Custody of the heart.

Several commenters on my post Chick porn asked why men’s mostly visual porn is seen as sinful while women’s mostly written porn is seen as something different.  I see two components to this, although both are merely part of our rationalization that women are somehow more pure than men and therefore less tempted to sin.

The first component is the widely accepted fallacy that romantic love makes sex pure.  This gives women cover to call their porn “romance”, and claim it is somehow different than porn consisting mainly of images.  This is why Jenny Erikson makes it a point to refer to the characters in 50 SoG as “star-crossed lovers with a penchant for BDSM”.  The frame of mind here is that fornication is different if they are in love.  The same is true with the title Prick: A Stepbrother Romance.  This isn’t incest porn, it is romance.  To be clear, romance doesn’t have anything to do with whether sex is moral or not, but it is an effective cover because nearly everyone believes that it does.

The other component is an over emphasis on men’s eyes.  Custody of the eyes is a good reminder, but it is not fundamentally about our eyes.  What matters is our hearts.  We can see this in the frivolous divorcée’s favorite Bible passage (Matt 5:27-30), where Christ warns about looking at a woman with lust (emphasis mine):

27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old,[c] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[d] 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

The misconception here is that the sin is of the eyes.  But it isn’t, it is a sin of the heart.  The eyes can be a source of temptation, but they aren’t the source of the sin.  Christ reinforces this in Matt 15:10-11:

10 When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand:11 Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”

Christ explains what this means in verses 17-20 (emphasis mine):

17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. 20 These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

Those who claim men’s porn is sinful because it involves lusting with the eyes are right, because if a man is lusting he is lusting with his heart.  But this doesn’t mean that women’s written fantasies are any better.  Ironically women’s claim that their porn isn’t sinful because it involves the heart and not the eyes only reinforces why their porn is sinful, just like men’s.

Ultimately though what this is all about is women’s tendency to deny their own sin, and men’s tendency to enable women in this.

This entry was posted in 50 Shades of Grey, Denial, New Morality, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

202 Responses to Custody of the heart.

  1. Pingback: Custody of the heart. | Manosphere.com

  2. anonymous_ng says:

    BINGO!!!

  3. Pingback: Custody of the heart. | Neoreactive

  4. Earl says:

    How can a man commit adultery with a single woman? If this passage was about ‘all women’ then it would be impossible to get a wife or concubine. Unless you’re supposed to get a wife and the ancients were supposed to get concubines which were not pleasing to the eye.

    It seems to me this passage is about committing adultery in your heart, i.e. looking at your neighbor’s wife with lust. You can’t commit adultery with a single woman.

  5. earl says:

    Nailed it.

  6. Yoda says:

    our rationalization that women are somehow more pure than men and therefore less tempted to sin.

    How we came to this wonder one does.

  7. earl says:

    ‘How can a man commit adultery with a single woman?’

    Try not to think of it in those terms…the focus is about shining a light where sin originates, the heart.

    Jesus is raising the stakes here. In another passage he compared being angry with a brother to murder. Getting to the root of the matter before adultery or murder happens.

  8. Dalrock says:

    @Earl

    It seems to me this passage is about committing adultery in your heart, i.e. looking at your neighbor’s wife with lust. You can’t commit adultery with a single woman.

    The first passage references adultery, but the second one I quoted includes fornication.

  9. Martel says:

    Does anybody know the Greek behind the “in his heart” of “committed adultery with her in his heart” in Matthew 5:28 and “believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead” from Romans 10:9?

    Because if “in your heart” is the same in both places, the wouldn’t casually thinking “yes, she’s hot” be adultery in the same sense that “sure, Jesus is pretty cool” would assure your salvation?

    I’m not saying my thesis is correct, but I am wondering. If “in your heart” is the same in both places and the Romans passage means a deep and profound commitment, then wouldn’t committing adultery “in your heart” mean that you’re really, really longing for her, that the only reason you’re not cheating is that you either can’t logistically or you’re terrified of getting caught?

  10. Ronin says:

    Personally I think looking with lust and looking with lust at a woman you love are two very different things, just as there’s a difference between just having physical sex and making love with a woman you love.

  11. I am wondering if our standards of adultery are very different from the standards of Jesus’ time. After all, I’m fairly certain polygamy was an accepted practice even among the Jews at the time. So if you were permitted to take another wife, how could you not commit “adultery” by lusting after her in your heart?

  12. Brookes says:

    It’s not like visual porn doesn’t involve feelings of romance on the part of the male viewer. Guys develop crushes on porn stars all the time. The visual porn is bad/ written porn is romantic nonsense can be explained by the all-powerful female solipsism. Aside from the obvious biblical reasons why porn is bad, it is really hurtful to wives. When their men look at porn, they are choosing to express their sexuality without their wives. It makes wives feel unwanted, unattractive, betrayed, etc. But the solipsism becomes apparent when it’s the wife who is using porn or “reading erotica” because it never seems to occur to wives that their porn habits, whether visual or not, make their husbands feel the exact same way. Sometimes I wonder if women are even wired to be able to comprehend that sort of thing. Maybe that’s a bit cynical and sexist of me, but I’ve seen a lot of that sort of toddler-like selfishness from twenty-something females, where even when you point out where they are being unfair and hurtful, they just look at you like you are speaking Chinese.

  13. Brookes,

    When their men look at porn, they are choosing to express their sexuality without their wives. It makes wives feel unwanted, unattractive, betrayed, etc. But the solipsism becomes apparent when it’s the wife who is using porn or “reading erotica” because it never seems to occur to wives that their porn habits, whether visual or not, make their husbands feel the exact same way.

    Do they make us feel the same way?

    I don’t think wife reads erotica (and you know what) I guess I don’t care.

    Hmmmmmmmm……..

  14. Martel says:

    @ Brookes: “…because it never seems to occur to wives that their porn habits, whether visual or not, make their husbands feel the exact same way. Sometimes I wonder if women are even wired to be able to comprehend that sort of thing.”

    If a man is viewing porn, it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything the wife could possibly be doing wrong, It’s his duty to give her his entire heart (all the time) and body (if/when she feels like it) no matter what. Besides, what actual woman could ever live up to the standards of visual porn?

    If a woman is reading porn it’s only because her husband is letting her down. After he comes home from an exhausting day of work, he’s not putting in the requisite energy to make her feel wanted, or if he is buying flowers all the time he’s obviously not very exciting.

    When he sins by looking at porn, it’s his fault. When she reads porn (not necessarily a sin), it’s his fault. That’s what we’re “wired to comprehend.”

  15. anonymous_ng says:

    @Martel, I can’t tell if you’re being serious or satirical. I suspect the latter, but these days, who can tell.

  16. Martel says:

    @ anonymous: “@Martel, I can’t tell if you’re being serious or satirical. I suspect the latter, but these days, who can tell.”

    Thanks.

  17. Yoda says:

    Martel, I can’t tell if you’re being serious or satirical.

    Satirical he probably is.
    Women probably read it this way not.

  18. Brookes says:

    @innocentbystanderboston Fair enough. I guess it could all depend on how your sex life is. If my wife was frigid or was a dead fish in bed but was panting over 50 Shades, then I would definitely feel that way. I am also of the opinion that porn, whether consumed by a male or female, whether written or visual, is NOT harmless fantasy. Perhaps my puritanical sensibilities make it so that I wouldn’t be able to just ignore it if my wife had an outlet for her sexuality like that that didn’t involve me.

  19. Brookes says:

    @innocentbystanderboston And I am certainly the jealous type. Not “borrow my friend’s car so I can follow her when she goes out” jealous, but more jealous than the average guy.

  20. earl says:

    ‘When he sins by looking at porn, it’s his fault. When she reads porn (not necessarily a sin), it’s his fault. That’s what we’re “wired to comprehend.”

    When Adam sinned he was thrown out of the garden, when Eve sinned he was thrown out of the garden again.

  21. Brookes, Yoda, Martel, & Dalrock,

    When their men look at porn, they are choosing to express their sexuality without their wives. It makes wives feel unwanted, unattractive, betrayed, etc.

    We are at brass tacks.

    Every single psychologist or psychiatrist will say the exact same thing about feelings: feelings are not right or wrong, they just are. When professional marriage counselors deal from that moral foundation that is hardwired from the bluest-of-blue-pills in the feminist imperative, that you can’t make someone feel something you’ve already lost. Women don’t like men who like pron. They feel bad about it and that is it. Full stop. And feelings just “are.” So of course, they feel betrayed when THIER MEN view pron. It doesn’t make any difference what he feels about it OR what he feels about her reading erotic.

    That is why (to feminists) pron for men is bad and pron for women is not.

  22. Martel says:

    @ Earl: “When Adam sinned he was thrown out of the garden, when Eve sinned he was thrown out of the garden again.”

    Were Genesis in line with modern theology, God’s admonition of Adam would stand, but Eve would have been allowed to stay in the Garden and been given another Adam.

  23. Absolutely correct, Dalrock! It is too easy to grade sin according external criteria instead of recognizing the waywardness of male and female hearts alike.

  24. Minesweeper says:

    Dalrock,

    All due respect but the english translation you have used is poor,.the greek is accurate.

    Matthew 5:28 We think this says :
    But I tell you that anyone who 1(looks with eyes or imagines one in their head) at 2(girl/boy/man/woman) in the flesh or an image of one – paintings/magazines /tv/movies/novels/snapchat 3(lustfully) with sexual attraction/desire/fantasy has already committed adultery with them in his heart.

    What this reads in the greek is :
    But I tell you that anyone who 1(looks with eyes) at 2(someone’s wife) 3(desires and covets her with passion) has already committed adultery with her in their heart.

    Its not talking about looking at images or movies or novels or having sexual fantasies.

    You need 3 things to commit adultery in your heart according to the verse in greek above :
    1. Looking at her (not an image or a thought)
    2. Someones wife (not single female or male)
    3. Covetousness* of her with passion (not sexual desire\arousal\fantasy)
    * Marked by extreme desire to acquire or possess, excessively and culpably desirous of the possessions of another.

    From “to_lust” STRONGS G1937: epiqumhsai : to set the heart upon, i.e. long for (rightfully or otherwise).
    KJV: covet, desire, would fain, lust (after).

    Its not really describing sexual attraction, its describing possession.

  25. Minesweeper says:

    The simple answer to most double standard questions is to turn it around.

    Is it sinful for a woman to look at visual\audio porn ?

    Most women (men too?)would say – no. Woman are the gatekeepers to sex, as far as they observe its their domain, they work hard to attract a male for marriage(which is sex), (maybe) stay working hard to keep his attraction.

    They hate absolutely losing control of this narrative, as its the most powerful thing they have. Its in fact, almost the only thing they have and they know it.

    Its the same as men complaining that the Gov is diluting their influence as females can now be provided for their entire lives without the need for a males provision, that includes children and all the costs of rearing them to adulthood.

  26. Minesweeper says:

    The best example in the bible is the following :

    King David had many men slaughtered to cover the murder of one man whose wife David had stolen and with whom he committed adultery. And David said, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

    And that is EXACTLY the issue Jesus was making, King David he looked with his eyes at another man’s wife when he saw her bathing naked, he covetted her with extreme desire to acquire or possess, culpably desirous of the possessions of another.

    At that point he had committed adultery in his heart, which led onto multiple acts of grievous sin.

    And a permanent mention in the word of God.

  27. Minesweeper says:

    And I have to say, I can easily be guilty of this. Their are a couple of Christian wives that I find so attractive that I cannot live near nor have any contact electronically. I could see myself easily coveting to posses them, falling into sin and committing adultery, as we all know, when a man has extreme desire for a woman, she will pick up on that and her attraction will shift towards it.

  28. Anonymous Reader says:

    Martel, I can’t tell if you’re being serious or satirical.

    Poe’s law strikes again.

  29. Minesweeper says:

    @Martel says: February 19, 2015 at 5:24 pm
    @ Earl: “When Adam sinned he was thrown out of the garden, when Eve sinned he was thrown out of the garden again.”

    Were Genesis in line with modern theology, God’s admonition of Adam would stand, but Eve would have been allowed to stay in the Garden and been given another Adam.

    Very good, you could add, that the original Adam would be compelled to work as hard and then hand over 75% of the fruits of his labour to her as well.

  30. Anonymous Reader says:

    To see this double standard in action, look in any bookstore. 50 Shades is not hidden. It’s right there, where anyone can see it with tie-ins as well. Visual porn for men? That’s in the XXX video store across the railroad tracks, “where it belongs”.

    And as I’ve pointed out before, it’s not just one book, go to the RomFic section of any B&N and start skimming romances. It won’t be too long before you find one with explicit “Letter to Penthouse” level descriptions of sex, at regular page intervals through the book. This has been common for years and years, Jacquiline Suzanne made a living off of it.

    Fun question for regular churchgoers: go to your church library and start looking at what da lay-dees are reading. It’s not going to be 50 shades, sure, but you might be surprised at just what is in those romantical fictions.

    Some churchgoing women I know of went to see the vampire movies. Wonder how many are going to sneak into the 50 Shades flick, maybe wearing dark glasses and hat? But no worries, because they’re women, and thus immune to such temptations.

  31. Dalrock says:

    @Ronin

    Personally I think looking with lust and looking with lust at a woman you love are two very different things, just as there’s a difference between just having physical sex and making love with a woman you love.

    You aren’t alone. This is an extremely common mistake.

  32. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Some churchgoing women I know of went to see the vampire movies. Wonder how many are going to sneak into the 50 Shades flick, maybe wearing dark glasses and hat? But no worries, because they’re women, and thus immune to such temptations.

    It is almost like a large scale shit test. Women keep upping the ante with their chick porn, and men just work harder at looking the other way:

    Sex with Step Brothers? She was confused. The marketers must have made her do it because her father didn’t beg her to believe she is beautiful.

    Sex with vampires? Sounds wholesome.

    Sex with animals? They were in love.

    Sex with dinosaurs? Must be true love.

    Wereseals? I see nothing…

  33. Minesweeper says:

    “It is almost like a large scale shit test. Women keep upping the ante with their chick porn, and men just work harder at looking the other way”

    Its because they females always see themselves as the standard bearer of sexual conduct.

    Whatever they say goes, this of course can be revoked at any time. I’ve noted that most of the churchian females are going to see this in groups and making a day of it, this means starting several hours ahead getting fairly well oiled up in the process.

    No shame at all.

    I’m expecting the Kendrick brothers version due any time now.

  34. Spike says:

    Men look at porn with their eyes.It then goes to their (biblical) hearts and is processed as lust.
    Women read porn with their eyes. it then goes to their (biblical) hearts and is processed as lust.

    Can anyone see any difference?

    The only difference as far as I can see is the outcome: Men who view porn overwhelmingly stay in marriages. Women who consume written porn divorce their husbands, destroy their families and end up having sex with randoms in an effort to re-live their glory years.

  35. ^ Damn, Spike with a towering shot to left field.

    Some men clearly have addiction issues when it comes to porn—but I could say the same about my mother-in-law and Haagen Dazs. If it’s not a problem, it’s not a problem.

    In fact, (anecdotally) I can’t think of a single guy I know who enjoys porn from time to time who is not also decently happy in his relationship.

    However, as someone else noted, feelings just are. But it seems weird to me that so many women think porn is going to replace their value to their husbands. Seriously? Girls, I promise—sex with a woman is A BILLION TIMES BETTER than porn. It’s the same with strip clubs—nothing wrong with sex workers, but dudes, seriously, you can have sex* with a real woman for free if you’re smart.

    ———–

    *Not on a college campus or in England. These days, those places are toxic.

  36. Gunner Q says:

    Minesweeper@ 5:36 pm:
    “Its not talking about looking at images or movies or novels or having sexual fantasies.”

    Do you understand the context of Matthew 5? The Pharisees boasted of obeying the Law letter-perfect. Jesus said that bit about adultery (and then anger) to emphasize how the spirit of the Law must be obeyed as well as the letter. You are committing the exact same sin.

    Pharisee: “I didn’t commit adultery. I watched her and fantasized about adultery. That’s totally different!”

    You: “I didn’t lust while looking at her. I lusted while looking at a picture of her. That’s totally different!”

    Reread the OP. You missed its point.

  37. Just Saying says:

    women are somehow more pure than men and therefore less tempted to sin.

    Hahahahaha… Obviously, any man that believes that hasn’t been around many women… They are just a *lot* better at lying with a smile…

  38. Minesweeper says:

    @Gunner Q says: February 19, 2015 at 8:18 pm
    “Do you understand the context of Matthew 5? The Pharisees boasted of obeying the Law letter-perfect. Jesus said that bit about adultery (and then anger) to emphasize how the spirit of the Law must be obeyed as well as the letter. You are committing the exact same sin.”

    What sin would that be ? Adultery by looking by a single person to another one ?

    In Mat 5:27 Jesus talked about adultery, now what the Pharisees were experts at was finding ways around their legalism, so you have as part of the commandments :

    You shall not commit adultery
    You shall not covet your neighbours wife.

    Now what the Pharisees were possibly doing was in-between this :
    They were covet-ing wifes who weren’t their neighbours. Now this wasn’t legislated against anywhere and had never been before. The text does not say this though, I want to make that clear.

    What is clear is the greek, which dosn’t say what we think it says.

    If you think the english translation is sacrosanct, do you really think Jesus would have made this statement as only applying to those who look at woman alone ? so gays, pedo’s, furries etc – to have a free rein ?

    Is that really what you think ? If your going to believe something Jesus has said and I do, then its important to get what he said, rather than what our church culture wishes he had.

  39. Renee Harris says:

    Not trying to troll
    Ok come on ( no pun intended) woman like watching “real dude” porn, too. I know this first because in early 2012 God lovely delivered me ( not my boyfriend or my dad ) me from life controlling addiction to both visual and written porn. As a young woman, I feel immoral and unlovable due to my strong sexual drive. Yes I did justify my sin for two years with” I’m ugly so it ok….. ” Or ” I’m a loser so it ok…” The Lord stopped the justify when He said to me in worship Once ” Renee you can NOT have Me and your sin. You must chose” I choice Him.
    No porn is loving or romanic or Godly. All of it , especially chick porn, is about using others people as means ( thus sex or romance or pleasure ) to worship ourselves. I not trying speaks for anyone else but I now see all my sins as idolatry: My ( Renee’s ) will be done- that’s idolatry.
    I do not judge men who use porn as I know the pull of it. I am un-supermodel type. I am not yet a married woman. Nor Am I fit to be a Godly wife by Saturday, yet I have a strong sex drive. I believe women have stronger sex drives than men. I have no proof ( sex and bobbies outside of marriage just prove higher levels stupidity ) I just believe this…
    I used online porn in undergrad due to my not wanting a out-wedlock child and my believe that abortion is murder so no sex for this lady . Just to clearly I’m am a virgin due to being seen unattractive ( by myself and the men around me ) I not a virgin due to a prude.
    Look at most young ladies iphone it got porn o. it or has been on it.
    This dumb chick is done

  40. mrteebs says:

    The human heart’s capacity for deception is very strong, and if the Bible teaches us anything, it is that women are just as prone to this as men. In fact, from the scriptures we know that women are even more prone to this than men (1 Tim 2:14).

    Men tend to know when they are doing something wrong but plow ahead anyway. This was Adam’s sin – to “side with my woman, right or wrong” – knowing full well it was dead wrong. Eve, on the other hand, let the devil feed the hamster into full turbo mode and thus it has been ever since. If a Harlequin Romance isn’t lusting, then what is it? Lusting after romantic love, rather than sex, is still lust, is it not? And increasingly with women it is about sex, as should be obvious from the bodice-ripper paperback covers.

    Coveting the emotional fix that comes from the romantic love of thy neighbor’s husband is no more “pure” than coveting the sexual fix that comes from the body of thy neighbor’s wife. We have allowed women a pass on this stuff for far, far too long. Men’s porn is “filthy” while women’s porn is just a harmless girl’s night out.

  41. Caspar Reyes says:

    Man: “I didn’t commit adultery. All I did was….”
    Jesus: “You have heard it said…”

    Woman: “I didn’t commit adultery of the heart. All I did was….”
    Jesus: “You have heard it said…”

    Everyone wants to draw the line so he/she is on the clean side. God always draws the line so that all are on the dirty side. Men can easily be convinced they are on the dirty side. Most women cannot be so easily convinced.

    The Pharisee let himself off the hook yet cast a wide net over others. A woman will hold a man’s feet to fire by a generous interpretation of Matthew 5 (“thinking / looking / porn / jacking off / lust / kissing / blowjob = adultery” or whatever fits), but apply the same passage very literally to herself.

  42. The Greek word for “woman” in Jesus’s words here is “gyne”, which can mean either woman or wife. No matter which you prescribe to, His purpose was to prevent self-righteousness and to illustrate how futile it was to live a holy life according to the Law.

    That being said, yes, viewing pornography is a sin because it cheapens and misrepresents sex. And that goes for both men and women.

  43. Spike says:

    Timber St. James says:
    February 19, 2015 at 8:17 pm
    “But it seems weird to me that so many women think porn is going to replace their value to their husbands. Seriously? Girls, I promise—sex with a woman is A BILLION TIMES BETTER than porn”.

    I think it was another commentator here who said, “Women cannot compete with porn” – the usual refrain – is not true. Rather the opposite is: Porn cannot compete with real women.

    He went further: Porn is just a bunch of dots on paper or pixels on a screen. It doesn’t laugh, feel, react, communicate. Women do. Porn, though, comes into it’s own when women become high-stakes, when sex becomes a high wire act like treading on eggshells or defusing a bomb.

    These words, whoever said them (Boxer?) resonated with me as never truer, because once again it comes down to women. Will they be giving and generous, or (Dalrock’s phrase) miserly with love?

  44. Minesweeper says:

    @Renee Harris
    Good for you to come clean and let us know ! I have never known of a women yet to admit that.

    Your giving us a peek behind the curtain. So what do you do about your strong sex desire ?
    Cold showers/prayer/exercise?

    Sorry you havn’t found a way yet to get married if that is what you earnestly desire and need.
    Most of us have idols of one thing or another – mostly hidden even to us, consider yourself blessed you found out what it was.

    @Chris, if your statement was to me? actually its G1135: gunaika : probably from the base of G1096; a woman; specially, a wife. KJV: wife, woman.
    G1096: to cause to be: KJV : …be kept, be made, be married,…

    Don’t think Im giving license to anything, all I’m pointing out that this phrase means something different.
    What’s particularly worrying is that we ignore the sin of biblical “lust” which is an overwhelming desire to possess (at the great expense of others and very destructive) and exchange that instead for what’s relatively weak by comparison – sexual fantasy.

    We are probably so used to actual biblical lust – I want – envy – better job \ house\ car\ bigger church\ pension\ bonus. That none of us feels it anymore. The entire world economy essentially crashed due to this. Should we more worried about whats in their browser history rather than their the finances worlds relentless greed ?

    I guess maybe capitalism and it’s endless growth model has indoctrinated us all into this.

  45. mrteebs says:

    I think it was another commentator here who said, “Women cannot compete with porn” – the usual refrain – is not true. Rather the opposite is: Porn cannot compete with real women.

    Exactly.

    My first wife was miserly with sex. It was doled out so sparingly that I might as well have been celibate, but it was actually more torturous because I had to watch her disrobe, bathe, and generally assault my senses with delicious food that was yanked from my lips repeatedly. Little wonder that porn was so tempting in those days. When you get no food, even vending machine shit is better than starving. I’m not condoning here or excusing, but I am bristling at those who condemn the starving inmate and never the abusive jailer.

    Anyway, back to my story. She frivorced me. Shocker.

    Went for a bad boy that had no means of support. Another shocker. Hated sex with me, but couldn’t get enough of it with him.

    It still stings, 12 years later.

    Harley McBadBoy fixation as other commenters have so succinctly nailed it. Nice to know I was not alone.

    Today, I am remarried and have sex quite regularly. Porn has no fascination. Another shocker.

    I wish women would figure this out. It isn’t rocket science: “Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

    I would like to see a single one of them function without emotional validation, touch, or affirmation for weeks or months on end and then respond with ambivilance when it was doled out with an eyedropper.

    Starve someone and then rebuke them for constantly thinking about food. Brilliant.

  46. MarcusD says:

    I Dated Christian Grey article
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=947164

    A comment from CAF:

    “Well, it is breaking box office records. Drudge even pointed out that it surpassed the Passion of the Christ. And women are seeing it. Perhaps it is the only movie they can drag their porn addicted boyfriends and husbands to.”

  47. Opus says:

    I prefer – to the word Porn – the word Erotica. Erotica is, at best, advertising for the real thing, for who would otherwise become excited by pixelated images. For myself, I observe that the images that these days take my fancy are often it has to be said in the soft-core category but what motivates my interest is not the act involved or the hotness of the woman but rather, whether I can identify in some way with the image – she looks like someone I know or once knew, or perhaps a certain look or position or facial expression resonates with me, something I dimly recall. That Mrs Erikson would see this as interchangable with PinV seems to me to push analogy too far – to raise the bar far too high and of course as women do not seem to respond to visual erotica makes it easy for her to criticise without probability of an accusation of hypocricy. Her own rape fantasy addiction is where the mote lodges in her own eye.

    Mrs Erikson’s attitude reminds me of the amusing scene in the first of the Crocodile Dundee film where being warned by the aboriginee not to take the photo with the *product placement alert* Canon camera, assumes that the aboriginee is objecting that the image will take his soul, only to be informed that in fact he still has the lens cap on. Mrs Erikson – an alleged Christian – seems to be suffering from a bad case of voodoo (projection).

  48. earl says:

    ‘These words, whoever said them (Boxer?) resonated with me as never truer, because once again it comes down to women. Will they be giving and generous, or (Dalrock’s phrase) miserly with love?’

    Well that is a matter of the heart too. Is their heart open or have they slammed it shut?

  49. Tomasz says:

    One of the problems in women and white knights speaking about pornography addiction/recreational use, is the wrong attitude toward the victim (i.e. the pornography user). She/he is mostly harming themselves. What I see is: “You sinner! Now we get to stone you!”.

    Women will feel offended by whatever is suggested to them, that they should be offended about. Replace offended with “hurt” and other emotional verbs. Some women will be conditioned to ignore their partner f-ing around like crazy, some will suffer from him turning his head behind some passing female (which is ridiculous, 1-10 rating has nothing to do with lusting. And there are no 10s, sorry).

  50. Earl says:

    You don’t actually need to look at porn. If you just put it off long enough you will eventually have a nice dream, or you can rub one out in the dark with your eyes closed. It helps if you have a hot wife and a nice picture of her.

    Or you could make your own porn with your wife.

  51. Glenfilthie says:

    Porn is a sore point with women. It drives them nuts. Back in the day they tried to turn the tables on us with male strippers. Most men just shrugged when the gals made a big to-do about it being their turn to ogle the meat and engage in the sins of the flesh. As men we could see where they were coming from ….but! But! That wasn’t the point! We did it wrong!!! We were SUPPOSED to be shamed by our women lusting after other men and STOP IT!!!!! HAR HAR HAR!!!

    Now they are hitting us with 50 Shades Of Stupid and I just shrug at that too. This is just another phenomenon where clucky women are trying to teach us something…or other. I told my wife if she wants to go see it or read it I could care less…just don’t expect me to.

    Is Hustler still around? My gawd, Larry Flint used to produce the raunchiest humour on the planet. In today’s day of political correctness and female empowerment…some good jokes about splayed clam would be a tonic for the soul. 🙂

  52. Phillyastro says:

    “Although your eyes may chance to rest upon some woman or other, you must not fix your gaze upon any woman….you cannot say that your hearts are pure if there is immodesty of the eye, because the unchaste eye carries the message of an impure heart. And when such hearts disclose their unchaste desires in a mutual gaze, even without saying a word, then it is that chastity suddenly goes out of their life.”

    The Rule of St. Augustine, 3.

  53. The One says:

    Ambiguity of English is major problem. Romance frequently uses the word love and is completely different from biblical love. I suggest most christians start using a word such as Charity to describe G-d’s love to create a separation from these sinful behaviors.

  54. The main reason that porn is bad for men in the eyes of women is because they know damn well that they are competing with it.

    And most women hate competition in the sexual marketplace.

  55. Scott says:

    The One-

    That is actually a really good idea. ALthough, it is very hard to move language use on a grand scale like that.

    The distinction between all the different kinds of biblical love, driven by context is a serious flaw in the way we use “love” to describe so many different things in English.

  56. Gunner Q says:

    I got in the habit of simply avoiding the word “love” and using a synonym instead.

  57. earl says:

    ‘The main reason that porn is bad for men in the eyes of women is because they know damn well that they are competing with it.’

    Well if that’s the case many of them have given up and only resort to complaining. We have as much an outbreak of female laziness as male laziness.

  58. Phillyastro says:

    I always imagine the Buddha nodding approvingly when Jesus spoke the verses about murder and adultery in the Sermon on the Mounth in Matthew. Anger, lust, etc. are sins too (i.e., sin being defined as missing the mark of God or godliness). They are all aspects of desire, and for Buddha that is the root of all suffering.

    BTW, no one mentions that Jesus also said if you’re angry you are committing murder in your heart. Put those verses together with Matthew 5:27-30, and you can understand that anger, desire, etc. leads to sin even though one follows the Levitical Law to the letter.

  59. BradA says:

    I think it was another commentator here who said, “Women cannot compete with porn” – the usual refrain – is not true. Rather the opposite is: Porn cannot compete with real women.

    Those who claim this likely have very poor imaginations. The mind is very powerful and can draw pictures in many that are far more real than any reality. This can be a good thing in the proper contexts, but it can also be bad in the case of sex.

    It may not be universal, but most porn shows one or more willing individuals in a way that stimulates the brain. A bitchy woman may be extremely hot, but will not necessarily stimulate much if her attitude is lousy, for example. Real human bodies also have flaws, especially as you age. Porn is tightened up and brushed up in almost every case so it is much more compelling.

    It is not a clear cut either-or situation. Either those who claim porn has no pull are lying or they are in a different category than those who are continually drawn to the variants of it we see each day.

    ====

    It is amazing the lengths some of you will go to justify viewing porn. This stretched further when someone said above the kissing someone not your spouse and even a blowjob was not adultery. You are completely missing the point!

    You can’t have sex outside marriage without participating in some form of lust. I suppose some special snowflakes might really have it be purely mechanical, but most who claim they can are lying.

  60. earl says:

    ‘It is amazing the lengths some of you will go to justify viewing porn.’

    Considering it has some of the same effects as drug abuse…it doesn’t surprise me how people rationalize it. Sex is beautiful in the right confines…and as dangerous as a drug when it isn’t.

  61. ‘It is amazing the lengths some of you will go to justify viewing porn.’

    Considering it has some of the same effects as drug abuse…

    No earl. No. Apples and oranges.

    You can overdose and DIE from drug use. Do not compare drug use and pron use ever again or I will hold you in the same contept I do the pridefully-stubborn Escoffier.

  62. jonadabtherechabite says:

    @Minesweeper

    I am generally sympathetic to your translation of Matt 5:28 against the abuses of the anti-sex dualist and the feminist outrage, However, I think upon further exegesis, Jesus is not just illuminating the 7th commandment (reformed numbering, 6th by RC and Lutheran) He is really applying the 10th commandment illustrating that no one can make a claim to righteousness of the heart, thus all are in need of a righteousness alien to their lives to be imputed for them. In other words the Gospel of the atonement. The same idea is presented just prior about anger and hate in the heart being murder in the heart v..22. This is why it is outrageous and contrary to scripture to claim porn use is grounds for divorce. There would be no divorce after the wife was stoned for her hatred or murder in her heart toward her husband. To use Matt 5 for any other reason than to humble sinners to receive grace is just a pretext for another agenda.

    BTW- before a Christian wife could even conceive of using Matt 5 for a divorce for porn use, three conditions must be met. First they must demonstrate that Christians can divorce as per the NT. That is a controversial proposition but history has sided with the affirmative, so let’s be generous and state that we are 75% confident that is a proper reading of the New Testament. The Second condition is that a woman can initiate that divorce. There is scant support for such, but modern tradition allows so lets still err on the side of generosity and give this proposition a 50% confidence rating. The third condition that must be satisfied is that porn (adultery in the heart) equals the act of adultery. Now for many men porn use is for the purpose of not committing acts of adultery while keeping their vows with a sexually defrauding wife thus not strictly fitting the condition to lust after. And if we grant that sins of the heart bring the same temporal and judicial remedy as sins actually committed; the offended wife is nearly always guilty of the capital offense of murder so such a use is highly unlikely to be what God intended. Even being wildly generous that confidence or probability score is less than 10%. Thus .75 x .50 X .10 = .0375 or less than a 5% chance of being a proper application. Yet the church has bet the family on such slim odds provoking female hysteria and promoting divorce.

    Yes – how we use the Word matters.

  63. One more thought on the classification of porn use as literal adultery: If consuming pornography is categorically the same as adultery and is therefore biblically justifiable grounds for divorce, we must also conclude that anger is categorically the same as murder. Anybody willing to advocate the death penalty for getting angry?

    Porn and the giving of one’s mind to it is sin, but if it’s sufficient per Jesus to justify divorce, to be consistent we’d also have to build gallows for hotheads.

  64. earl says:

    ‘You can overdose and DIE from drug use. Do not compare drug use and pron use ever again or I will hold you in the same contept I do the pridefully-stubborn Escoffier.’

    http://fightthenewdrug.org/porn-is-like-a-drug/#sthash.rsB46ZS0.dpbs

  65. @jobadabtherechabite Nicely stated.

  66. Swiftfoxmark2, you’re absolutely right. Porn is competition. A man who has “alternatives” is less likely to be manipulated via his biology, while an asexual man like me can’t be manipulated in the first place.

    As I said, I believe that using porn is a sin, but I understand why some men prefer it over the real thing.

  67. Earl, I don’t care what rhetoric in your link says, and neither should you. What I care about is that you would rather pridefully dig your heels in here instead of admitting you are wrong. Pron will never kill you and you know it. I will not discuss this with you again….

  68. earl says:

    ‘If consuming pornography is categorically the same as adultery and is therefore biblically justifiable grounds for divorce, we must also conclude that anger is categorically the same as murder. Anybody willing to advocate the death penalty for getting angry?’

    Again this is why it is important that these passages point to the root of the matter and aren’t meant to take a situation and explode it into divorce or the death penalty. It is about the heart. Left unchecked anger can easily turn to physical murder and lusting in your heart can turn to literal adultery. Porn is a sin that needs to be rid of or else it can lead you down a road where adultery might happen. It may not be you that does it, but it could be your spouse. As far as divorce or the death penalty…if you want to prevent these scenarios from happening repent and seek forgiveness of the sin now before they become a bigger problem.

  69. earl says:

    ‘What I care about is that you would rather pridefully dig your heels in here instead of admitting you are wrong. Pron will never kill you and you know it. I will not discuss this with you again….’

    I never said porn would kill you…I said it has some of the same effects as drug abuse.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/custody-of-the-heart/#comment-166198

    Which I pointed to in the link.

  70. And you are wrong. It has NONE of the effects of drug abuse.

    A pron addict does not knock over a store for cash or steal money/jewelry from his mother to pawn to get his pron fix, pron is free. A pron addict can keep a job as there is no pron test the way there is drug tests. A pron user does not have to go into a detoxification center to prevent him from getting his next fix and rid his body of the pron. A pron addict is not breaking man’s law by surfing pron all night the way a drug addict is…..

    …and pron will never kill you. You cannot masturbate yourself to death.

    Do you even know any drug addicts? Have you ever seen what those addictions do to them? If you did (the way I do) you would never say the foolishness that you are saying. You can not relate these two things, they are not even comparable.

  71. earl says:

    ‘Do you even know any drug addicts? Have you ever seen what those addictions do to them?’

    Yes. It rewires their brain into thinking only about the drug and the effects from it while ruining their life and many other people’s. And it takes more of the drug to get the effects. Much like porn addiction does.

    The commonality is the intense dopamine rush they bring.

  72. @earl You and I agree that all sin is a matter of the heart. I was taking the misinterpretation to its logical conclusion.

    With respect, @IBB, Earl is correct in saying that porn affects the brain in ways similar to drugs. The pleasure centers of porn consumers’ brains get a shot of dopamine when they use. I believe Philip Zimbardo documented how the ability to open multiple windows of online HD smut creates structural changes to the brain — a dopaminergic furrow — similar to those resulting from certain types of drug use.

    Also, I don’t know if it’s possible to OD fatally on marijuana either, but lethality or its lack doesn’t bear on the reality of neurochemical effects from either substance.

  73. Cane Caldo says:

    @BradA

    This stretched further when someone said above the kissing someone not your spouse and even a blowjob was not adultery.

    Caspar can correct me, but I read him saying that people justify their behavior (no matter how bad it is, even including oral sex) so as to make it seem that Jesus wasn’t talking about what they themselves did. I believe you two are in agreement.

    @Dalrock

    Several commenters on my post Chick porn asked why men’s mostly visual porn is seen as sinful while women’s mostly written porn is seen as something different.

    Two other factors are:

    1) It is literally easier to see, and therefore recognize, visual porn.

    2) Most men–especially the sort who value sex differences–have little interest in investigating the crap that is put out for women’s consumption. Who wants to read Prick, 50SoG, Eat Pray Love, etc. Since it’s not visual porn, it’s easy to put it out of one’s mind as “merely girly silliness”.

  74. Well done Dal.

    It’s also interesting that there is in fact a literally emphasis on men’s eyes in romance literature. Body descriptions abound, but so long as an authoress emphasizes a man’s “deep, soulful emotive windows to his innermost being” eyes it legitimizes her desire for the rest of his body.

    Ironically the nefarious, creepy, ‘Male Gaze’ which feminists have been kvetching about since the Betty Frieden days becomes a highly valued, almost default requirement of a man who is truly connected to the object of his desire. In romance literature, exclusively holding the Male Gaze of her perfect Alpha lover is the primary requirement of a male protagonist.

    I don’t think this is an accident after considering your post today.

  75. Sex with Step Brothers? She was confused. The marketers must have made her do it because her father didn’t beg her to believe she is beautiful.

    Sex with vampires? Sounds wholesome.

    Sex with animals? They were in love.

    Sex with dinosaurs? Must be true love.

    Wereseals? I see nothing…

    You’re letting me down Dal, you forgot sex with Bigfoot:
    http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/17/how-to-make-money-writing-bigfoot-sex-scenes/

  76. Minesweeper says:

    @jonadabtherechabite @ February 20, 2015 at 10:53 am

    Thats an interesting viewpoint that I’ve never seen before.

    Also whats interesting is that although the word gunaika\gune can represent either woman or wife. In the bible we have 43 instances of that where it describes “Wife” and 12 instances where is describes “woman” – so its a 78% chance its “Wife”. Which also changes the meaning from what we expect.

    The thing is that if you take our english translation at face value it dosn’t give an exception to those who are married and thinking warm thoughts about their partner, sorry “woman/wife” only. Because as you can see this instruction only applies to those looking at adult females.

    According to Mt 5:28 if you are gay or a furrie you are fine to look at what you like.

    Now obviously I’m playing devils advocate here, but I’m not saying chastity, righteousness, a holy and reverent life lived to the Lord are wrong in any way. Which is what people seem to think when you point out this text is wrong. You can see why translators won’t change it, it just wouldnt stand.

    The Lord challenged me several times to go to the original language at one point, when I did, I spent a time in shock afterwards, as quite a few of the verses that we believe arn’t translated according to the original language, they have been translated to fit our culture, rather than our culture fitting what the Word says.

    I can understand the offence that will cause to some and I was offended by what I discovered. I don’t talk about it much in public as it goes down very badly indeed.

    Bottom line is we believe what we have been told and what we want to believe. It takes revelation from God to change our minds on some things. And unless you want to know, he won’t show you.

    “Now for many men porn use is for the purpose of not committing acts of adultery while keeping their vows” – I would agree with that statement, I would wonder if it keeps more marriages together than breaks them apart. I know of one man who was addicted to porn and cheating on his wife, they overcame this together and have built a successful and continuing marriage. I’ve known others who were dead set against porn as it was full blown adultery with multiple women and rallied against it, have their marriage collapse into an absolute mess of divorce.

  77. BradA says:

    Cane,

    Caspar can correct me, but I read him saying that people justify their behavior (no matter how bad it is, even including oral sex) so as to make it seem that Jesus wasn’t talking about what they themselves did. I believe you two are in agreement.

    Then I would stand corrected. I had seen enough wacky arguments here that I thought it was making the opposite argument, that only full on sex was adultery.

  78. BradA says:

    IBB,

    I lost a sister to drug use, so get off your high horse. Many use marijuana and don’t die, but it is not a great idea. Many are hooked on alcohol (a legal drug) and don’t die either. We could dissect things incredibly, but it all boils down to the fact that some things are bad, even if they may happen because of other people doing bad things (withholding sex in marriage for example).

    I wouldn’t put some things in the category of venial sins (keeping you from Heaven I believe), but that doesn’t mean they are good to do.

    Not sure why you have to misspell porn either.

  79. jonadabtherechabite says:

    @minesweeper

    To your point. The gospel of Mathew uses some form of the noun gunai 19 times. The closes context is in the monologue Matt 5:31. In v 31 it cannot mean anything other than wife. Same in 14:3, but a bit more ambiguous in 11:11. So context must provide the proper English translation. Back to 5:28 the word translated adultery is moicheuo whic is always adultery not fornication adding to the gravity of your point.

  80. BradA says:

    I have seen the argument that Jesus only gave the divorce option to men (as did the OT), but I believe the principle would apply to either. I am very strict on being true to what is written, but I do believe many things are principles rather than absolute coverage. The Scriptures don’t iterate out every variation in most cases, God expects us to use our brains.

    Jesus was only answering a specific question and that is the context of His answer. He said nothing about anything else. Paul applies this principle across the sexes (adding abandonment) so I believe doing so for adultery is quite reasonable. Doing it for porn use is using the wrong application of what he said though. I also have yet to hear or read a good explanation of exactly what a man or woman who remarried without a valid reason (and thus committed adultery) should do. Nothing states it is ongoing adultery with the only way to resolve it being divorcing the current spouse.

    Using the example from those returning after the captivity is not a proper general application as the point there was marrying outside the group God told that specific group (the Jews) to remain faithful within.

    Lyn87, any thoughts you have on this issue? Is the adultery from remarriage ongoing or once?

    Note as well that the adultery was committed by the remarried woman, though prompted by the divorcing husband. (“Causes her to commit adultery” IIRC)

  81. Martel says:

    In regards to the discussion as to whether or not porn is like drug use, everything is like everything else except for the ways in which they’re different. In some ways they’re like each other, in other ways they’re not.

    And this is somewhat of a repeat from my comment from 4:19 yesterday, but I was wondering if anybody knows if the Greek for “in your heart” is the same in Matthew 5:28 as it is in Romans 10:9?

  82. earl says:

    Well to bring it back…the reason I brought up drug use is that many drug users have all sorts of rationalizations for taking something most of us know as harmful. It doesn’t surprise me if porn users use the same rationalizations for to the same reasons…they are addicted to it.

  83. Minesweeper says:

    @jonadabtherechabite
    “The closes context is in the monologue Matt 5:31. In v 31 it cannot mean anything other than wife. Same in 14:3, but a bit more ambiguous in 11:11”

    Great find, although Strongs lists them as the same(5:28+11:11), the word is used slightly different : gunaikwn in 11:11 rather than gunaika in 5:28. I’m using ISA2 as my reference.

    As you say, in 5:31 with practically the same breath the identical word is used to clearly describe wife : gunaika, as you cannot divorce a women you arn’t married too.

    Thank you for your input ! Keep schooling me.

  84. Minesweeper says:

    Yes its the same :
    G2588 kardia kar-dee’-ah
    prolonged from a primary kar (Latin cor, “heart”);
    the heart, i.e. (figuratively) the thoughts or feelings (mind); also (by analogy) the middle.

    KJV: (+ broken-)heart(-ed).

  85. Minesweeper says:

    Above was for Martel.

  86. Earl, that link is bull. Where are all the porn addict men suffering severe withdraw symptoms, as with cocaine? Where are all the porn addicts robbing stores, stealing and all other random acts of violence attributed to addicts? I can see exactly where studies like that go. They are going to try and make porn out to be some sort of drug and addiction that must be banned outright or servery regulated.

    I can agree with all the ‘reward pathway’ stuff, which is exactly what I said earlier but if a man is not getting the reward for his hard work anyway, you know, no Biblical wife and stuff, porn use is no more harmful to him than other sinful acts.

    It all boils back down to the problem that porn provides the stimulation of sexual release for men without having to work for it. In other words, society loses its grip on making men work for sticking their dick in crazy.

  87. Martel says:

    Thanks Minesweeper.

    So apparently lusting after a woman “in your heart” is sinful in the same sense that accepting Jesus “in your heart” indicates you’ve been saved.

    Thus if my thesis is correct, we have two possibilities. Either:

    1) If thinking “whoah, she’s hot” is adultery, then you just need to think that Jesus is pretty cool to be saved.

    2) If the necessary step of accepting Jesus “into your heart” is a profound life-altering decision, then you’d have to desperately want the woman in question (whether image on a screen, single or married) for it to be akin to adultery.

    I’m not being flippant here, and I concede that I’m far from an expert on this. However, I suspect that what Jesus is criticizing here (with sins other than adultery, too) is the tendency of some of us to give ourselves credit for not sinning when the only reason we haven’t sinned is that we’re unable to pull it off or can’t get away with it.

    Think of the sexually unattractive person of either gender who looks down on the promiscuous who would be just as active as anyone if anyone found them attractive, the murderer who actually would kill that dude but he’s pretty sure he’d get caught, the Pharisee who refrains from getting that other guy’s wife only because it would cost him his livelihood.

    However, according to this hypothesis, merely thinking “I’d love to smash that guy’s head it” isn’t the same as actual murder (regarding how God would hold you to account) UNLESS you actually would smash that guy’s head in given the opportunity. Likewise, sexual thoughts concerning a woman wouldn’t necessarily be sinful UNLESS if you had the chance to get with her you’d actually take it. There are millions of guys worldwide who’ve had all sorts of thoughts about Jessica Alba, but a few of them actually wouldn’t if they could because they know it’s sinful. Those guys might not be who Jesus was addressing here.

    Don’t rip into me if you think I might be wrong or am trying to rationalize or something; I’m thinking out loud and honestly seeking the Truth.

  88. Minesweeper says:

    Martel,
    Yep I would say you are correct.

    Don’t forget the Mt 5:28 english translation dosn’t mention someone having an addiction to porn, trawling websites and blowing the credit card. Its NOT a repeated fascination.

    It just involves a “single” look to any woman with lust. One.time.only.

  89. Escoffier says:

    FWIW, “gyne” in classical Greek is like “femme” in modern French. It means both “woman” and “wife.” The meaning will be clear from the context in the latter case. If it’s not, then the default meaning is either “woman” or both.

  90. The Brass Cat says:

    Feministhater,

    Indeed. The concept of “porn addiction” diminishes the definition of addiction. A better term is habit. A porn habit.

  91. Escoffier says:

    In iBB’s “logical” framework, there are no differences of degree, only of kind. This, I suppose, is why he thinks short people are a different species from tall people. Or, he would if he could ever muster the effort to be consistent.

  92. Martel says:

    @ Minesweeper: “Don’t forget the Mt 5:28 english translation dosn’t mention someone having an addiction to porn, trawling websites and blowing the credit card. Its NOT a repeated fascination.”

    I think it depends on the porn addiction. If somebody would genuinely bang every woman in sight and he can’t because he’s an omega so instead he satiates himself with porn, in effect he is a fornicator. The only reason he doesn’t fornicate is he can’t. Just like if you were about to steal the iPod but didn’t because you saw the security guy walk by, per God you might as well have taken it.

    On the other hand a guy has a strong sex drive but no game so his wife won’t do anything for him so he gets into porn, maybe not. He doesn’t want to cheat, he won’t cheat, but he can’t hold it in. Therefore, he takes the least worst option and takes care of it himself.

  93. Minesweeper says:

    @Martel, my point being was that if our 5:28 translation is to be believed, then a single look is all that is required to have committed that sin. This dosn’t preclude multiple uses obviously.

    That this alone is could used as grounds for divorce – one look, should tell you what you need to know about the translation.

  94. SirHamster says:

    Note as well that the adultery was committed by the remarried woman, though prompted by the divorcing husband. (“Causes her to commit adultery” IIRC)

    It’s mutual. (I had to look it up though)

    Old NIV:
    ” But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. ”

    KJV:
    “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

    And in the process of looking this up, I found that the reworked NIV has yet again completely altered the meaning of the verse, silently and opaquely. I hate this. I grew up on NIV and find it the most “natural” translation to me, and they are clearly part of some agenda to push Christian belief in a different direction.

    New NIV:
    “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

  95. trgb, earl, fh, and brad,

    Yes no one has ODed and died from pot use, ever. But you CAN OD and die from alcohol use. And you can from meth, crack, cocaine, heroin, lsd, etc, all of these CAN kill you.

    But not masturbation or pron, ever.

    Earl, that link is bull. Where are all the porn addict men suffering severe withdraw symptoms, as with cocaine? Where are all the porn addicts robbing stores, stealing and all other random acts of violence attributed to addicts? I can see exactly where studies like that go. They are going to try and make porn out to be some sort of drug and addiction that must be banned outright or servery regulated.

    fh is correct. They are trying to make is a drug to ban it our severely regulate. You guys see the difference here? You really can’t compare the two, it is night and day. The only similarities pron and drugs have is that they are both addictions. So what?

    I am addicted to writing. I am a writing addict (here and many other blogs.) I have writen a few books only because I can’t help but write in my spare time. Is that so horrible? Should my writing be criminalized or even regulated? Does writing make me a danger to anyone? Is writing bad for my health? Will writing bankrupt me and destroy my family? Will I OD and die from writing? I am quite sure I get a dopamine rush from my writing (I am feeling one now.) Guess that makes it like drugs right?

    See what I am getting at? You can’t just relate drugs and pron because you can be addicted to both. That is a terrible comparison to make and it insults everyone’s intelligence when you do so.

  96. Martel says:

    @ Minesweeper: I get your point. Part of my reason for saying what I did is to hold of those who might be inclined to think I’m trying to use the Greek translation as a way of rationalizing away the very meaning of the verse. I do think it’s important and indicates that sin is about more than just what you do, but it’s also starting to look like something needs to be a profound desire on your part (“in your heart”), not just a passing thought.

  97. Escoffier says:

    But according to your “argument,” the mere fact that you can’t die from pot means that pot is not a drug.

    No differences in degree, only of kind.

  98. Escoffier, you said we are supposed to shun each other? That was YOUR idea (so you could keep your pride.) Now you are trying to engage me in dialogue. So which is it? There are only a few people on this board I am shunning, and I was going to add you to the list. You want to remain on the list or come off the list? You pick, just stick with it.

  99. Escoffier says:

    My posts are more meant for the other poor misguided souls who waste time on your illogic and hysterics. The more people I can save, the better the world will be.

  100. Anonymous Reader says:

    It is interesting that any comment stream on any web site where the topic is “women using porn” it doesn’t take very long before a drift to men’s badness for using porn occurs.
    It’s almost as though Men Do That Too, And It’s Worse! is somehow encoded into our thinking.

    Or maybe it’s just too difficult for some to really stay focused on bad behavior of women for very long.

  101. No one is being hysterical about anything here. And there is nothing wrong with my logic. If you want to compare pot and pron (because neither can kill you) then that is a little closer, but still pot has a financial cost and it does do (perhaps) some perminant damage to your brain (can jeapordize your professional career) so it is still far worse that pron. You just “forgot” that you weren’t supposed to talk to me and are just being disingenuous now with your saving souls nonsense.

    Look I don’t care. If you want to chat, fine. If not, fine. I’m okay either way. That is because I do admire your writing and I like the way you think (sometimes.) And I have admitted when I was wrong on this board (a few times actually.) I think all this is, is you not liking it very much when you are “challenged.” And that is too bad, you just can’t let go of the pride. The only way red pill thought is going to grow in the mainstream is when your thinking is challenged and you can admit that maybe you were wrong about something.

  102. Escoffier says:

    You have yet to challenge my thinking on anything, as far as I can recall, though many others here have done so.

    You are having a conniption (again) over the comparison between porn and drugs. Perhaps you don’t know what a comparison is? It is when you take to like but different things and evaluate their similarities. Porn and drugs, though obviously not the same thing, have many similarities.

    Just to list a few:

    -they are vices
    -they appeal to man’s limbic pleasure centers in ways that are, ipso facto, pleasant but over the long term not good for his physical or mental health
    -they take him away from more important pursuits
    -they can cut him off from healthy interaction with others, including loved ones, and with his environment
    -they can become addictive, though in different ways internally, with similar results externally
    -they can take over people’s lives, costing countless hours, money, and other opportunity costs
    -they are not substitutes for but very poor alternatives to the genuine, deeper, and healthy pleasures they are meant to replace
    -taken in small doses, they may not be that bad in and of themselves, but a great many—perhaps even a majority—lack the restraint to restrict themselves to small doses
    -used or abused by a small number of people, their bad effects on society may be either trivial or manageable, but when they consume large numbers and whole communities, they can very destructive
    -they impose their worst effects on those least likely to be able to resist and on those who need the most moral guidance, that is to say, on the less virtuous and less fortunate, which is to say, both are inherently predatory “products” that thrive on dysfunction and misery and create more of both

    To all this, all you can do is shout in all-caps, over and over, “YOU CAN’T DIE FROM PORN YOU CAN’T DIE FROM PORN YOU CAN’T DIE FROM PORN!!!!!!” Rather similar to “WOMEN HAVE NO MORAL AGENCY” which you love to shout like a de-institutionalized street-corner mad man.

    That is hysterics, pure and simple. It’s not even an ICBM’s distance from an actual argument. I can’t understand why anyone takes this seriously, but in case anyone does, I hope the above will help them see reason.

  103. earl says:

    ‘To all this, all you can do is shout in all-caps, over and over, “YOU CAN’T DIE FROM PORN YOU CAN’T DIE FROM PORN YOU CAN’T DIE FROM PORN!!!!!!”

    And the odd part is I never made a mention that you can die from porn. That came out of left field.

  104. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    It is interesting that any comment stream on any web site where the topic is “women using porn” it doesn’t take very long before a drift to men’s badness for using porn occurs.
    It’s almost as though Men Do That Too, And It’s Worse! is somehow encoded into our thinking.

    Or maybe it’s just too difficult for some to really stay focused on bad behavior of women for very long.

    I think in this case we are seeing something different. In the larger Christian culture, there is no question that porn is sinful, it is just that women’s porn doesn’t count (or perhaps exist). My focus in the OP was on the fallacy of ignoring women’s porn or otherwise giving it a pass. It is sinful for the same reason men’s porn is. Here there are a small number of vocal men who are arguing (as best as I can tell) that porn isn’t sinful (for men or women). As others have noted we’ve been through this before, but obviously not everyone is in agreement with what should be in my opinion very obvious.

  105. SirHamster says:

    And the odd part is I never made a mention that you can die from porn. That came out of left field.

    It’s strange when you stumble on someone else’s trigger. Which I guess is what trigger warnings are all about.

  106. mikediver5 says:

    Dal,

    I think the arguement is not that porn is not sinful, but rather that it is not equivalent to adultery and therefore not biblical grounds for divorce.

  107. hoellenhund2 says:

    The first component is the widely accepted fallacy that romantic love makes sex pure. This gives women cover to call their porn “romance”, and claim it is somehow different than porn consisting mainly of images.

    And they are, of course, bullshitting. The overwhelming majority of porn is aimed at average beta males, and thus a majority of such porn features sex in a romantic context, because that’s the standard beta fantasy.

  108. JCclimber says:

    I see very little mention of the biggest source of porn for women……
    Music. Music I believe is much more damaging to the female psyche than romance porn. The words are toxic, but since they are set to a catchy beat and a musical tune that has been finely engineered by the best sound technicians to stick in your head…..they put it on again and again.

    They don’t even realize for a moment that they have been reprogrammed by the pop, rock, R&B, rap, blues, and country music for decades.

    While women might feel a tiny, microscopic bit of shame about reading romance porn, I doubt any of them feel any shame about belting out their favorite pop song in public.

  109. I agree that porn is sinful, I just don’t agree with the secular reasoning used. I don’t see the biological difference if a man ejaculates with or without the woman. The only difference is the stimulation used to obtain the orgasm. There are no other attributes that can cause some ‘addiction’ in the man that cause actual brain ‘damage’ as has be noted by Earl.

    If that were true, then it would be logical that a man having sex with multiple women in his daily life would be subject to the same damage. Furthermore, it would be up to those that allege to prove that somehow rubbing one out is difference to sex in such a manner that the chemicals released in the brain cause a different reaction, which I don’t believe they do.

  110. Dalrock says:

    @mikediver5

    Dal,

    I think the arguement is not that porn is not sinful, but rather that it is not equivalent to adultery and therefore not biblical grounds for divorce.

    Ah. Agreed. That makes no sense. By that logic we would arrest people for sinful thoughts which equate to murder, etc.

  111. Indeed, surely if porn causes addiction to ever more erotic forms of viewership, it would follow that sex with a woman would cause the same eventual need for higher forms of sexual entertainment. Rubbing one out vs having sex with your wife obtain the exact same release of chemicals, so why is one not ‘damaging’ to the brain while the other is? Is it the number of times a man can rub one out vs being married? If so, are men who have sex with their wives daily at the same risk? These must be explained before you chaps can continue with your line of thought.

  112. Minesweeper says:

    D – my argument is that this verse being mistranslated is being served up to roundly condemn men across the board, which is sinful. With Mt 5:28 – anything more than a momentary glance at a woman can condemn a man as committing adultery in his heart.

    The common (mis)understanding of what 5:28 means is so far from the original text I can hardly believe we are having to have this conversation.

    The issue of porn, masturbation, lap dancing bars, addiction, divorce, pure thoughts, physical adultery, prostitution is entirely separate to this.

  113. Earl, I read that diatribe of useless information that doesn’t explain anything about the so called ’cause’. What is different about jacking off compared to sex with a woman? What changes chemically and biologically within a man that causes this so called ‘addiction’?

  114. earl,

    And the odd part is I never made a mention that you can die from porn. That came out of left field.

    That is right, you didn’t earl. I made mention of it in (what appears to be a vain) attempt to get you to understand that you really cant compare them. It is silly earl. The dopamine aspects of it on the brain, there are so many things that do that, its silly to compare drugs and pron in that light.

    There are all sorts of addictions that can consume all your spare time. Working out at the gym, running, writing, reading, caring for animals, working on cars, coaching little league, etc, all these things (in moderation) are not necessarily bad for you. In many cases they are good for you. Pron is not good for you (even if the masturbation in and of itself is not harmful) but it is a far cry from recreational drug use which is (most certainly) horrible for you.

    Me personally earl, I would rate an addiction to cigarettes or over-eating as a far more dangerous vice (both physically and certainly, spiritually) than pron. We’ll see what God thinks of my thoughts on that one on Judgement day.

  115. jonadabtherechabite says:

    @Earl

    The drugs you are concerned about are, in my understanding, the mechanism by which a man is intoxicated by the love from his wife as described in Prov. 5:19. The God’s design is for a man to have intimacy with a loving wife that produces those drugs. The problem is that feminism has weaponized sex and men are protecting themselves from the destructiveness of sexual warefare by getting their fix from other sources, yet without committing acts of adultery. The results are predictable; women coached by whit-knights in the church withhold even more, men being defrauded turn to porn as an aid in masturbation. The wife gets what she wants in one sense, she is not having sex with the husband she is denying, but she is loosing control over his sex and coached to feel hurt. The husband is keeping his vow in a difficult circumstance, settling for counterfeit intimacy, but counterfeit is better than nothing. To slam men for their coping mechanism apart from understanding their circumstance is in effect to make them eunuchs, sexless servants whose purpose is to please their queen. The desire for sex in marriage is good and holy, the unsatisfied hunger is an issue that comes from either sexual gluttony or sexual starvation. Knowing which is the key. Denouncing the drugs that produce the sexual high is akin to denouncing the marriage bed itself. (Heb. 13:4)

  116. That’s because the brain is trying to protect itself from the overload of dopamine by getting rid of some of its chemical receptors, [12] which act like tiny catcher’s mitts that receive the dopamine released. With fewer receptors, the brain thinks less dopamine is there and the user doesn’t feel as strong a reaction. As a result, many porn users have to find more porn, find it more often, or find a more extreme version—or all three—to generate even more dopamine to feel excited.

    The exact same thing can be said of a man who has sex with his wife? What is the difference between rubbing one out once a night compared to having sex with your wife once a night?

  117. Oh silly me, the difference is you won’t be getting sex with your wife once a night, not even once a week. Lol!

  118. earl says:

    ‘What is different about jacking off compared to sex with a woman?’

    You have the possibility of a new life result from having sex with a woman.

  119. earl says:

    ‘The problem is that feminism has weaponized sex and men are protecting themselves from the destructiveness of sexual warefare by getting their fix from other sources, yet without committing acts of adultery.’

    Yes the big problem is that sex has been turned from an act of love to an act of power. And you can’t have both love and power.

  120. You have the possibility of a new life result from having sex with a woman.

    Chillens are expensive and the state and women own them anyway.

  121. Gunner Q says:

    Martel @ 1:19 pm:
    “I’m not being flippant here, and I concede that I’m far from an expert on this. However, I suspect that what Jesus is criticizing here (with sins other than adultery, too) is the tendency of some of us to give ourselves credit for not sinning when the only reason we haven’t sinned is that we’re unable to pull it off or can’t get away with it.”

    What Jesus is criticizing here is the tendency of some of us to think we can avoid sin by exploiting legal loopholes. This is the whole point of my “don’t trust selective applications of Greek words” thesis. “Yes, that’s what the translators of this particular translation (and twenty others) believe is correct, but the original Greek term was sometimes translated by Roman pedophiles as something totally different, so you can’t say that this is what God actually means with any certainty.”

    Burn in hell, lawyer-boy.

  122. Off to bed, I’ll check back on the answers tomorrow later in the day. Have a good night all.

  123. Minesweeper says:

    @jonadabtherechabite “The problem is that feminism has weaponry sex and men are protecting themselves from the destructiveness of sexual warfare by getting their fix from other sources, yet without committing acts of adultery. The results are predictable; women coached by whit-knights in the church withhold even more, men being defrauded turn to porn as an aid in masturbation. The wife gets what she wants in one sense, she is not having sex with the husband she is denying, but she is loosing control over his sex and coached to feel hurt. The husband is keeping his vow in a difficult circumstance, settling for counterfeit intimacy, but counterfeit is better than nothing. To slam men for their coping mechanism apart from understanding their circumstance is in effect to make them eunuchs, sexless servants whose purpose is to please their queen.”

    excellent point.

    Another issue at stake is that woman invoking this “divorce right” are in actuality projecting their thinking into the man.

    Once a woman has the hots for another man, its over with the current one generally. A man can easily have multiple wives or lovers and still care for them all. Not so in a females case.

  124. earl says:

    ‘To slam men for their coping mechanism apart from understanding their circumstance is in effect to make them eunuchs, sexless servants whose purpose is to please their queen.’

    Well there’s a coping mechanism and then there’s taking on the problem in the first place. That being she is purposely withholding sex. It won’t do a guy any good by going the route of sin while letting his wife continue to stew in hers.

    Granted I get it’s an uphill battle and she’ll probably have all the rationalizers on her side…but you do have the word of God in the Bible and specifically this passage.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A+3-5&version=NASB

  125. jonadabtherechabite says:

    @BradA

    Jesus does not give the divorce option, but only tells us what Moses gave. The only principle that I see in the NT that abrogates the Old Testament on divorce is Jesus Himself that states emphatically that What God has joined let no one tear apart. Mark 10:2. In what way is the Jesus the fulfillment of a divorce code given only for those with a hardness of heart?

    Matt 5:32 is often cited to allow divorce among Christians. The verb is not the same word as used for divorce, but apoluo which means to separate not apostasion which is used in Matt:19.7 for divorce. In 19.8 divorce is stated as Moses only allowing husbands to divorce their wives. I know of no text or principle from scripture that would allow women to initiate divorce. 1 Cor 7:15 would allow a non-christian wife to depart, but not divorce. In fact since the man paid the bride price, and her father handing headship to her new husband, a wife initiating a divorce would be an act of treachery and larceny.

  126. OKRickety says:

    I agree with feministhater. If porn usage must follow the “slippery slope” to stronger porn, and eventually to acting out, why is it claimed that married sex is somehow immune, but only gets better over the course of the marriage as their love for each other grows greater? Is a marriage license some kind of magical talisman that provides traction to avoid the slippery slope? On a related note, the same slippery slope argument is used by women to support their desire to frivorce on the basis of abuse, because they believe any perceived abuse, whether physical or even emotional, will certainly escalate to the point that the wife will likely be killed if she should remain with the man.

  127. imnobody00 says:

    O/T. Now the official term of a “pump and dump” is “an almost ex”.

    http://elitedaily.com/dating/fck-closure-13-struggles-face-almost-exes/940622/

  128. Martel says:

    @ Gunner Q: “Burn in hell, lawyer-boy.”

    Who are you addressing here? Because whether it’s me or somebody else you might want to be clear. The first paragraph is stuff I said, the second I have no idea. And it’s going to be tough to either refute or support your “‘don’t trust selective applications of Greek words’ thesis” without any references to where it is or what it says.

  129. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Here there are a small number of vocal men who are arguing (as best as I can tell) that porn isn’t sinful (for men or women). As others have noted we’ve been through this before, but obviously not everyone is in agreement with what should be in my opinion very obvious.

    I agree.

    It is important that we insist on good translation, but insistence upon individual words alone and separate from the context strike me as attempts at a pure form of sorcery.

    The meaning is clear when taken as a whole and cross-ferenced with the other Gospels: To abstain from all sexual impurity; that no gerrymandering around points of law makes one innocent because the desire isn’t innocent. These things are matters of the heart; of desire. I believe that is also what Martel was trying about, but sarcasm muddies already muddy conversation. I could be wrong.

    It’s been told to me that some of this was a direct jab at the Pharisees because they had a practice of trading wives (just as John the Baptist accused King Herod) for pleasure, money, or political clout; all very Roman of them. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know for sure. Seems plausible.

  130. jonadabtherechabite says:

    @Earl

    You are correct. I Cor 7: 3-5 plus Eph 5:26 place a burden on the husband to confront his insubordinate wife with the Word. Now tell me what a man is supposed to do if she obey not the word? He cannot spank her without a charge of abuse – he cannot yell at her without a charge of abuse – he cannot divorce her without breaking his vow to God – He cannot take her before the elders without being accused of failing to protect her and acting like a sexual deviant. Please tell us what a husband is to do! What church will have has his back? Can he expect the elders to go against the teachings of Al Mohler, Focus on the Female and Female life today? The fact is he his options are few and unpalatable. The least worst option is often the best available.

  131. Cane Caldo says:

    “…I believe that is also what Martel was trying to talk about.”

  132. Minesweeper says:

    @jonadabtherechabite, “In fact since the man paid the bride price, and her father handing headship to her new husband, a wife initiating a divorce would be an act of treachery and larceny.”

    What about if she had been married previously, I doubt the father would pay again would he ?

    Only Mk 10:12 talks about a women initiating divorce.

  133. Escoffier says:

    Cigarettes, from what we (or I) know, are probably worse for your physical health than porn. But then again, the physical effects of cigarettes have been studied ad nauseum in part because it’s socially acceptable and even encouraged to bash tobacco. The effects of porn are by contrast understudied because while porn is not quite (yet) socially acceptable, raising concerns about the effects of porn is still socially unacceptable. So perhaps if this is ever studied any further, we will learn more about the deleterious effects of porn.

    As for the relative effects on the soul, there is no contest: porn is much worse than tobacco. An honest, faithful, courageous, industrious smoker is a better man than a tobacco-free porn addict.

  134. jonadabtherechabite says:

    Mark 10:12 does not give either the right to divorce, but demonstrates that one sin does not justify the multiplication of sin.

    ” I doubt the father would (be) pay(ed) again would he ? ” In Hebrew society the custom was a widow would return to her father and the bride-price paid by her deceased husband was used to sustain her. If someone came to marry the widow he would, out of honor not compulsion, offer a bride price albeit a reduced one for the non-virgin. If she had children the children no bride price was expected as the husband would pay to raise children that were not his.

  135. Minesweeper,

    @jonadabtherechabite, “In fact since the man paid the bride price, and her father handing headship to her new husband, a wife initiating a divorce would be an act of treachery and larceny.”

    What about if she had been married previously, I doubt the father would pay again would he ?

    The “father” does not pay any “brideprice.” The “father” pays to the future son-in-law, a “dowry.”

    Brideprice and Dowry are exact opposites. And they are intended to be that way in describing the financial viability of the “wife.” If she was working (and earning her keep) in her family, then the man who wants to marry her and take her away from her father must pay the father some “brideprice” in compensation. If (however) she is a burden to her father’s family (can’t seem to do anything productive) then the father must pay the man who wished to marry his daughter a “dowry” as the man marrying her has relieved the father of his financial burden! In reality, the “dowry” is really for his daughter to help support her in the unlikely event of the early death of her husband.

    There are all kinds of “Dowries” and “Brideprices” today. A husband paying off his wife’s student loans is paying a “brideprice” whereas a husband who inherits a house by marrying a girl who got a house from her father has gotten a “dowry.” But in the end, this all just boils down to if she is (or isn’t) a financial burden to the husband as to WHO PAYS WHO.

  136. Men wouldn’t watch porn
    if women didn’t perform it.

    I’m no historian, but I get the feeling that grandma’s church did not let her engage in buzttzzhzothztzzhzhthettxt on videotape before, during, nor after marriage.

    That was a fairly efficient way to solve any and all “porn” problems.

    lzoozlzzzo

  137. Minesweeper says:

    The thread has been touched by a legend…..

  138. Men wouldn’t watch porn
    if women didn’t perform it.

    This logic is unassailable.

  139. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    I think in this case we are seeing something different. In the larger Christian culture, there is no question that porn is sinful, it is just that women’s porn doesn’t count (or perhaps exist). My focus in the OP was on the fallacy of ignoring women’s porn or otherwise giving it a pass. It is sinful for the same reason men’s porn is. Here there are a small number of vocal men who are arguing (as best as I can tell) that porn isn’t sinful (for men or women).

    As is often the case there are multiple interactions going on. A couple of them appear to me to be the usual porn bad men bad MEN BAD lines. What I do not see is:

    * Any discussion of the long term effects of porn use on women
    * Any discussion of the implications of porn use by women.

    Just for a start. So it’s the usual topic shift taking the focus away from women’s behavior and putting all attention onto men. In short, this thread has done exactly what you observed in the OP; given women a free pass. Because that’s how our “men bad, women good” culture works, and like it or not every church in the country is part of the culture.

    Indeed, I’m quite confident that there were no sermons on 50 SOG last Sunday. Most especially and particularly, I am confident that any pastor or priest who has ever preached on the evils of porn use by men had nothing at all to say about 50 SOG last Sunday, and I predict that there will be no, none, not any sermons next Sunday on that topic, either.

    Some may see that as no big deal. I see it as “what you reward, you will get more of”. The free pass is a kind of reward.

  140. Cane Caldo says:

    Every time I see “50 SOG”, I hope someone’s about to go on on a tear about their 50 favorite blades.

  141. hey dalrockakskz! i may not be posting for a few daysz while i am recuperatingz zlzlzozzzolzlzzz:

    http://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/woman-arrested-for-maiming-after-man-claims-girlfriend-tried-to-bite-his-penis-off

    lzzzlzzlz

    it was all my fault
    as i wasn’t showing her
    enugh attentionsz
    with my
    formerly lotasaz
    cockaslzozlzzzz

  142. earl says:

    ‘Now tell me what a man is supposed to do if she obey not the word?’

    There’s always prayer. This is an affair of a rebellious heart.

    As far as churches…I’m Catholic so that’s the only perspective I know. From what I hear lot of other churches only side with the woman in most issues.

  143. earl says:

    ‘ If porn usage must follow the “slippery slope” to stronger porn, and eventually to acting out, why is it claimed that married sex is somehow immune, but only gets better over the course of the marriage as their love for each other grows greater?’

    One is a sin and the other is the correct terms of how God constructed sex.

  144. lzzlzzzlzzllz she bit it off right after my concenrtzlzzoozoz casue she was jeealousz f the hotties in da front rowsz
    10,000 VIEWS CAN’T BE WRONG!!! LZOZZZZZZZZ

    this is the song i used to open for mark drsicoll when he spoke at my chcurhc zllzozozlzzzlz

    10,000 VIEWS CAN’T BE WRONG!!! LZOZZZZZZZZ

  145. earl says:

    ‘Men wouldn’t watch porn
    if women didn’t perform it.’

    Hey now it’s not her fault she has to perform it. Bella needs her money for college…and she isn’t going to reduce herself to a barista, cashier, or receptionist.

  146. embracing reality says:

    In fact the war over porn was fought primarily between feminists. Feminists who apposed porn and those feminist identifying themselves as ‘sex-positive’ who ultimately won the war. Mainstream feminism is now by definition sex-positive. This is old news, 70’s and 80’s but if you’ve need a quick refresher simply google “Feminist Sex Wars”.

    The finest’ male pornographers in the world could never make porn that would appeal to any heterosexual man without the generous and explicit cooperation of sex-positive female feminists. Women are the subject of porn. Jenna Jameson earned $30 million in 2005 as a female pornographer.

    Porn epidemic, yep, feminism made that.

  147. embracing reality says:

    Also, sympathies to da GBFM. Hoping you and your nearly severed scrotum feel better soon there in T-Town.

  148. boothsdg says:

    @AR I can tell you that a multi-campus church in the Charlotte, NC, metro area did have a message that included a denunciation of FSOG within the broader context of biblical marriage. This could be the exception that proves the rule, but there it is.

  149. Minesweeper says:

    http://www.newsweek.com/2015/02/20/suicide-men-305913.html

    “Suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts were three times higher among divorced men”

    Note increased the rate with divorced with men.

    Wonder just how many divorces because of his “adultery of the heart” are responsible for his suicide ?

    Bet none on the female side, so what do ya think fella’s ? Any frivorces\suicides because the ladies have read or watched 50SOG ???

  150. Minesweeper says:

    Hmmm……

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mt+5%3A28&version=WYC

    Matthew 5:28 Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
    28 But I say to you, that every man that seeth a woman [for] to covet her, hath now done lechery by her in his heart [now he hath done lechery with her in his heart].

    Now that I agree with.

  151. Minesweeper says:

    Hmmm…..

    http://www.biblestudytools.com/tyn/matthew/5-28.html

    Matthew 5:28 Tyndale
    28 But I say vnto you that whosoeuer looketh on a wyfe lustynge after her hathe comitted advoutrie with hir alredy in his hert.

    Closer…

  152. MarcusD says:

    Does the church say anything about age gap when dating?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=947254

  153. MarcusD says:

    Young, Attractive, and Totally Not Into Having Sex
    http://www.wired.com/2015/02/demisexuality/

  154. MarcusD says:

    Woman in New York Times: I chose my sperm donor from list of ‘flawless’ men
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/special-order-babies

    I chose my son by clicking and unclicking a series of boxes, not unlike online dating. Some days, I’d scroll through all of the redheads. Other days, all of the Jude Law look­-alikes. Most of the donors seemed to be some combination of rock star and rocket scientist; they were “handsome” and “witty” and “engaging.”

    There was no easy way for me to choose from so many flawless (but relatively indistinguishable) men, particularly when this choice would have such a profound impact on both my life and my child’s. So I kept browsing around, spending Friday nights curled up with the top 1 percent of the male population…

    Without any more hesitation, I chose “Open” and “Above 5 feet 10 inches,” which left four options. One of them looked like Tom Brady and had a Ph.D. I added him to my cart.

  155. Caspar Reyes says:

    Let me try again in more detail, if I may be forgiven for putting words in Jesus’ mouth:

    Man: “I didn’t commit adultery. I didn’t have sex with her.”
    Jesus: “You have heard it said, thou shalt not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks lustfully on a woman has committed adultery with her in the heart.”

    Woman: “I didn’t commit adultery of the heart. I didn’t look lustfully on a woman.”
    Jesus: “You have heard me say, that anyone who looks lustfully on a woman has committed adultery in the heart. But I say to you, that anyone who reads or watches longingly about relationships has committed adultery in the heart.”

    Everyone wants to draw the line so he/she is on the clean side. God always draws the line so that all are on the dirty side. Men can easily be convinced they are on the dirty side. Most women cannot be so easily convinced.

    The Pharisee’s error was not that he was a legalist, but that he was an unbeliever who let himself off the hook while appearing to hold himself to a higher standard (see “korban”). Similarly, a woman will hold a man’s feet to fire by a broad interpretation of “adultery” in Matthew 5, where “adultery” is (“thinking / looking / porn / jacking off / lust / kissing / blowjob” or whatever fits), but apply the same passage very literally to herself (“I’m not committing adultery of the heart by watching Pride and Prejudice because I don’t look lustfully on Lizzie.”) A woman’s self-assessment is not to be trusted, and her assessment of her husband’s sin is not for restoration but condemnation.

    Men are like Israel. Their sin is overt and well defined. A man may lie or deny it, or he may tell you to go jump in a lake, but he is never in doubt about his sin. Women are like Judah. Their sin is subtle and plausibly deniable; they will honor God with their lips but their hearts are corrupt; even they don’t ultimately believe they are sinful and will jump on the moral high horse if you confront them about it (“How dare you accuse *me* of that?”)

    A man confronted with having looked at a woman knows he’s without excuse. No matter where he draws the line on his desire, he knows he has an adulterous heart. He can’t escape it. This futility should drive a man to his Savior.

    A woman doesn’t have difficulty believing the intellectual proposition that she is a sinner, but in general, she won’t or can’t make a direct connection between a particular action or tendency, and her corrupted sin nature.

  156. Anonymous Reader says:

    @AR I can tell you that a multi-campus church in the Charlotte, NC, metro area did have a message that included a denunciation of FSOG within the broader context of biblical marriage. This could be the exception that proves the rule, but there it is.

    Good. Thanks for sharing that. Could you give a name of the church?
    It is pleasant to be corrected in this case.

  157. new anon says:

    The problem is (as Dalrock pointed out) that women (including most modern “Christian” women) believe romantic love legitimizes sex.

    Feelings do not legitimize sex.
    Romance does not legitimize sex.
    Love does not legitimize sex.

    Marriage (and only marriage) makes sex legitimate in the eyes of God.

    Sex without love, but within marriage, is legitimate.

    Sex without marriage, even if there is love for each other, is NOT legitimate.

  158. new anon says:

    Caspar Reyes says: Jesus: “You have heard it said, thou shalt not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks lustfully on a woman has committed adultery with her in the heart.”

    The problem is that people that that ONE LINE out of context. If you add the context the meaning becomes clear. This quote is just one of a series of “you have heard” quotes that are meant to teach a bigger lesson: that nobody is really righteous.

    Long Bible quote below:

    20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

    21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[b] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

    27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old,[c] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[d] 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

    31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality[e] causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

    33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

    38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’[f] 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

    43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor[g] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,[h] 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren[i] only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors[j] do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

  159. new anon says:

    @MarcusD,

    Yet another reason why Christians should oppose sperm banks.

  160. new anon says:

    As far as the pastor & the porn star story:

    * He’s 23.
    * She is 30.
    * She has two kids ages 5 & 14.
    * She made her last porn movie in June of 2014–a mere 8 months ago, and only two months before she and the pastor starting dating.
    * She had a drinking problem, but quit drinking when she met the pastor (6 months ago).

    Bassette said he doesn’t worry much about DiGregorio’s past. “If Christ left it there, who am I to bring it out,” Bassette said. “My past isn’t that great, either.”

    Noone disputes that Jesus can forgive her of her sins, but that doesn’t mean that the consequences of her actions won’t affect her in the future.

  161. earl says:

    ‘Noone disputes that Jesus can forgive her of her sins, but that doesn’t mean that the consequences of her actions won’t affect her in the future.’

    Indeed…I’d be glad she’s getting right with God. That doesn’t mean she is wife material.

  162. earl says:

    ‘The problem is (as Dalrock pointed out) that women (including most modern “Christian” women) believe romantic love legitimizes sex.

    Feelings do not legitimize sex.
    Romance does not legitimize sex.
    Love does not legitimize sex.

    Marriage (and only marriage) makes sex legitimate in the eyes of God.’

    Yes…and men should be aware that these are the traps set before them by women to bring them down. If you aren’t married to her, don’t have sex with her. There’s nothing but pain down that road.

  163. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Lets be honest about why women hate porn.

    It is not because she is competing against it. It is not because it grosses her out. It is not because she is jealous. It is not because she is afraid her husband will actually cheat. It is 100% about control and power. In most cases where the woman ‘hates’ porn she is doling out sex with an eye dropper and her man is on the twice a month plan if he is lucky.

    So the REAL reason women hate porn is it decreases their power to titillate, torment, manipulate, and ultimately torture their husbands with their sexual denial games. Women denying their husbands sex are also denying themselves that little dose of pleasure chemicals God intended her to get from sex. So instead of getting her feel good rodgering, she ‘feels good’ by demonstrating her sexual power through deliberately and wilfully torturing her husband. Watching his sad, disappointed face reaffirms her level of attraction and her superiority. Seeing her husband sulk and turn away, hurt and pained once again makes her feel powerful. Imagine a little girl putting out a treat for a starving dog. She puts the treat through the fence and then jerks it back at the last second. She does it over and over again until the dog lays down, whimpering. This makes her feel so powerful that she can cause such a vicious creature so much pain. She feel GOOD acting evil and torturing one of God’s creatures. Do you see how sick and sinful the sexual denial games are?

    Women hate porn because they want to torture their husbands with denial games. Porn provides relief for the suffering men and we can’t have that! Any relief for a man in daily agony suffering because his wife has capriciously decided she is not haaaappppy might take away some power from women to inflict that suffering. Therefore, if you beat off you are an evil Shitlord who hates women.

    I am glad we cleared that up.

  164. MarcusD says:

    “Noone disputes that Jesus can forgive her of her sins, but that doesn’t mean that the consequences of her actions won’t affect her in the future.”

    That’s one of the major points that CAF (and many other similar groups of people) have a hard time understanding – I don’t know if it’s deliberate misinterpretation or just ignorance. People seem to often ignore temporal consequences of sins (and, CAF is particularly resistant to analogies, so we can’t really go that route).

    There are numerous threads on CAF (etc) where people argue that “forgiveness = no consequences of sin” – it’s actually quite incredible. I suspect a mix of bad catechesis and secular views to be responsible.

  165. boothsdg says:

    @AR Forest Hill Church (www.foresthill.org) has four campuses in and around the Charlotte, NC, area. Senior Pastor David Chadwick spoke last Sunday on biblical marriage and specifically spoke against FSOG and against pornography generally. That message is available online.

  166. Gunner Q says:

    Martel @ February 20, 2015 at 4:30 pm:
    “Who are you addressing here? Because whether it’s me or somebody else you might want to be clear.”

    Rereading what I posted, I apologize for giving any insult. None was intended to you or Minesweeper. I said it about the example-quote I gave, referencing people who deliberately create doubts about plainly-stated Biblical principles in order to create enough wiggle-room for disobedience. That obviously isn’t true of everybody who researches a Biblical passage in detail and my post should have drawn that distinction.

    I’ll stop pushing my thesis for awhile. The topic makes me excitable and, as a result, I’m not communicating effectively.

  167. Martel says:

    @ Gunner Q: Thanks for the clarification and God bless you.

  168. Mark says:

    @BluePillProf

    “”Women hate porn because they want to torture their husbands with denial games. Porn provides relief for the suffering men and we can’t have that! Any relief for a man in daily agony suffering because his wife has capriciously decided she is not haaaappppy might take away some power from women to inflict that suffering. Therefore, if you beat off you are an evil Shitlord who hates women.””

    Damn Great Point!….I have always said this….”Women hate porn because it diminishes their power over men”……I posted this quote from a leading FemiNazi about a year ago on this site……Here we go again….

    “”This is what Naomi Wolf, a feminist, wrote:

    “The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as “porn-worthy.” Far from having to fend off porn-crazed young men, young women are worrying that as mere flesh and blood, they can scarcely get, let alone hold, their attention.

    Oh well!…..life is a bitch….and then you marry one…..live with it ladies!

  169. anonymous_ng says:

    On women hating porn because it reduces their power over men. I friend of mine with a more colored past said in his experience the people who hate gay men the most are attractive women who are accustomed to using their sexuality to manipulate straight men. The gay men see right through it.

  170. There are numerous threads on CAF (etc) where people argue that “forgiveness = no consequences of sin” – it’s actually quite incredible. I suspect a mix of bad catechesis and secular views to be responsible.

    Very bad catechesis, considering that temporal consequences are the whole reason Catholics believe in Purgatory. But then, most people at CAF probably don’t.

  171. Norvis says:

    It was this post that brought me to the realization of the reaction I’ve witnessed to 50SoG.

    When The DaVinci Code was released: churches were up in arms, sermons were preached, studies were offered and protests were organized.

    When Harry Potter was released: people were arguing that HP was the work of Satan turning young minds to magic and evil.

    When 50SoG was released: crickets.

    Shouldn’t the church be up in arms over 50SoG as they were with the others? The silence I’ve experienced speaks volumes concerning what Dalrock said:

    Ultimately though what this is all about is women’s tendency to deny their own sin, and men’s tendency to enable women in this.

  172. RICanuck says:

    @BluePillProfessor

    I agree with you that porn is a sub-optimal solution. It remains sinful. “God is Laughing” said it far better than I could in this post: https://empathological.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/dying-dogs-porn/

    A sample quote:
    It turns husbands into thieves and sneaks to meet a need that should be fulfilled in the marriage bed. It gives us an escape hatch where God meant for none to exist. Instead of taking the question of our “burning” (as Paul put it) into the teeth of the feminists, our wives, the church and society we slink off like sick animals to lick our wounds and die in the dark. Meanwhile, not learning to meet the legitimate needs of their husbands wives are in a decaying orbit of solipsism, being told by the enemy that they are to serve themselves first, mocking men and their sexuality as they go.

  173. James K says:

    50sog and BDSM porn are the tip of the iceberg. A lot of Harlequin/Mills and Boon books are soft porn. Even the ones that are not – mainstream historical and romantic fiction – are about the heroine seducing an alpha badboy or a very wealthy, attractive man.

    In 50sog, Christian Grey is an extremely attractive billionaire, and this is all part of the excitement for the readers. Anastasia would not let an overweight wages clerk from Basingstoke do those painful things to her, would she?

    Porn provides fantasy about the things that are missing from our sex lives. For women, it’s Harley McBadBoy, or Mr Rich and Attractive. For men, it’s an HB9.

  174. hoellenhund2 says:

    I left this comment on J4G a while ago, it’s sort of relevant here as well.

    The short answer is that they don’t care. What we have are pundits, other commentators and self-proclaimed therapists focusing on one simple phenomenon, i.e. the availability of free online porn, blowing it out of all proportion and presenting it as another manifestation of male dysfunction in order to pander to their audience, which is mainly composed of women.

    This works because women have an innate psychological tendency to shit on men, to complain about them, to proclaim them to be inferior. Women do this in every society. So we have housewives pretending to be concerned about the supposed porn addiction of their husbands, even though their lack of sexual attraction to their spouses is the simple reason for their husbands whacking off to porn, and these women have no serious intention to have more sex with their husbands. We have single women pretending to be concerned about the supposed lack of “eligible” potential husbands, supposedly caused by a horrible societal porn addiction epidemic, even though they have no serious intention to marry men they are sexually attracted to – after all, sexy men are to be banged before marriage, they aren’t to be married, because they aren’t dependable enough for marriage. And they certainly have no intention of marrying men and then sexing them enthusiastically and often. That stuff is something to get out of their systems in their prime, marriage has other purposes: securing social status and a proper environment for their children, all financed by some idiot beta.

    So the whole issue is moot. Women invented a problem – porn addiction spreading among men like wildfire – and complain about it all the time, but it doesn’t mean they actually want to do anything about it. They don’t care about the bottom 80% of men at all, it doesn’t matter if they watch porn or not. Censoring porn or making it illegal is out of the question, because it’d mean many women losing their income, and we can’t have that. Restructuring the entire sexual marketplace in order to incentivize men to seek sex with women in the context of relationships – on other words: giving men reasons NOT to watch online porn – is out of the question as well, because it’d mean the regulation or self-regulation of hypergamy, and we can’t have that either.

  175. Minesweeper says:

    @HH2 – beautifully put, beautifully.

  176. Bluepillprofessor says:

    @Dalrock and many others: “not everyone is in agreement with what should be in my opinion very obvious.”

    Sorry brothers, it is NOT obvious in any way. Seriously, you guys take a specific verse or statement completely out of context and base an entire ascetic Christian ideology around it. I call bullcrap. The Bible is NOT the anti-sex document you make of it. Read the Song of Songs for God’s sake. Was Solomon really married to the Beloved he was Dreading the living shit out of during the entire book? Inquiring minds…

    So Jesus made some statements about adultery but you guys miss the context. In the preceding verse Jesus advocated self mutilation- cutting off your hand and plucking out your eye. He never walked back the mutilation stuff but HE walked back the divorce stuff saying later (when the Apostles had a holy shit fit about the no-divorce thing) “this teaching is not for everyone. Let those who can accept it do so.” So I guess we are left with self mutilation- but no divorce even for the most frigid, sex denying, screechtard harpy who deliberately undermines you and makes your life a living hell?

    That’s not what He meant and everybody knows this which in my opinion is more than very obvious.

    As for Porn, the early Church writers, inspired by the diminutive Paul’s anti sexuality writings, would have clearly been against it. However, trying to make Jesus come out against Porn by distorting what He said about ‘looking at another woman in lust’ is ridiculous. The anti-porn people have to lay their hat on the underlying asceticism of the N.T. while ignoring the polygamous Alpha O.T. prophets and conveniently forgetting the entire Song of Solomon.

    Anyway, y’all missed the better argument from the O.T. about being condemned for spilling your seed on the ground. (Yah, yah it was not about masturbation, it was about him being a bad guy for not fucking his brother’s wife or some fool thing, got it- if only that level of creativity were applied to the clearly hyperbolic statements of the Lord which were really said to make the larger point that ALL of us have sinned in our hearts and come short of the Glory of God without His help.

  177. Renee Harris says:

    “Minesweeper on February 19, 2015 at 11:45 pm
    @Renee Harris
    Good for you to come clean and let us know ! I have never known of a women yet to admit that.”
    Well I hate the one gender is worse than another crap I read and hear about porn. I live through a porn addiction as a young early 20s woman, you can not tell me that it does not happen. I was ashamed of my sin but I am not afraid and ashamed of how The Lord set me free. It is not about me it’s His glory..
    “Your giving us a peek behind the curtain.” Really? the school system taught girls that we can have better orgasms than men. We were told we have work harder at it but it ‘s worth it. And woman More sexual because our sexuality is expressed is in everything we do.

    “So what do you do about your strong sex desire ?”
    Cold showers/prayer/exercise?”
    Google how to become a godly wife. Sex is only for believer in Christ centered marriage and most truly godly chicks just want f:)ck without sining or disobeying God ( which is valid reason to want to glorify God in Marriage ). so young women need to starting reading the kjv bible and understand that biblical headship is God ordained. Also we need to get the “the Drew Petersons” of world are not what Darlock and others like are writing about: if she coughs twice or laugh too loud in the first. yr of Marriage, then kill her. And then find yourself a sexy 10 , newly age 18. Umm no
    Young woman (including me) need stop being little brats pull our wills and heads out of our you -know-where’s, and be about The Lords business.

    “Sorry you havn’t found a way yet to get married if that is what you earnestly desire and need. ”
    Thank you. I’m like David in as that I’m looking for my loin and bear. I sincerely desire to be a godly wife and include being Obedient to call for lifelong celibacy. I don’t get to choose if I get marry, He can tell no marriage for you.
    Most of us have idols of one thing or another – mostly hidden even to us, consider yourself blessed you found out what it was.

    &Bluepillprofessor on February 21, 2015 at 12:32 pm
    “Lets be honest about why women hate porn.
    It is not because she is competing against it. It is not because it grosses her out. It is not because she is jealous. It is not because she is afraid her husband will actually cheat. It is 100% about control and power. In most cases where the woman ‘hates’ porn she is doling out sex with an eye dropper and her man is on the twice a month plan if he is lucky.”
    I hate porn and for all I know the man I will marry could screwing his way thru the freshman class of Druke or UIC . My friend paul and his wife just started ministry aided at delivering men and woman from being traffic for sex. Here is a fun porn Fact: not every woman or man in porn is there willing. Yes for every Jenna Hazes or Ron Jeremy the are maybe 200 people be forced to live as sex objects. Men are trafficked almost as much as woman. Trafficked men hate porn as their sexual slavery prevent them of The freedom to do what they want. That wives robing their husbands of sex are evil: those woman are disobeying God, dishonoring their husband and add to the deman for trafficking.
    Trafficking is when a person is forced to have sex with others for Financial benefit of trafficners. It is not be get paid to ride the Carousel. A lot of trafficer are woman

  178. Gunner Q says:

    “Read the Song of Songs for God’s sake.”
    An interesting fact about Song of Songs: it’s the only hermetically sealed book in the Bible. It does not refer to any other parts of the Bible, nor does the rest of the Bible refer to it a single time.

    Good circumstantial evidence for “Sex in marriage or not at all”.

    “As for Porn, the early Church writers, inspired by the diminutive Paul’s anti sexuality writings, would have clearly been against it. However, trying to make Jesus come out against Porn by distorting what He said about ‘looking at another woman in lust’ is ridiculous.”

    Are you saying Paul’s Christianity is not the same as Christ’s Christianity?

  179. Oscar says:

    Gunner Q says:
    February 22, 2015 at 1:53 pm

    “Are you saying Paul’s Christianity is not the same as Christ’s Christianity?”

    I think he’s saying that Jesus – our future judge, mind you – thinks porn is A-OK. Excusing ones sin is not a FEMALE vice, gents. It’s a HUMAN vice, beginning with Adam.

  180. Minesweeper says:

    @Renee Harris
    “So what do you do about your strong sex desire ?” – while unmarried ??
    Do you redirect that into prayer\fasting or just go nuts ?

    “Really? the school system taught girls that we can have better orgasms than men. We were told we have work harder at it but it ‘s worth it. And woman More sexual because our sexuality is expressed is in everything we do.” – and you think males are told this ??? the message constantly is always directed at controlling\conforming male desire. Female desire is never discussed unless its in reaction to something a male has done to her. BEcause its never discussed, it can never be disapproved of.

    Can I ask what age your strong sex desire started ?

  181. Oscar says:

    Bluepillprofessor says:
    February 21, 2015 at 12:32 pm

    “Lets be honest about why women hate porn.
    It is not because she is competing against it. It is not because it grosses her out. It is not because she is jealous. It is not because she is afraid her husband will actually cheat. It is 100% about control and power. In most cases where the woman ‘hates’ porn she is doling out sex with an eye dropper and her man is on the twice a month plan if he is lucky.”

    Yes, let’s be honest. Although there is definitely an element of control, the other elements you mentioned (competition, revulsion, jealousy) are also present. And why shouldn’t they be present?

    As long as we’re being honest, let’s admit that neither beauty, nor sexual frequency, nor alpha-maleness can cure perversion.

    So, yes, by all means, let’s be honest.

    Let’s be honest and admit that “my wife isn’t hot enough and/or isn’t sexually available enough” excuses a man’s porn watching about as effectively as “my husband isn’t alpha enough” excuses a woman’s 50SOG habit.

  182. That isn’t being honest enough Oscar, because you miss the entire point that his wife is not willing to have sex with him, ever. It’s an outlet of sexual desire that his wife will not provide. If you want to argue that 50 shades of gray is simply an outlet for women that men can do quite easily, you know, like once a night, be my guest.

  183. Minesweeper says:

    @Gunner Q,
    “Are you saying Paul’s Christianity is not the same as Christ’s Christianity?”
    I don’t want to get you too excited but if you take a fresh look at what Jesus and Paul both said about sex, its quite different to what our english translations and christian culture believes.

    And I’m not kidding. It is also quite offensive to even bring it up(eg your reaction and Canes). But we are compelled to seek the truth rather than just believe what our forebearers have believed.

    2 Timothy 2:15 (NIVUK)
    15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

    It is not unheard of for our churches and the churches leaders at times to believe things that are absolutely nuts and utterly contrary to scripture. This is a repeating pattern.

  184. Minesweeper says:

    @Gunner Q
    It tends to be hardest for those who have believed a particular message since they were young and never questioned it or had the opportunity too, to see that it may not have been accurate. Generally, after a certain age its very difficult for those to receive contradictory information to what they have been believed their whole life. It’s genuinely emotionally upsetting for them.

    Which is why Jesus chose his apostles from young men.

  185. Oscar says:

    feministhater says:
    February 22, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    “That isn’t being honest enough Oscar, because you miss the entire point that his wife is not willing to have sex with him, ever. It’s an outlet of sexual desire that his wife will not provide.”

    Are you saying that makes his sin excusable, or less sinful? Or are you saying that makes his sin more understandable? Because if it’s the latter, I agree. If it’s the former, I don’t.

    “If you want to argue that 50 shades of gray is simply an outlet for women that men can do quite easily, you know, like once a night, be my guest.”

    If you can point to where I’ve made such an argument, please do so.*

    *Hint: you can’t, because I didn’t. My argument is that there is no excuse for sin.

  186. I don’t excuse the sin, never have, but your obvious intent is not to provide a feasible solution to the men who don’t get sex from their wives and thus fall into porn use but instead to tell them that it’s their fault that their wives won’t sex them and read 50 shades of grey instead.

    It’s the same empty argument that Escoffier uses. That the UMC couples gets married later after the woman gets her degree and has a couple ONS every year and a two LTRs for every year after she turns sixteen and that is just the way it is. And then goes on to say that men are perverts for looking at porn…

    Do you not understand? It’s sin but you refuse to see why these men are being led to sin. They are tempted for 10 – 15 years with no marriage on the horizon and even when they do get married, they get little to no sex from their wives; who, as it turns out, didn’t marry these men to love them and provide them with some frequent sexual release but to have money and status.

    The futile attempt is telling men they are sinning because they use an alternative stimulation to gain sexual release. It’s futile because they don’t get to experience the real deal of married life and probably can never will. Which means sexual celibacy for men who weren’t meant for it, which is cruel.

    The time for lecturing these men is over, the Church have had decades to see what feminism has unleashed, what these legal laws of frivorce and sexual assault and rape have unleashed, and yet nothing was done. They didn’t ask men what they thought, they didn’t think how men would react and adapt.

    However, let’s blame men, it’s worked well so far..

  187. Minesweeper says:

    @feministhater – well you certainly can’t blame the ladies, the first commandment of feminism is thou shall not blame a woman ever.

    So blaming men, naturally follows from that. Either that or the GOP.

    In fact its probably a litmus test for an environment, if you ask can a woman be blamed ?

  188. Renee Harris says:

    “So what do you do about your strong sex desire ?”
    Cold showers/prayer/exercise?”
    I google “how to become a godly Wife. ” I go to the gym 3 time a weeks. I listen to bible ( now I’m in 1 Samuel). And I work 35 hrs wkly.
    young are I not teach about sex via master and Johnson’s research ? I when to high school the ealry 2000s; 9/11 happen my freshman year.
    I can remember when it started but it intensified by my lack of obedience to God and porn habit in college. If funny how human have a strong for sex. (Accentually an act worship ) but not for tithing ….weird

  189. Oscar says:

    feministhater says:
    February 22, 2015 at 4:03 pm

    “I don’t excuse the sin, never have,”

    And I never said you did. However, others in this thread are. Some even claim porn isn’t sin at all. Therefore, it’s obviously still necessary to explain that…
    1. Porn is lust and lust is sin and..
    2. Each individual human being (male or female) is responsible for his/her own sin. Men are not to blame for women’s sin, and women are not to blame for men’s sin.*

    “…but your obvious intent is not to provide a feasible solution to the men who don’t get sex from their wives and thus fall into porn use but instead to tell them that it’s their fault that their wives won’t sex them and read 50 shades of grey instead.”

    Apparently, my intent is not so “obvious” to you, since you completely missed it. If you can provide a quote in which I stated that “it’s [men’s] fault that their wives won’t sex them and read 50 shades of grey instead”, please do so.**

    “Do you not understand?”

    Yes, I do understand. That’s why I wrote, “Or are you saying that makes his sin more understandable? Because if it’s the latter, I agree.” Did you miss that intentionally, or inadvertently?

    “It’s sin but you refuse to see why these men are being led to sin.”

    See above.

    *Leading another to sin is a sin in itself. If a woman deprives her husband of sex, that is a sin. We all agree on that. However, satisfying a need in a sinful way is still sin. Apparently, we don’t all agree on that, since there are men in this thread explaining that Jesus thinks porn is not sin (no, I’m not saying you’re one of them).

    **Hint: you can’t, because I never made such a claim.

  190. Renee Harris says:

    If a married man ( or woman) is using porn ( ladies porn) due to his ( her) spouse refusing of sex both are In sin . In my opinion The difference is the spouse using porn is Sinning against God. Yes this is not good. But the other spouse is against God by giving place to enemy and is course their spouse fight against sin too be more intense. A Christian couple have a heavenly assignment as citizens of the kingdom of God ( Matt 28:19-20)
    Power games involving sex are not helping with that…. And if eomen are doing this know what the word said about discipleship and obedience they are Not Christ’s if don’t obey Christ. And now rule of The unbelieving spouse appy. Right ?

  191. Ichabod says:

    What I want to know is why are our church leaders not seeing what Dalrock sees? How can they possibly miss such clear signs of anti biblical behaviour by Christian women?

  192. Minesweeper says:

    @anonymous_ng, the gay guys that I know absolutely hate women (and I’ve known a few). Which is strange as I see hetro females all the time wishing on FB that they wished so much to have a gay best friend.

    For some reason, hetro women have received some other message that gay men love female drama queens – the whole tranny thing maybe ?, maybe its just their “Sex in the City” fantasy.

  193. Minesweeper says:

    “@anonymous_ng, the gay guys that I know absolutely hate women” – thats both hetro + gay/bi btw

  194. Bill Price says:

    The misconception here is that the sin is of the eyes. But it isn’t, it is a sin of the heart. The eyes can be a source of temptation, but they aren’t the source of the sin.

    No, it is not a sin of the heart. It is a sin of the mind. It is the sin of sight, or consciousness if you will. Jesus is saying that that eyes (the mind, really) are defying the heart. If your mind (psyche) is sinful, cast it aside and follow the heart (thumos). It’s also instructive that he uses “right eye” and “right hand.” For most of us, the conscious “seeing” mind is lateralized, controlling the right side of our body and field of vision.

    It’s a very specific instruction to give oneself over to the Holy Spirit.

  195. Bill Price says:

    How the eye corrupts the heart. Contemporary Christians have it backward:

    28 Ego autem dico vobis: quia omnis qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam, iam mœchatus est eam in corde suo.

    29 Quod si oculus tuus dexter scandalizat te, erue eum, et projice abs te: expedit enim tibi ut pereat unum membrorum tuorum, quam totum corpus tuum mittatur in gehennam.

    As you can see in the above text, Jesus says to pluck out the eye because it is the source of corruption. If the sin originally came from one’s heart, he would admonish people to tear their hearts out to save themselves from perdition. This is why “already” is a mistranslation. It isn’t that the heart committed adultery first, but that “even” (iam) as the eyes do so it becomes a sin of the heart.

    As much as Christians may not want to admit it, the verse justifies the Islamic custom of the veil and covering of women, and in fact is probably the source of it (as well as the strict dress codes including veil for women in Christian churches in the old days).

    We too easily forget how alien the Classical culture of the Levant is when compared to our own. The onus is not on men to control their hearts in the presence of scantily clad women, but rather for men to physically put these things out of sight so that they may keep their hearts pure.

  196. Renee Harris says:

    Is it wrong for virgin woman to want virgin husband? What is overweight for. 5’3?

  197. JamesWatchman says:

    PhillyAstro it’s probably not the best idea to quote Augustine who thought that sex with his own wife was a sin…

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s