strangely, you are the one who wrote you don’t live in a democracy. The whole world thinks the US is a democratic nation. All America thinks it is a democratic nation. All except Seeker. Maybe you should move.

As a point of FACT, not conjecture, not debate, not opinion, the USA is a constitutional Representative republic. Not a democracy. When was the last time you voted on a budget? A tax? Did you vote for or against sending troops into Iraq?

While some states have a referendum process, allowing the people to directly vote for or against state laws and/or state constitutional amendments, no such mechanism exists for the federal government. The only thing you get to vote on is who the person is who gets to vote on your behalf.

Don’t misunderstand me, that does not mean we are not ‘democratic’ insofar as the power ultimately rests with the people, and they have the right (and mechanism) to change the structure. But our form of government is not a democracy. If it were, the House and Senate would not exist, and we, the people, would be constantly voting on those things that we empower to them today. That may or may not be a better way to do things, but it certainly is a busier one.

Show us where morality is being forced on you, or anyone else. C’mon Seeker, have the gonads to furnish proof of this.

Superbowl. Janet Jackson. 'Nuff said.

Now, you may say, and I’d even agree, that the superbowl is not a place or time where strippers ought to be broadcast. But the reality is that broadcasters (and ONLY broadcasters) are prohibited from publishing content of strippers at any time or place. You yourself would have pornography banned, and while I’m assuming facts not in evidence (because you haven’t said so to my knowledge), it wouldn’t surprise me one iota if you’d ban swing clubs. The city of Phoenix did!

 

[Logic101]

“Any action is a mortal sin against chastity when it is performed with the intention of stimulating or promoting venereal pleasure.”
Chastity: A Guide for Teens and Young Adults by Gerald Kelly: This book clearly explains; True friendship, Choice of a Marriage Partner, General Attraction, Personal Attraction, The Meaning of Chastity…
Read for free online at: www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/chastity.html

 

[Seeker2010]

“Any action is a mortal sin against chastity when it is performed with the intention of stimulating or promoting venereal pleasure.”

Without venereal pleasure, procreation is impossible, for pleasure is required to induce orgasm and orgasm is, of itself, pleasurable.

 

[John21652]

Without venereal pleasure, procreation is impossible, for pleasure is required to induce orgasm and orgasm is, of itself, pleasurable.

Now isn’t that as hedonistic a sentence as one could ever wish to read!?

You are also just plain wrong. Again. A woman can become pregnant without any venereal pleasure whatsoever. Think A.I, or rape. Yet according to you, without the presence of “venereal pleasure”, procreation is impossible.

Notwithstanding that, Seeker, you have done the hedonists of history proud. You seek the ‘right’ to seek pleasure and pleasure only, to fiddle away while ‘Rome’ burns down around you, for that is what the fate of hedonistic societies has largely been down through the ages. You sentence also, once again and probably even better this time, displays you as nothing other than a self centered, pleasure seeking, morally vacuous living entity with little, or nothing, to offer the human race except your own grunts and groans of pleasure. Sadly, you seek to drag society down to your degenerate level. That is why so many organisations, as well as Catholics, want pornography banned.

 

[Seeker2010]

Now isn’t that as hedonistic a sentence as one could ever wish to read!?

It’s a statement of fact. Certainly, with the intervention of medical assistance, sperm can be milked from a male and injected into a female, but the more conventional way of getting pregnant is through sexual intercourse. Venereal (e.g. genital) pleasure is required in order to create an orgasm which is, all by itself, pleasurable, and is required for procreation to occur.

So the post that claimed venereal pleasure was inherently sinful would also mean that procreation is, itself, sinful.

Which even you would agree is ridiculous.

A woman can become pregnant without any venereal pleasure whatsoever. Think A.I, or rape. Yet according to you, without the presence of “venereal pleasure”, procreation is impossible.

Again, artificial insemination can be accomplished in such a manner as to create no genital pleasure for either male or female, but it’s not the conventional way. Rape is outside the scope of our discussion.

You seek the ‘right’ to seek pleasure and pleasure only, to fiddle away while ‘Rome’ burns down around you, for that is what the fate of hedonistic societies has largely been down through the ages.

Now you’re putting words in my mouth. I have never desired, nor endorsed a life of ONLY pleasure. I’m realistic enough to know that is not possible, except possibly for the few who are financially set for life. It would be nice, but it would also be nice if I had wings. I don’t.

Sadly, you seek to drag society down to your degenerate level. That is why so many organisations, as well as Catholics, want pornography banned.

I’ve done all that? No, that’s been society’s direction, because it’s what society wants. You guys are the ones swimming upstream. Porn is legal, and enjoys first amendment protection. That will never change, barring a constitutional convention or the literal failure and break-up of the USA.

 

[karoleck]

Thank you for your comments Seeker I am not really interested in re- quoting your hedonistic ravings.I did notice that you never replied about your “persona” as being “spiritual”.
The only concusion I can make from this, is that it is a home truth you are not prepared to face.The nearest “spiritual” being that I can think of that comes nearest to supporting sodomy,pornography and deviant sexual behavior is a fallen archangel called satan or the devil.I can only suppose that he is the evil being that you can equate to on your level that you could call yourself “spiritual”.

As for your claim that only the Catholic Church dislikes pornography; just shows that you are out of touch with the real world that I live in!! In my work I visit offices,factories,warehouses etc.in my youth especially in factories there were pornographic images of nude women posted everywhere-for all to see.BUT due to the womans’ liberation movement and the influence of unions within these places.They rightly obtained government legislation to make it an offence to have these pictures in public view degrading a woman.

But you just stick to having your head in the sand and ignore the world around you!!

O,my Jesus,save us from the fires of HELL,lead all souls to HEAVEN,especially those most in need of Your MERCY.Amen.

 

[Abu]

Seeker2010
Do be kind enough to talk TO me and not ABOUT me.

As this is a Catholic Answers discussion board, I think it is important to address where opinions digress from the basis of fact and truth and to avoid personalities. I address readers.

There was no Adam, there was no Eve, ergo there was no ‘Original Sin’, and humans have most certainly been around for much longer than your timeline allows for. There was no flood, there was no ark.

Such prejudice and myopia skirts the issue of the Catholic Church having the same rights to free speech for the common good, especially with Her record of building Western civilization.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9470
As Pope Benedict XVI explains, in addressing the Pontifical Academy of Science (October 28, 2010), even for the confused:
“Scientists do not create the world; they learn about it and attempt to imitate it, following the laws and intelligibility that nature manifests to us. The scientist’s experience as a human being is therefore that of perceiving a constant, a law, a logos that he has not created but that he has instead observed: in fact, it leads us to admit the existence of an all-powerful Reason, which is other than that of man, and which sustains the world. This is the meeting point between the natural sciences and religion. As a result, science becomes a place of dialogue, a meeting between man and nature and, potentially, even between man and his Creator.”

A taste of reality is always welcome especially from ex-atheists:
LONDON, November 2, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Former Darwinian atheist philosopher Antony Flew has published a new book, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, to explain his move from being one of the world’s leading exponents of the pure materialist Darwinian philosophy to belief in the existence of a personal deity who created the universe.

Flew, an Oxford educated philosopher described by some as “legendary”, first announced his discovery of “a god” in 2004. Flew had been one of the 20th century’s leading proponents of the pure atheistic Darwinian doctrines that categorically reject any possibility of a creative divine being. His ideas paved the way for thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, the UK’s most virulent opponent of religious belief.

 

[John21652]

I never said that. In fact, in the very post where I said it was the only one that I was personally aware of, I specifically stated that I expected there were others. And in fact, most, if not all groups calling for the prohibition of pornography have at their roots theological objections.

You specifically stated that no others had ever come to your attention. In other words, you were attempting to prove that it was the catholic Church and only the Catholic Church that was trying to have pornigraphy banned. Furthermore, I posted links to groups, individuals and organisations that did not have theologically based objections to pornography and they were all wanting pornography banned. You still need to apologise and now you can add another one for your disengenuousness.

As a point of FACT, not conjecture, not debate, not opinion, the USA is a constitutional Representative republic. Not a democracy. When was the last time you voted on a budget? A tax? Did you vote for or against sending troops into Iraq?

Oh, so you mean by a Democracy one like the the ancient greek and Roman foras? Wow, you sure know how to wiggle on a hook like a pathetic little worm Seeker. With a population of over 300 million the country would need a mighty big forum, wouldn’t it, if everyone was to get a vote on tax, or the budget. So, to streamline the system, the Democracy is a representative one, which means you get to ring, or even go talk to your local rep and tell him how to vote on your behalf. If you don’t exercise your democratic rights, that’s your fault. Stop trying to spin yourself out of the web of illogical and repulsive logic you have ensnared yourself with. The US is a democracy. Go look it up.

While some states have a referendum process, allowing the people to directly vote for or against state laws and/or state constitutional amendments, no such mechanism exists for the federal government. The only thing you get to vote on is who the person is who gets to vote on your behalf.

Duh, seeker, you don’t say.

Don’t misunderstand me, that does not mean we are not ‘democratic’ insofar as the power ultimately rests with the people, and they have the right (and mechanism) to change the structure.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle little worm…

But our form of government is not a democracy. If it were, the House and Senate would not exist, and we, the people, would be constantly voting on those things that we empower to them today. That may or may not be a better way to do things, but it certainly is a busier one.

So the US of A is not a democracy because the House of Reps and the Senate exist! So therefore, the members of those houses aren’t elected by popular vote and they don’t represent their constituents. Errr, Ok.

Superbowl. Janet Jackson. 'Nuff said.

No doubt you’d have us beleive the Pope phoned in to complain.

Now, you may say, and I’d even agree, that the superbowl is not a place or time where strippers ought to be broadcast.

Are you saying this because of your theological beliefs?

But the reality is that broadcasters (and ONLY broadcasters) are prohibited from publishing content of strippers at any time or place

. maybe this is the real litmus test of public opinion?!!

You yourself would have pornography banned,

You sure?

and while I’m assuming facts not in evidence (because you haven’t said so to my knowledge), it wouldn’t surprise me one iota if you’d ban swing clubs.

I would ban them on public health grounds. There is enough evidence that bi-sexuals are great transmitters of deseases and that many of them are irresponsible in their behaviours. Therefore the disordered behaviours place others, innocents, at risk. Doubt me then go look up all the literature on HIV/AIDS.

The city of Phoenix did!

The ban was upheld by the Appeals Court. Your lifestyle is frowned upon, it seems, because it offends public decency and poses a serious risk for the spread of disease.
From this web site -*
"…U.S. still has the highest rates of STDs in the industrialized world, with rates that are 50-100 times higher than other industrialized nations. There are an estimated 12 million new cases of STDs in the U.S. each year. Of these, 3 million occur among teenagers, 13 to 19 years old. A recent CDC report documented that over 85% of the most common infectious diseases in the U.S. are sexually transmitted…There are an estimated 12 million new cases of STDs in the U.S. each year. Of these, 3 million occur among teenagers, 13 to 19 years old. A recent CDC report documented that over 85% of the most common infectious diseases in the U.S. are sexually transmitted… Disproportionate Impact on Women, Infants, Young People, and Minorities.*

More power to Phoenix, I’d say…

 

[Koheleth]

Here’s another take on the sinfulness of pornography. This little insight into the human condition occurred to me while I was in college back in the late 90’s, when many of my generation were getting their first experience with 24/7 unsupervised internet access.

One day, I was in my dorm room partaking in what had become a “habit” no less regular than brushing my teeth. Put delicately, at the point where the “movie” had “served its intended purpose”, something told me, instead of going to sleep, to keep watching.

So I did.

And I saw these people – because that’s what they are, “people”, not images – fumbling around awkwardly with each other, poorly feigning pleasure, and moving and verbalizing according to some manner of “script.” The men’s faces were cartoonish, comical, and their eyes – empty. The women’s faces were more disturbing: garish, cold, wrapped in a disfigured facsimile of human emotion. Their eyes were open, but they gave the appearance of seeing nothing. And behind the masks, there let slip the occasional flash of despair.

That girl who is doing… what’s she’s doing there, is some father’s daughter. She was held in her mother’s arms as a baby, put pigtails in her hair, and played with dolls. And now she’s doing… this. And I’m watching this. She may one day “snap out of it”, maybe build a successful family or career. But she won’t forget it. And it will have marked her personality, her relations with men and women, for life.

And the moment I press “play” on my computer video player, I’m personally inviting her into my room and asking her to sacrifice her humanity to feed my own animal urges. It’s not a “personal” sin, or a “victimless crime”, it’s a sin against humanity.

So, the “cure” for pornography? Watch the whole movie until the bitter – and it is bitter – end.

 

[Seeker2010]

In other words, you were attempting to prove that it was the catholic Church and only the Catholic Church that was trying to have pornigraphy banned.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth, not only did I specifically say that I expected there were other groups, I did it in the very same post that you are referencing.

So, to streamline the system, the Democracy is a representative one, which means you get to ring, or even go talk to your local rep and tell him how to vote on your behalf. If you don’t exercise your democratic rights, that’s your fault.

It remains an indisputable fact that our form of government is NOT a democracy, it is a representative republic. That said, it appears our disagreement is over semantics, as it seems we both have a reasonable understanding of how things work, regardless of labels.

I would ban them on public health grounds.

Ah, nanny state government. Let’s protect the people from themselves!

Doubt me then go look up all the literature on HIV/AIDS.

You know what, recently I did just that. And I learned that the AIDS ‘crisis’ is nowhere near as bad as I had believed. Only 18,000 people per year die from AIDS, which sounds like a lot, but it’s only 0.00006% of the population. If you assume that ALL AIDS deaths are gay men, and that gay men make up about 5% of the population, that comes to 0.0024%. Not very statistically significant.

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying that AIDS is not a bad thing, and I’m not downplaying the fact that it can, will, and does kill. What I’m saying is that it’s nowhere near as widespread as even I thought, much less the impression you are giving.

Contrast that with nearly 440,000 deaths each year due to smoking. I don’t see you (or the church) calling for tobacco to be eliminated. Considering it kills more than 20x the number of people AIDS does, and you’d shut down public sex clubs to help stop the spread of AIDS, your lack of action vis-a-vis smoking seems disingenuous.

BTW, the CDC is on the record with only 2 cases of HIV transmission EVER due to swinging. And they were both infected by the same individual due to unprotected anal sex.

"…U.S. still has the highest rates of STDs in the industrialized world, with rates that are 50-100 times higher than other industrialized nations.

I very much doubt that’s the case, especially in light of the fact, as quoted from your link:

Rates of gonorrhea and syphilis have recently been brought to historic lows.

Regardless, if the message of ‘no glove, no love’ were spread instead of ‘you’re going to hell if you use a condom’ we could further cut STD rates. But we can’t have that!

 

[karoleck]

Here’s another take on the sinfulness of pornography. This little insight into the human condition occurred to me while I was in college back in the late 90’s, when many of my generation were getting their first experience with 24/7 unsupervised internet access.

One day, I was in my dorm room partaking in what had become a “habit” no less regular than brushing my teeth. Put delicately, at the point where the “movie” had “served its intended purpose”, something told me, instead of going to sleep, to keep watching.

So I did.

And I saw these people – because that’s what they are, “people”, not images – fumbling around awkwardly with each other, poorly feigning pleasure, and moving and verbalizing according to some manner of “script.” The men’s faces were cartoonish, comical, and their eyes – empty. The women’s faces were more disturbing: garish, cold, wrapped in a disfigured facsimile of human emotion. Their eyes were open, but they gave the appearance of seeing nothing. And behind the masks, there let slip the occasional flash of despair.

That girl who is doing… what’s she’s doing there, is some father’s daughter. She was held in her mother’s arms as a baby, put pigtails in her hair, and played with dolls. And now she’s doing… this. And I’m watching this. She may one day “snap out of it”, maybe build a successful family or career. But she won’t forget it. And it will have marked her personality, her relations with men and women, for life.

And the moment I press “play” on my computer video player, I’m personally inviting her into my room and asking her to sacrifice her humanity to feed my own animal urges. It’s not a “personal” sin, or a “victimless crime”, it’s a sin against humanity.

So, the “cure” for pornography? Watch the whole movie until the bitter – and it is bitter – end.

Thank you for this posting;I think that generally watching pornography is like a hungry person who keeps watching cooking shows,instead of actively making the effort to first shop for food and then to cook it.It is an easy way out that does not require to form a relationship of mutual love and respect and a commitment to a married covenant which means that they can express their love for each other in an exclusive sexual union which is permanent.

For males, watching pornography can lead to an obsessive/compulsive addiction which can take much prayers and regular confession and even a professional councellor(which could be a priest also) to break this sinful habit.It is like the Pavlov’s dog experiment,a sex addict gets an instant reward! However,as with a drug addict;a stronger fix is needed with each fix–as a sex addict who watches pornography—they too get desesitized to the sex act and need “stronger” images to stimulate their growing sexual appetites.Alexandro,the youth that stabbed St.Maria Goretti for refusing him sex was addicted to pornographic pictures.(he repented of his sins though the prayers of his saintly victim–he may yet be a saint in the Church as he lead a holy life after his conversion–he would be a great intercessor for those struggling with watching pornography) In recent times homosexual pornography has come into play though it targets a smaller market.The pornographic on line “industry” also is used as a front to sell prostition services and sex products.

I sometimes wonder what makes the millions of women around the world to allow themselves to be degraded in pornographic pictures,“movies”.Sure there must be some who do it for “easy” money ;but I wonder how many are looking for the lure of fame ,affirmation and love.The majority of these women are very beautiful—at least on the outside,perhaps their beauty has lead them astray?Perhaps sexual advertizing (using women in suggestive poses to sell products or services) has give rise to dehumanizing a woman.Firstly they rob a woman of their dignity and mystery ; secondly they make them non human,almost an idol–who never gets sick,has periods,puts on weight as a result of child bearing etc,etc.just the normal human condition.They also ignore the fact that a woman too has a soul that will live forever and needs Christ’s saving grace.
Catholics as citizens need to be much more active in promoting laws which uphold God’s Law and be an example with the people that they work and socially mix with–taking the opportunity to give voice to issues like pornography,same sex “marriage”,abortion etc.when the occasion presents itself.

 

[fbl9]

The majority of these women are very beautiful—at least on the outside,perhaps their beauty has lead them astray?.

I would have to disagree on that, the majority are average in looks but have good figures.

 

[karoleck]

I would have to disagree on that, the majority are average in looks but have good figures.

I had to laugh with your observation–my reply would be “I will take your word on that!!!”

I must admit that your are no doubt correct–because it is not the facial seeking of a beautiful face that attracts males to watch pornography! Though I find most women attractive, I do recall the advise that my dad gave me a long time ago in my youth—to value goodness in a woman rather than a beautiful appearance.In my work,one of my favorites is a woman who is I suppose rather overweight,loosing her hair–yet laughter always surrounds her–I always enjoy her brief company.A bit off the subject but in a way pornography makes a woman into a "headless"object-a woman without a soul or personality.

Pornography is something that with the help of God’s grace,through the intercession of the most Pure Heart of Mary I stay away from.Thank you for your short and to the point comment.

 

[fbl9]

I had to laugh with your observation–my reply would be “I will take your word on that!!!”

I must admit that your are no doubt correct–because it is not the facial seeking of a beautiful face that attracts males to watch pornography! Though I find most women attractive, I do recall the advise that my dad gave me a long time ago in my youth—to value goodness in a woman rather than a beautiful appearance.In my work,one of my favorites is a woman who is I suppose rather overweight,loosing her hair–yet laughter always surrounds her–I always enjoy her brief company.A bit off the subject but in a way pornography makes a woman into a "headless"object-a woman without a soul or personality.

Pornography is something that with the help of God’s grace,through the intercession of the most Pure Heart of Mary I stay away from.Thank you for your short and to the point comment.

I based my observation by doing what the op said by continuing to watch after the “purpose”.
If one where to choose a spouse based on looks alone many of us would not be married.
It’s finally sarting to click in my tiny braind as to what is meant by objectifying a women, basicly one is reducing them to a collection of parts.
Your last sentence is the sutle way in which porn affects how one sees women,it rots the personality of ones preception.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

The pornographic hedonist is at war with Christ. When Christ said do unto others as you would have them do unto you, he meant it literally. The reverse is also true. Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

Either way, when you pay money to look with hedonistic pleasure at your neighbor’s daughter in a pornographic movie, and see her dignity violated over and over by two or three men piling on, you are condoning the indignity of that girl, not to mention the indignity of the brutes abusing her for money or drugs. How can you defend this? Are you prepared to offer up your own daughter for this kind of abuse?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. "Are you prepared to condone your own daughter making such movies because other men have the same right to pleasure themselves with your daughter that you had to pleasure yourself with theirs?

 

[fbl9]

Seeker

The pornographic hedonist is at war with Christ. When Christ said do unto others as you would have them do unto you, he meant it literally. The reverse is also true. Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

Either way, when you pay money to look with hedonistic pleasure at your neighbor’s daughter in a pornographic movie, and see her dignity violated over and over by two or three men piling on, you are condoning the indignity of that girl, not to mention the indignity of the brutes abusing her for money or drugs. How can you defend this? Are you prepared to offer up your own daughter for this kind of abuse?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. "Are you prepared to condone your own daughter making such movies because other men have the same right to pleasure themselves with your daughter that you had to pleasure yourself with theirs?

Wopuldn’t bother him at all that his daughter did such things as he has already stated it would be of no concern if his sister or daughter became prostituesi think that he would be happier if she was in the adult industry becuase they are such loving and good people.

 

[John21652]

Seeker

The pornographic hedonist is at war with Christ. When Christ said do unto others as you would have them do unto you, he meant it literally. The reverse is also true. Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

Either way, when you pay money to look with hedonistic pleasure at your neighbor’s daughter in a pornographic movie, and see her dignity violated over and over by two or three men piling on, you are condoning the indignity of that girl, not to mention the indignity of the brutes abusing her for money or drugs. How can you defend this? Are you prepared to offer up your own daughter for this kind of abuse?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. "Are you prepared to condone your own daughter making such movies because other men have the same right to pleasure themselves with your daughter that you had to pleasure yourself with theirs?

Well said.

To argue otherwise is to defend the indefensible.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Is seeker seeking elsewhere?

 

[John21652]

Is seeker seeking elsewhere?

He’s behaving like the Scarlett Pimpernel!!

We seek him here, we seek him there,
Those CAFs seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven?—Is he in hell?
Where he is only time will tell!

(With apologies to Sir Percy Blakeny)