Created May 8, 2001,                         Updated   Nov 21, 2013

Is Pornography Really Wrong?



Sub-Headings:

Gaining Proper Perspective
Brief Statements of Summary
What Is Pornography?
Does It Matter If It Is a Sin?
Respecting Privacy
Virtual Porn?
The Real Concern
Public Displays Speak!
Augustus Caesar Testifies
Not a Double Standard!

Public and Private Circumstances
What We Can't Control
Context Matters
Saturation
Addiction and Extremes
Does Porn Cause Greater Sin?
The Powerful Nature of Man
Deep Wounds Distort Judgment
Is Ignorance Bliss?
Confronting Our Demons
Cautious Contributions

What Next?
An Absurd Contradiction!
Abuse in Perspective
The Blame Game
This Just In - Jun 5, 2010
Another Update - May 20, 2011
How Much is Too Much? Jun 6, 2010
New Thinking or Not?  Jun 12 013
Gary Wilson & TED II     Nov 21, 013
What Happened, Anyway?
Sticks and Stones . . .

Related Articles

Gaining Proper Perspective

Alfred Kinsey was a famous and controversial sex researcher of the 1940's and 50's. He had developed his own ideas about sex. He had come to believe that Christianity, with its denial of sexual naturalness, was responsible for "the breakdown of the modern family," and he thought "the great distortions" of the day were "the cultural perversions of celibacy, delayed marriage, and asceticism." I fully agree with him on these points. I just don't think that the Bible is responsible for those attitudes. It is those who "claim" to love and follow Christ are responsible, as well as a government whose agenda to control and manipulate sees an advantage in intruding into our bedrooms and private sexual lives, in spite of the Constitution. They are the ones who distort sex, take away its naturalness, and pervert it with their odd concepts that make sex something disgusting, vulgar, and forbidden; something dark and shameful, in all circumstances, including marital sex. This is so wrong. And involved in this and relevant to it is the subject of nudity and porn.

updated at this point Jul 16, 015  --  regarding Kinsey

Now some new words in Kinsey. Though he published in 1948, I believe, it has taken till recently in 2015, to fully bring out the real truth of what went on at that time of the 40s and 50s. He allegedly had some of his employees or volunteers perform experiments on babies' sexual response. Who knows what other madness. But none of this really impacted the issues regarding sexuality. What was published in 48 was watered down, sanitized and covered up. What we know today was not know then so it was not relevant. What was published was not so out there, but some of it was questionable and certainly there was twisted interpretation involved.

Some believe that Kinsey's stated purposes were not his real purposes. I would say this was likely, in hindsight. And though his group may have gotten off track, it was not well known outside of the group. Further, as is the case with the history of the world, we can still learn from their botched attempts to explore the realms of sexuality. Solomon, in the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, explored not only wisdom, but also madness and folly, what we might call deviance and sin. We can learn from failures as well as successes.

The fact that Rockefeller funded Kinsey could make one very suspicious. But lets set up this situation for the young who did not get to experience the 60s, particularly in conservative states of the USA. The USA in the 1st half of the 60s was unbelievably conservative, especially in Maine, USA. Sheltered, too. We did not know how life was in big cities, where it was far more out there, so to speak. I was 5 in 64 when the Beatles arrived. I remember JFK's funeral on TV. We had just moved to a new apartment a month earlier.

I do remember those times well, and what followed in 65-67. We had a family whose 3 youngest boys, all teens, would baby sit us that take us and my mother to places. My 2 aunts were 6 and 10 years older than me. Our local baby sitter was 7 years older than me. We experience their growing up as well. Everything was in change at that time. The old stuff was not working anymore and the young were not buying what they were being told. And for good reason. The old guard always dished out the same simple, pat, easy answers that did not work and they could not supply good sensible answers for why God's rules were right and beneficial. The religious leaders were of no help, either. So the young left the old tired ways and struck out in a new path. It was largely wrong, but they did not know that. They were following their libidos and genetalia.

This was the cause of the sexual revolution, not Kinsey. Kinsey was never brought up. Religious leaders offered nothing. So sex won out by default. Even if Kinsey had had some influence, he would have been able to do nothing if religious leaders had properly explained the reasons for God rules. Now its left for me to do it. Why? Where are the rest of the shepherds? They were sleeping or had been bought off and joined the devil.

<<< End of update

So! How did sex and nudity become so dark and shameful in the1st place? It started with the bizarre doctrine of Dualism that was promoted by Gnostics. To them, any thing physical or fleshly was bad and opposed to all things heavenly and spiritual. This continued to infect Christianity. Then we got hit with Victorianism in the late 19th century. That really made things bad. And at the same time Comstock Laws in the USA also chose to intrude into our sex lives and decide for us all what is god and bad, as if they clearly knew which was which. But in our day, the pendulum has swung the other way so that nearly anything goes. But lets not miss the fact that it was the government in the days of the Comstock laws that actually set up the FBI to police our bedrooms and dictate and regulate our sexuality in a most intrusive way. What was in it for them in doing that? It deserves a lot more exploration but we are going to stick to what God has decreed here for now. Let's see it we can obtain some balance on this subject.

My goal is to put nudity into balance and perspective, which I have done in an article devoted just to that subject (Nudity and Modesty), also linked at the end of this article. I want to show that if we avoid fornication, our most important goal, then we are doing quite well, given the very promiscuous sexual climate of the modern 21st century. But Christians have gone far beyond that, classifying even nudity as being nearly as bad as fornication. It is no where near as serious as that. We have lost perspective and credibility. We equate nearly everything as being on the same level as fornication. Acts 15 only listed 4 as being that bad. Nudity, and its relative, Porn, are no where near the top 4.

As highlighted in my article on Our Sinfulness, also linked at the end of this article, we need to give most of our attention to the very worst sins and not worry that much about the much smaller sins, of which we all commit on a daily basis. Establishing priorities is vital for Christians. 2nd, we can not be overly righteous, for this causes most to fail by means of not having the ability to live up to God's ultimate perfect standards of righteousness. If our expectations are not obtainable and reasonable, then we guarantee failure and guarantee people will get discouraged at not being perfect and give up trying to be perfect, which we can not possibly be in the 1st place. Strive for what you can actually, not what you unrealistically think you can do in your imagination.

And vitally important to this article, is my article on Lust. Lust is usually the reason given as to why porn is wrong for when we see porn, we are likely to imagine what it would be like with who we are seeing. We will feel a longing or hunger. It is a God given appetite that of itself, does not present sin, says I. But you'll need to read the article to understand why appetite is not lust as Jesus was referring to it. I also note that several other good articles can now be found on Lust, suggesting much the same as I have, also pointing out Greek words and meanings as I did. So its not just me anymore. People are waking up by having the courage to reconsider what has long been handed down to us falsely.

So is it realistic and reasonable to try to eliminate every last vestige of sexual attraction and arousal? I strongly say NO! In fact, to allow no curiosity or admiration of beauty whatsoever will almost certainly lead to failure and fornication, which is a disaster. I do believe the 3 articles I linked to just above should be read before considering this article. They provide the proper foundation to build on.

So while what I suggest seems crazy to many, I can only say that us being willing to tolerate fornication is what is crazy. And further, while some may point to me as "given to the flesh" or ultra liberal and lacking any good motive, or using freedom as an excuse to excess, I have also been characterized as a right wing extremist. So it is interesting that among my critics are those on both ends of the issues I address, some saying I go to far one way and others believing just the opposite.

How odd I should provoke such opposite reactions from those who fault me. But believe it or not, there are those far far more liberal and wild than anything I come up with. Further, you will never find anyone who presents as much solid evidence and reasoning to support their claims or refute mine, as what I have said and written. I have gotten many impressive compliments for my articles dealing with sexual matters. In fact, nearly all my compliments come as a result of those articles so there was and is, a need out there and I was right in addressing it, as I thought would be the case. See what you think! If you say I am wrong, give me specific reasons why and not just some knee jerk reaction or just ignoring what I say altogether. I have not had one person ever be able to refute with logic and reason anything I have said! They don't even try. They can't!

I also explore the issues of porn in the laws of the USA as we go along. They conflict with God's laws and are very suspicious in their violation of good sound principles of law, consistency, and reason. So I bounce back and forth between Christian issues and Legal issues. You can handle it, right?

Every bit as important is recognizing that the world and mankind have evolved and progressed over the 6,000 years since Adam was created. As society and nations progress and develop, some circumstances change and could require us to face new circumstances and possible have to adapt and change to adjust to the new circumstances so that we remain in God's will in a solid way. An example would be one that dawned on me just recently. The city had just installed a new playground just across from my father's and my place. The kids seem to really like it. But I notice that some girls love to play in their short skirts or mom likes to dress them in skirts and live vicariously through them. They don't seem to mind showing off to the boys, either. Not like my day.

But in debates about pants vs. skirts for girls, girls are far more athletic and active today than ever before and I think that is positive. But it is the active lifestyle and play that merits more modesty so that dresses are not really practical in play situations as I see it. Yes, dresses were quite a long standing tradition for women but times, culture, and lifestyle have changed and we need to change with it. Cameras, video, computers, cell phones, the internet, are some things that have changed our lives in many ways and require us to rethink some things in our past and present. Air travel, huge sense cities and may other things have given us a different world to live in and issues to deal with.

The battle, really, is between tradition and the needs presented at the moment. Many conservative Christians think dresses should be the standard since as long as they can determine, it has always been the standard for western women. Pant to them signify women being like men. I do not agree. But in the case of dress, the struggle is between tradition and modesty. To me, modesty favors keeping reasonably covered up in the right places while enabling freedom of movement and play or sport. Even athletes of ancient times wore less in competition than in other aspects of life.

Just before I started school, the tradition of the school and town was to build 2 sets of monkey bars to climb and play on. This way, the girls, who always wore skirts, could play on one set all their own so boy could not look up their dresses. Fact! The boys were required to stay at the other set, several hundred feet away. By the time I started school, girls did not play on the monkey bars at all, evidently not really enjoying it anymore, anyway.

But whether you keep the sexes slightly separated or just dress them different, I don't think exhibitionism is the best way for kids to conduct themselves, if one is concerned about God and His laws. Those not concerned about God need to worry, at least not at this time. But maybe not for much longer. But we always need to be ready to re-consider what we have come to believe.

So while tradition has some merit up to a point, tradition without reason deserves to be questioned and re-examined. Many pagan practices and beliefs are traditional. Tradition is nothing unless soundly and completely supported by the Bible. So new situations beg for reconsideration, using the Bible as the final judge of principle, of course.



Brief Statements of Summary
Back to Top

 Here are 59 brief statements that sort of sum up what follows after them in far greater detail.

  1. We have an obligation to continually revisit what we believe is right to see if it can still stand up to challenges.

  2. Nudity provokes. Nudity is a drug. Beauty is a drug. Nudity is beautiful.

  3. Many circumstances can be provocative, intentionally or not.

  4. Intent is hard to determine. A better means of distinction is needed, such as nudity or even nothing

  5. Virtual porn is porn in the head and is no danger.

  6. We are not judged by what is in our heads. We are judge by actual actions, or should be.

  7. Arousal or getting aroused is not a bad thing. It is natural and God-made.

  8. Private circumstances are different from public ones.

  9. Public displays are bad but private ones are not. Augustus shows this in Rome.

  10. Public displays are the most important ones to control.

  11. Not a double standard for we all have boundaries and borders both public and private.

  12. Private conduct should not be anyone's business and should be off limits, unless it is a real crime involved.

  13. Remote or indirect display of nudity is little to no danger, such as pictures and videos.

  14. Contradictions abound in USA law and beg for answers. Questionable motives in unjust laws and application of those laws.

  15. Undue fears of sexuality and scare tactics don't work and make it unrealistic and without credibility.

  16. Nudity should not be a crime. Nudity is not that serious and certainly not even close to being rape.

  17. Many religious leaders fall victim to porn. It is compelling and not easy to avoid or ignore.

  18. It is instinct given by God and not be be ashamed of or forbidden to men.

  19. Men do not deserve to be vilified or become victims of witch hunts.

  20. Saturation of exposure (to porn) reduces our curiosity and attraction to porn. It will not excite as much.

  21. Saturation of stimuli helps reduce desire to a minimum so it can be controlled.

  22. Early attraction and excitement lets a relationship become solid, by giving us incentive to work things out.

  23. Early attraction and excitement must be taken advantage of quickly because it wears off after 1-3 years or so. Don't waste the time and circumstance.

  24. Porn is not a problem. People are their own problem and worst enemy.

  25. We like to blame things that do not include us as being responsible in any way. We like escape goats and poor excuses to excuse ourselves.

  26. Christians blame porn or the devil when they should blame themselves.

  27. Addictions and extremes are not typical and porn is bad for these.

  28. Women are jealous of porn and feel threatened by it and blame it for any faults they may have.

  29. Porn does not cause greater sin. It is not the porn but our reaction to it. Some over react to porn because they were abused, not rational.

  30. Kids are capable of a lot and can know and should know about sex and nudity.

  31. Porn is a symptom, not a cause.

  32. A man's nature is visual and responsive to what his eyes see. Female beauty is a very powerful drug to a man's mind. It is as God made man.

  33. Man should not be ashamed by his nature but seek to limit in in accord with God's rules.

  34. No one should fault or punish a man for his internal nature as long as his actions are controlled.

  35. Often, critics of porn are abuse victims who do not think and behave rationally.

  36. Those in power encourage irrational people in order to promote sinister agenda against men and the world.

  37. Traumatized and abused women are not treated correctly by mental health professionals and so remain disturbed and irrational.

  38. Ignorance is never bliss. Knowledge/Truth is always good, powerful, and protective. Always!!!

  39. Children can handle truth at very early ages if explained well to them.

  40. We need to confront what is inside us and not lie to ourselves.

  41. The Porn Industry does not harm women. They were already harmed when they arrived.

  42. Porn actresses act of their own accord, even as midgets in freak shows did once upon a time.

  43. Most porn is not done by kidnapped and abused women. Most seek it out and get paid.

  44. The law is outrageous and absurd. It protects no one and hurts many.

  45. We can not rely on Man's wicked rule and law to determine what God's law is on porn or anything else.

  46. Our entire world and system and we, too, have become insane. The law has become meaningless and frightful.

  47. Governments find men more problematic that women and have made it far easier to find fault with a man on any number of pretexts.

  48. Using a man's nature against him as a pretext to imprison him makes it almost certain that any man can sooner or later be caught up in some sort of felony for supposed felony crime that threatens peace, security and order.

  49. With selective enforcement, they only go after those who seriously break the law or are of some other threat that a felony conviction would silence.

  50. Men are persecuted and hunted like dogs.

  51. Porn is not to blame nor the cause of many things which follow someone who might have viewed porn previously. People like excuses and escape goats.

  52. Nudity and Sexual portrayals "portray" or "imply" abuse at times, but are not the real thing. They are actors and illusions.

  53. Parents are supposed to help their kids put porn and sex into perspective and instruct them on God's laws. This is not done by avoiding topics on sex and porn.

  54. Parents who avoid their duties and responsibilities to their kids and God will not inherit God's kingdom. Fact!

  55. Parents blaming porn for bad behavior of kids is a very poor excuse and God will not accept it even if man and law do.

  56. The blame game is complete avoidance of responsibility and accountability.

  57. How did sexual attitudes, beliefs and even practices change so much in just the last 100 years rather than the 6,000 previous years?

  58. Very powerful people changed our views and attitudes quite deliberately over the last 100 years or so. We went along with it without thinking.

  59. We are very long overdue for a complete overhaul of our beliefs and understandings of sexual issues from a Godly standpoint.


What Is Pornography?
Back to Top

Let's define it for this article. Some say it is any nudity, period! First, I don't believe that it is merely being naked. That can be quite innocent. But let's also be fair that if the genitals are being prominently presented, if they are the focus of the picture, like if a woman were to lay down and spread her legs apart for you, then it is likely that they are trying to arouse. This could be said to be arousing for sure and yet no sin has necessarily been committed yet. In pictures taken, this is doing so for a camera, not a live audience or person, photographer and crew excepted. If live (other than the camera man), you are asking for trouble unless there are armed guards around.

But I will concede that for men, whether intended to stimulate or not, a woman's body will always have a stimulatory effect, whether innocent or deliberately provocative. On the other hand, some men get aroused just hearing a woman's voice or seeing her, even if she is fully clothed. Arousal, by itself, means little. And when I speak of nudity, I am also including strip joints as well as pictures and videos.

But when the nudity is presented in a way so as to provoke sexual arousal and interest, or hope to do so, then I would call it pornography, for whatever that means. But when I speak of pornography, I am not necessarily referring to the more extreme stuff. I use the word pornography to indicate any sort of nudity whose purpose is to please or arouse or show off the beauty. It could be a decent display of beauty. The naked body could be presented in a more respectful way that would highlight the beauty of it, in all its glory and some publications do this. It is called soft porn, I guess. I think Playboy magazine manages to achieve that. They usually avoid showing genitals. But the intent is to arouse, all the same. For really, any beauty has incredible inspiration and arousal potential. That is the nature of beauty. It is not perverted in itself at all. Beauty is clean, holy, decent. But it is also very powerful and has to be wielded carefully. A woman whose beauty is completely exposed can have an effect that is overwhelming and overpowering to many men. So we give it a lot of respect or at least, we should. It should not be taken lightly.

I also want to make this point. No matter how "innocent" or "natural" a nude photograph is said to be, by virtue of the female form being extraordinarily beautiful and intoxicating by nature, any nudity will be stimulating and provocative in my opinion. There are "artistic" opinions out there that some nude photographs are "natural" or artistic, or innocent. But I think it is pretentious to try to separate or distinguish various types of nudity. Being naked is being naked and it will provoke a normal man, regardless of who the photograph was intended for by by who intended it in the 1st place. I am not faulting nude photography at all but I see it as a serious and pretentious sin to pretend that some nudity is somehow innocent and pure and some is not.

Some also suggest that certain kinds/styles of clothing are provocative and, therefore, wrong. Well, provocative or not, wrong or not, clothed, even barely, is clothed and not naked and there is a big difference as I see it. The danger and evil I am trying to point out is that we are pretending some nudity is not provocative and that clothing is not enough to shield some from being accused and convicted of what I will call "lust" crimes or crimes of pornographic or provocative intention. Lines have to be reasonably and fairly drawn; and distinctly drawn as well. We got lines so blurred that anyone can be convicted or anything at any time. I know of pictures of young naked girls sold in books in book stores as art, while others are in prison for taking photos of girls clothed in bathing suits, even as they do in advertisements and fliers in the papers, magazines, and catalogs.

I do not agree with the suggestion that intent is more relevant or important than actual nudity. I believe a clear distinct precise boundary is called for into law. Nudity is nudity. Either its all OK or none of it. And clothing is clothing and no one should ever serve any time for photos of clothed bodies, regardless of how provocative they are trying to be or not. Trying to provoke someone by a pose, even if only lightly clothed, should not be a crime. Further, one can be very provocative, even if covered from head to toe. To say nudity is "art" or "natural" as opposed to a Playboy photo, is really silly and splitting hairs. It is the worst of pretentiousness and dishonesty.

I think the world would be best off with neither being a serious crime. If you want to ban sex being photographed, fine. But I should point out that if one is married, then in the eyes of God, that is not a sin. It is blessed by God. Of course, one does not have sex in public. It is inconsiderate of others. But porn is usually not actually displayed in public. It is sold to the public but usually discreetly. But for the protection of minors, it does seem to be a very good place to draw a line if one was to allow nudity to be legal otherwise. But for my discussion, porn is nudity and nudity is porn. I do not condemn or sanction nudity/porn in this article but choose to discuss it at length to suggest that neither, in and of themselves should be automatically condemned or forbidden to Christians or any decent human being. But I do not limit the definition of porn to just nudity. Obviously sexual activity is covered as well.

And I also include instruction videos where married couples might show you sexual techniques for you to try. I don't see them as bad and I do not necessarily intend anything negative when I refer to the word "pornography." It is a way for me to define a particular type of nude display. But the question needs to be answered; is pornography, any type of sexual presentation, provocation, arousal, or instruction, wrong?

So be aware that the way I use the word "pornography" is not the negative harsh judgmental way that most today use that word, as if it were 4 letters long instead of 11. Oh, wait, porn is 4 letters. Well, its not that other 4 letter word and shouldn't viewed like it, either. And that other 4 letter word might not be so bad, either, but that would be another topic for another place. Neither do I suggest that porn necessarily also includes extremes. I use it in a neutral way, primarily as focusing on nudity and the display of the private parts, the genitalia, which naturally fascinate and excite normal human beings, if they are to be honest.

I think too many assume or want to assume I am supporting the extremes as well. While I do not encourage them, I will say that no picture is really that serious a sin and human curiosity being what it is, most are bound to look and I see no big deal there, either. You'll see!



Does It Matter If It Is a Sin?
Back to Top

If a sin were being depicted, such as 2 men relating to each other sexually, or if the couple involved is not married, or worse, married to other people, you might have a problem. Or you might not. But for sure, it is they who are sinning and not you. You are only an observer, not a participant. And how do you know if a couple is married or not when you see them? You don't. It really isn't necessary to ask, either, is it? Hold on!

Videos and pictures can not do anything to you physically. They are remote and private or, perhaps, should be. We have even coined the term "Virtual" now. Videos and pictures are representations and not the real thing. I know that should be obvious but it is not. Though people in videos may be sinning, there is no way you can join in, no more than you can on any other show on TV or wherever. Further, there is no discernible difference between married sex, which is clean, and those not married and having sex, which is sin. All you see is the sex, which is the same sexual activity, whether married or not. We see all sorts of ungodly conduct, every day all around us. Some of it minor, some of it pretty bad. TV portrays all sorts of wrongs. We are exposed to it everywhere. Murder, back stabbing, gossip, lying, cheating, gluttony, the whole nine yards. Fairy tales often relate revenge and death, too. Hell, we even read about such things in the Bible, don't we? The Bible recounts many sins. Shall we throw away the Bible?

We all watch or see sin all the time. We hear about it all the time and read about it all the time in the papers. That does not make you a partaker, does it? People can be naked and can have sex. That is a fact. In our day and age, we can see that take place without actually being present with the couple when they do it. Will we die from seeing it? I seriously doubt it. We are not responsible for what others do. I think it could be rather hypocritical to condemn watching sin when we probably all do it all the time without hardly thinking about it. I think a clear case of hypocrisy is a greater sin than getting aroused or excited.

We may not have bought the video or pictures. They might just be laying around somewhere or borrowed from a friend. I have seen that lots of times where I used to clean buildings. But if you pay money to watch the sin, then you are contributing to that sin, aren't you? Does that apply to all the movies you might pay to watch? The cable TV you pay for? There are crimes of all sorts on cable TV, aren't there? Your newspaper delivery or magazine subscription as well? Might you be painting yourself into a unreasonable corner? If we cast our nets with nets too small, we catch every little thing. if we cast for sin, we may end up with far too big a catch. Being overly righteous can cause us to worry about far too much. No one can live in a world saturated with sin and not end up having to put up with a lot of it. We eliminate the worst things and not worry about little stuff.

Some will say, You should not buy porn, as it keeps the industry alive or may even make it prosper. OK, that is fair enough. So are you going to stop buying newspapers who feature sin, for the most part? Shall you stop watching television? You say, I don't pay for TV! You either pay cable TV or you get the network air broadcasts. In both cases, the advertisers pay and you buy the advertiser's products and services. You pay! Our world has sin all around us and we contribute, through taxes paid, what we buy, and other means as well, directly and indirectly. We are splitting hairs and kidding ourselves if we try to suggest that we do not contribute to the sustaining of sin. The jobs we work at support a system that supports all sorts of sin. It is impossible to avoid some responsibility for the sin in the world around us. But if we follow God's rules, the big ones, the most important ones, He will not hold the smaller ways of our doing business against us that sustain the sinful world we live in. So buying a little bit of porn is hardly a good reason for concern. It is a big market and we might view it without buying anything direct.

But even more odd by this point, is that as had been pointed out on recent documentaries on TV, the porn industry has fallen on very hard times as many people seem to be willing to pose nude or be videotaped having sex and are willing to distribute it all for free. With so much free stuff having become available, Pornographers are finding it challenging to maintain their profits. And no longer can we be said to contribute to abuse when those supposedly being "abused" are the ones doing this for free of their own accord, just for the thrill or whatever. It blows that whole idea of "You are contributing to their harm or abuse" right out of the water and turns it all on its head.

OK, but if you buy it and if what you bought has married people who are having sex, is it a sin? There are videos that do have married couples, probably to overcome that objection. Well, having sex with your wife is not a crime or sin. And if someone else sees you having sex with your wife, I don't know that this is a sin, either. It may not be modest, but it was never punishable as a sin in the Bible. Sex, all by itself, is not a crime. Sex without marriage is a crime in the Bible. Of course, the laws of the USA, in general, do say that any sex is bad, evil, indecent, and punishable by law. Now who is the prude? It is not God, or the Bible! It is your government and your laws. And those are less influenced by so called "religion" then you radicals might want to admit. You have been blaming the wrong sources far too often.

But if you recall my point in my article on "Our Sinful Condition," Jesus said it is not what enters your body that makes you unclean but what comes out of your heart by way of your mouth or actions. Likewise, what comes into your eyes and ears does not defile you but what comes out of your mouth and what actions that result. That is not to say that watching porn all the time will not lead to temptation, but looking at food might also induce us to gluttony, which is also a sin, right? Further, another distinction few make in regards to porn is the amount of it we look at and how often. A viewing of it every once in a while is not nearly the same as a steady habitual diet of it. And then there is the kind of porn we look at. Nude women provocatively posed is much different than stuff involving urination and defecation or violence. What I would say is that seeing naked women is not necessarily a crime or sin, but making a very steady habitual diet of it might well be an indication of heading in the wrong direction toward danger and sin. So I am not making any blanket excuses for porn. Like anything, it can be over done and become a sin.

Would it be any different if one were to eat sweets all the time? After not much time, your health might go to hell. Sit around and never exercise, and your health will suffer. We must do all things in moderation. While we might limit our exposure to sweets, that does not mean we can never eat something sweet or sugary. Moderation is the key, isn't it? I am not advocating or recommending a heavy or steady diet of porn, and certainly not an obsession. But an occasional "treat" will not likely harm anyone unless they have a predisposed weakness just as some do for food, money, alcohol, and other such temptations.

It is my opinion that a casual interest in porn is not a sin. But even if it is, it is one of the least of all sins. There are any number of sins of hurtfulness to others such as harsh remarks, teasing, backstabbing, gossip, and other types of hurtful words that are far worse and we say hardly anything about those. Again, referring to my article on "Our Sinful Condition," which I say is absolutely necessary before you read this, merely seeing a sin is not a sin. We see sin every day all around us. We can not avoid it.

The problem is that people assume that that if you look at porn, you will get excited. There certainly is a good chance that will happen. But having our senses aroused hardly seems of drastic concern. Hell, we might end up getting aroused without even intending to. We might encounter a good looking woman in a miniskirt and find ourselves getting heated up. But I think what many fear is that if we look at porn, "it" will make us, yes force us, to go out and have sex, which of course, is an absurd idea. So even if by chance, what we watch is a sin, it is no big deal. There is no way we can avoid seeing sin, anyway. So why worry about it? Its not an issue! Arousal and excitement are all we need to consider. Again, my Lust article is a must read!



Respecting Privacy
Back to Top

Marital relations are not a sin. However, how many of us are eager to be around someone when they are going to the bathroom? Very few is my guess. We don't feel comfortable being around people in those very personal private moments. We don't like to be around when people are fighting or arguing, especially when we might know and like both of them, such as a married couple who are our friends. We do not like to invade people's close personal interactions. We are often uncomfortable. But sex is a little different.

Still, would we be comfortable watching 2 people make out in front of us. Well, I have heard of some who like to perform for others. But as a whole, we might be uncomfortable if we stumbled onto 2 people (strangers) making out in a public place. I know there are exceptions, of course.

However, here again, when the viewing is remote as from a pair of binoculars or a recorded video, or a picture, (all taken with permission and not as spying) it does change everything. They can't see or be aware of you watching after it is recorded and printed, so you don't feel uncomfortable and they are not aware of your viewing so they don't feel uncomfortable. I am not advocating any invasion of privacy but merely making a point that when it is remote, whether intentionally as in making a video, or otherwise, it does change the dynamic of it all. And again, they are not sinning, merely by having sex. They could be married. So how is what your seeing a sin? Any answers?

Perhaps one might question nudity. But again, since the nudity is remote by picture or video, there is no real danger. Especially if the model is a stranger which most are, except to a handful of friends and acquaintances who may be aware of their posing. Obviously, someone who is naked in front of you in person could present a real temptation. That temptation is removed by way of a picture, binoculars, or in a strip joint where guards are around; a chaperone, so to speak.

Now what about a strip joint? What do you think? It doesn't sound like the type of place the Apostle Paul would recommend. People might question your devotion to God. But if you look at it clinically, while you are close and in person, in the presence of a naked or near naked woman, there are guards so that you can't have sex or even touch, unless we are talking about a lap dance. As long as there is no contact, merely seeing a naked woman would not seem any different to me than viewing a picture. Isn't that what chaperones were for, back when couples courted each other instead of dating? The chaperone kept them from doing something they might not be able to control themselves, without the chaperone's guarding presence to keep them from going too far.

But I do think that people might view a visit to a strip joint as a lot more questionable than looking at a magazine. This because of the strong promotion of excitement and arousal. But being aroused or getting aroused is not a crime, either; and a picture or a live performance can both accomplish the same arousal. And I could see the live presence of a real woman as being more stimulating, too. I guess one would have to consider how much they care about their reputation and what others might think. But I am not sure it is wise to completely disregard what people think or how others might view you. In view of how others might view it, going to a strip joint could harm your credibility as a Christian for most do not have the understanding I am presenting here. For their sakes we should probably refrain. Yet I would not judge any brother for indulging in such a place once or twice to satisfy his curiosity.

I think going to a bar presents far more danger than going to a strip club. At a bar, there is no chaperone or guard to keep you from doing something foolish and many women at bars are dressed provocatively and can be quite charming. And you have alcohol around to loosen things up, including inhibitions. So much more can happen at a bar. Therefore, I believe a strip club is a much better environment than a bar. A bar is a bad place to try to behave and a bad place to find a good mate. So why bother? Most bars exist for one purpose, to potentially hook up with someone, either for a serious relationship or just a fling. Strip clubs offer excitement but not much more. If you condemn strip clubs, you almost certainly should condemn bars. Of course, many conservative Christians do. I don't think they are a good idea, either. But not all bars are pick-up joints, either, such as some sports bars or some pubs.

But I also observe many who think a bar is far less offensive than a strip joint. Strip joints do not offer a lot of promise as a place to get laid. The intent is only excitement, not immoral sex. On the other hand, a bar is where you might go if you are planning for an immoral sexual encounter. So would you like to go on record as saying that some visual stimulation at a strip joint is less sinful that planning on fornication? Really? Now who is straining gnats while gulping down camels? Anyone suggesting so is a hypocrite. But its does take stepping back and thinking a little about each to see why a bar is far worse, in reality.

We affect other people by what we do. God requires that we take that under consideration. God may not view watching a naked female stranger show off her body in the presence of others who protect her, as being all that bad. There are much worse things you can do. It is perfectly understandable why a man might want to watch that. Some women enjoy watching men, too. And I suppose that if someone just couldn't resist paying a visit to see such a thing, it would not be the worst of all things.

It is just my personal feeling that if there is anything to avoid, this might be first on the list of things that may not constitute a serious sin in and of itself. But I will state that I believe the sin is not going to a strip joint to see a woman naked. The possible sin or danger of sin is in how it might affect other's view of you as you try to live a life in harmony with Christian principles and have the respect of others. I personally would not look down on you. But many others might and likely will.

But in a world saturated with sex and temptation and where marriage is difficult to come by and getting good paying jobs is ever more rare, people are now into their 30s before marrying. At this point, you have suffered the worst of strong sexual urges and many temptations. To avoid fornication and any sort of curiosity and fascination as well, is not realistic or practical, or reasonable. One is doing fantastic if they can avoid fornication without marriage. This is what is most important to God. But to avoid even peeking at magazines, or internet porn, or daring to visit a strip joint? Well, I don't see that as reasonable or necessary.

Curiosity being what it is, to absolutely and completely deny any and all interest in sex and sexual beauty is impossible. We are human! To try to deny all urges and appetites is to lie, for one, and two, will likely guarantee that we will miserably fail to eliminate all curiosity and we might end up snapping and resorting to extremes, having built up such enormous amounts of desire that we will go off like a volcano when the tectonic forces finally explode. Better to let off some steam so that urges don't get overwhelming. That is my philosophy based on my 3 other articles recommended.

Most Christians fail to understand how appetites build. We know hunger can get worse and very extreme as we go longer without food, water, sleep, etc. But we fail to understand it is the same with beauty, sex, and the like. The appetite builds and gets so strong, that it will insist on being fulfilled at nearly any cost. This is a very dangerous place to arrive at and as I see wisdom dictating, we can not allow ourselves to get to that point. Long be fore we get there, we must let off some pressure and cater to our flesh in small minor ways that will relieve some of the pressure of our God given appetites.

Hence, now my 4th recommended article:  On Masturbation. This is where I show with very sound authority how the Bible does not condemn what most Christians do, which is this self stimulation of our sexual genitalia. This subject terrifies people but it should not. Grown mature Christians should not be running from the realities of life. This is our sexuality and if we do not deal with it, it will deal with us, whether we like it or not. Revelation 22 says cowards will not inherit God's Kingdom. Cowardice has no place in the discussion of Human Sexuality. Sexuality has been done great harm by Christian Cowardice in the past which is why so many Christians are fornicating now. Keep on doing the same things and get the same results or dare to try something new but intelligent. I dare you! So does God!



Virtual Porn?
Back to Top

I think there is something to illustrate how harmless remote viewing might be, such as from video or pictures. Let's look at something known in the porn world as Henti, Hentai, or similar spelling. It is the cartoon animation of porn originating in Japan. Yes, cartoon portrayals of sex, both comical and somewhat serious ones, too. Also, fairly recent to the porn scene, is virtual porn, using 3D rendering and animation and art to display somewhat realistic looking females of pure imagination.

These more clearly illustrate what is involved here. No one can claim that a cartoon can sin, can they? They may be used to portray sin but they, in themselves, can not sin. They are not real people! Nor can you really sin with them. They are completely fictional creations, no matter how realistic looking, arousing, or just plain comical, as some try to be. If we might get excited over what is portrayed, what are we getting excited over? A cartoon? Where is the real sin? Cartoons can not be harmed or abused or threatened. Yet, simulations are still considered as potentially violating laws of decency or porn prohibition. These would be "thought" crimes. Do you see how absurd our government and laws have gotten. We are now protecting cartoons from abuse and harm. Need I say more???

Of course, they are objecting to our urges getting out of hand. They say that porn makes you go out and rape or hire prostitutes or some other crazy suggestion. This is total crap and lies spread by the devil. In reality, it is not releasing some of our pent up sexual appetite that can make us do worse things as urges build. But allowing some sexual relief from self stimulation can avoid urges getting out of control. So we can not blame porn or virtual (imaginary, not real) porn, either.

This cartoon thing is just about exactly the same as what our own imaginations might cook up, whether awake and conscious or asleep and dreaming. That is why laws have no business being made to condemn such things. But Comstock and J. Edgar Hoover seem to be alive and well, prying into our heads, our bedrooms, and if they could, probably even into our bodies.

Those preoccupied with concern about the thoughts of others would like to censor or control our very minds, as if we had all that much control. But the absolute truth is that we do not choose what is exciting to us. It is instinct that we did not create and are not responsible for having. We were born with it or had experiences that we could not stop from happening to us that shaped or modified our instinct in ways we can not control and are often not aware of when they are changed. No reasonable law or person would ever condemn another for what comes into their hearts and minds when they are presented with something that they then become aroused by.

If there is someone or some governing force who condemns men for what stimulates or excites them, then that someone or governing force is absolutely wicked. They have a right to be concerned about our actions but not what comes into our minds as if we had come control over that. Those concerned with thoughts clearly have other objectives as I would see it. For if we can be judged by what comes up out of our hears and into our minds, then any of us could be convicted at anytime for who of us is there that does not have dark thoughts come into our minds many times a day, throughout our lives. This is beyond comprehension that we could persecute human nature like this but . . . it certainly would seem that we have arrived at that point for laws make it at least possible to find fault with men for what goes on in their heads as they see visual stimuli.

I say any such laws that probe or condemn people for thought crimes, that these laws are crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of hate, and a violation of all decency and morality. A person's innermost thoughts should be their exclusive right, completely protected and beyond any reach of law, for who could possible stand against such deep inspection, especially if we admit what God tells us, that all sin and have sin in them. Those who make or enforce such laws are certainly no saints. I can guarantee that. They will answer to God.

I would suggest that those who consider it very important to know every last thought in our heads, want to know for they have evil plans for the human race and want to know about anyone who might not like or go along with these diabolical plans. They are so afraid people might not like or might even resist the coming changes and plans of the elite. So first they need to establish a reason why they need to intrude into our heads. It is hard to imagine a good reason but if they can at least find a reason people might go along with, then that begins the policing for such thoughts and thought crimes. And what terrifies people most to day is what men might be thinking about their sons and daughters. It terrifies them that someone might find their kids appealing. This is reasonable on the surface, but if one stops and thinks about it, and gives some rational thought to it, they might have to rethink the whole matter.

First, men have always found children to be beautiful or cute, even as some adults are. Why do we have kid beauty pageants? Someone had to judge them as being beautiful. That someone is a group of adults, isn't it. When kids are cast in TV and movies, aren't they usually cute, beautiful, appealing? Isn't that how the movie gets you to watch and affects you? And when kids are picked for ads, don't they pick models who look good in what they are modeling so that you will buy?

To be fair, honest, and rational, beauty is a big part of our lives. It influences and affects nearly everything we do. We need not fear it. Men have always had a strong sense of beauty which they recognize in any age when it is present. That does not mean they will rape or otherwise go nuts. Most don't and never will, despite their acute sense of beauty. They also have a sense of decency and small children also bring out tender feelings of nurturing and respect as well.

True, some do not respect law. For those who transgress, punish them appropriately and you will discourage others from doing the same. But get weak in law, prosecution, enforcement, and punishment; then crime will get out of control. That is not the fault of a man's instinct. That is the fault of a poor judicial system. Fix the system not men.

There is no reason or legitimate excuse to persecute men and their natural instinct. To do so should be a hate crime. We should not fear men. They are no threat. The threat is those who promote, pass, and enforce thought crimes and hate crimes. Those are the ones we should desperately fear, and by proper laws and authority, wipe out of existence, for the threat they offer is very real, very dangerous, and the greatest threat to our liberty, freedom, human frailty. Such ones could never be said to have any good intentions whatsoever. They can only mean the worst for us all. You have been warned!

What is likely of most concern or should be of most concern, to Christians, is what effect it is going to have on those who watch it or look at porn. Will we run out and get laid after seeing this stuff? Or will our minds be slowly rotted away into sin over time? Or might it be rather uneventful? I assume you have read my article on Lust. Certainly, we would all have to agree that this virtual porn is the least sinful of all porn, if it is a sin at all. I think most view this type of stuff, quite often, for its humor content. And if mere fanciful recreations are able to please or satisfy men, great! Then they will not need real people. Surely that is an improvement, isn't it? A step in the right direction?

But what might take place in virtual porn is like what often happens in our heads dreaming at night. NO difference at all! And no one gets raped or starts having sex with everyone they see. They are asleep, aren't they? And they don't go out after a dream and do such things, either. We recover from the night and dreaming, and our conscious minds take over every morning as they always do.



The Real Concern
Back to Top

I don't think there is any question about the fact that naked bodies and participation in sexual activities by those photographed, recorded, or those performing live, is going to arouse people. Of course it will! It would only be human. One could scarcely avoid it.

Is arousal bad? Aren't we supposed to get aroused eventually, by the one we marry? Why else would we seek out a wife or husband? But arousal could be a problem. Eating could be a problem. To some degree, avoiding arousal completely, in this world, is impossible. What we do with arousal is the real concern, isn't it? Porn will arouse. Clean holy things can arouse, too. The stimulus may not be as important as the reaction to it, in some examples I have offered.

First, for most of mankind's history, we didn't have pictures or motion cameras as we do today. But you could still have live performances, as well as paintings and sculpture. So pornography of one sort or another has always been with us and always will be as long as the world remains in sin. It is not possible to completely avoid it. Not for us or our children! We will be exposed. You can be certain of that. How we will deal with it is the only thing left to be resolved.

I feel it important to point out that a beautiful woman, even if modestly dressed and adorned, can be very stimulating. In fact, odd as it is, men often are extremely aroused by women who are very modest, clean, decent, shy and reserved, seemingly very virtuous. A paradox if ever there was one. So when some suggest that provocative overt presentation of the flesh is why men get aroused, it is false. For often, it is the good, wholesome, clean, decent, innocent presentation that can be very arousing. Can a woman be blamed for arousing a man when she has fully behaved? Of course not. "Provocative" is in the eye of the beholder. I am sure more than a few husbands have been aroused by a beautiful woman other than their wives and then "take it out" on their wives. A few wives have likely done the same in response to a handsome man they might have seen. I think it perfectly normal and natural, perhaps even God's intention, that all women be stimulating and inspirational in their beauty and personal charm just as nature might be beautiful and inspiring. It was sin in the Garden of Eden that corrupted genetics so that beauty is no longer automatic and guaranteed. But when arousal occurs, we have an outlet in our mates. I will deal more with this later. And we have masturbation, which I consider in an article about that, exclusively, in Related Articles at the end of this article.

But really, since sexual thoughts come into men's minds most of the day, it is obvious that we seldom act on them. And when we do, it is within the law for most of us. So I do not think we need to fear men the their love of beauty or their desire for sex, or anything else. Men are important to the world. We need them and need to treat them right. Of course, Christians are concerned about lust as a sin against God. So despite my article on Lust which does not support thoughts as being lust, lets pretend for a minute that thoughts are lust and God is offended.

Should it really be the concern of a Government as to whether God is offended or not? Isn't the US Government supposed to be separate from religions and gods? In fact, government seems to offend God all the time so I doubt it is of concern to them. And since we in the USA are supposed to have freedom or religion, it certainly should be of no concern of government or any of its citizens whether others are offending God with their minds. We are free to respect or not respect the beliefs of other religions or beliefs. we are free to please God if we so choose, or offend Him in our minds if that is our choice. Freedom of choice is supposed to be a hallmark of democracy, the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

So arousal should be the private province and jurisdiction of each individual. They should never have to account for what might be in their mind or what it is that excites them and if they choose to confess, it should be protected speech for which no law or prosecution should be allowed to infringe upon. The 5th Amendment says that no one need incriminate themselves. I believe it should go one further. We should not be prosecuted or punished for what we might reveal as taking place in our heads. For indeed, is this not supposed to be the case when a therapist is treating us or we confess to a clergyman? So if we are free and protected in some places and contexts, why not most or even all?

But some might argue that we might use such protection to promote sedition or other real crimes. Problem with that is that most of us have had such things come into our heads more than once. Should it be a sin to admit it or explore it in some context? How many of us briefly fantasized about strangling our boss or co-worker or shouting something to the world or running down the street naked or some other foolish thing. It is OK for psychology books to admit it but not us personally, right? Well, I disagree. Its total hypocrisy!

This brings up many things that ought to be rationally discussed and explored, being ever so careful not to get carried away in fear or paranoia, which are not healthy states of mind and do not bring about healthy results. But fear is what is used and promoted by those who have impure motives at heart and have men as their primary target of hate and persecution. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We are no better than the witch hunters of old, or those who sacrificed humans, or any other similar atrocities. I guess we have not come that far, after all. What ever happened to that so called "Enlightenment" we supposedly went through a few hundred years ago? But be warned, you who call yourselves Christians. If you judge your brother, a man, harshly or unfairly, you shall be liable to the harsh judgment of God. You have been warned!



Public Displays Speak!
Back to Top

Now there may be publicly displayed statues, paintings, or pictures that depict provocative nudity or sex. They exist. Are they useful? Harmful? What sort of impression do they make on people? How might children understand them? What do children think when sex is alluded to on TV? What do they think when they hear words bleeped out on TV? Are they fooled or not know what words are likely being said?

We underestimate kids all the time. They are not stupid. When words are censored, do you think the kids don't know what is bleeped out or implied? Or when they see the sweaty hands of Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet leave their prints on the widow of the car on the Titanic in the movie "Titanic," do we imagine they do not know what has been or is supposed to be going on in that movie scene? Or when TV characters openly sleep around all the time, would it not appear to the kids as if this behavior is accepted or maybe winked at? After all, "everyone" "seems" to be "doing it," right? We send all kinds of subtle messages to kids, teens, and adults alike. Sometimes those messages are not so subtle at all.

The same can go for publicly displayed statues and other displays of nudity or sex. They communicate a certain attitude. One of openness, acceptance, maybe even approval. At the very least, such flagrantly open attitudes about sex lose their bad stigma and shame when we promote them so much in the public eye. Maybe that is what some want! That may not be the message we want to send, though. So we must give some careful thought to how open we are about such things. I am not suggesting that we become hypocrites and lie about what we do or don't do. Nor do I say that a nude statue necessarily is an offense. But we should give it all much more thought for I do believe that some of the things we put on TV convey attitudes that are not healthy or good. But I do not suggest that Christians try to enforce their judgments on others. I only want to solve what might be right or wrong.

For instance, we may not hide from our kids the fact that we who are married have sex. Maybe they even walked in on you at some time, by accident or pretended accident because they were curious. We should not be ashamed, embarrassed, or quickly try to hide what we have been doing. But at the same time, we don't have to flaunt it or carry on in front of them, either, perhaps performing for them. We are balanced, neither being exhibitionists or hiding, either. But do let me make this clear. Kids will not be traumatized seeing their parents have sex and married sex is not dirty, obscene, filthy, or disgusting. In God's eyes it is good and pure. It is only in the law's eyes that married sex is perverted, obscene and vile. If parents were to openly show what they were doing to their kids, it would not offend God. It would only offend the law, who would then accuse you of child abuse and take your kids away.

It is really the law that is corrupt and vile, but for the sake of your kids, don't perform for their viewing, whatever you do. I simply believe it important to point out who the real prude and culprit is when it comes to sex. It is the law and some apostate Christians who call what God made, evil, defiled, and wicked. But God called it good! The devil thought it fit to corrupt and defile all good things made by God, calling His creations filthy and perverted, or the devils other tactic, to claim that he is the one who made sex or instituted it and wants everyone to enjoy it without any restraint at all. But both tactics are extreme distortions of God's gifts.

Porn will most likely be something children will come across in one way or another. We don't have to hide it away and make it totally prohibitive. But we don't have to rub it in their faces and put it up all over the public streets so no one can ignore it, either. Moderation is the key here as in all things. It is the attitude that is implied in public displays that concerns me. It is the openly boastful and unapologetic sort of attitude that is harmful, not the display of the body or the genitals. So we don't want to be guilty of such displays even if the world is. That would be as I see it.

Such public displays could be viewed as an idolatry of the body or the genitals. Idolatry is obviously wrong. And nudity for the sake of nudity doesn't seem to makes sense to me. We don't need to encourage nudity. We don't need to use sex displays as decorations. Why such a choice of decoration? It still suggests an attitude that could rub off on others. Not what we want to communicate. Most humans give plenty of thought to sex as it is. Do we really need to be reminded of it and encouraged to pursue it anymore than we already do? Our minds don't need to be focusing a lot on this sort of thing. We do fine without it, don't we?

When we condone public displays of nudity or sex, it is not a distinct and clear trumpet blast, giving a clear and unmistakable signal to all, especially young impressionable minds. We don't want to leave any doubt about what the right attitude should be. But what about displays of art from classical artists of times past? Were they wrong? That is a hard call. I do believe the human body is a work of art or can be. We all may appreciate well shaped naked body, especially of the opposite sex, whether man or woman. But those who made such statues, often sponsored by the Medici and other sponsors of questionable intent, themselves were trying to overthrow the ruling class and subvert the Catholic Church in many ways. the nude statues and painting were very upsetting back then, maybe much more so that they are now. Now we call them "classical" and artistic but that is not the way it was when they were first made.

Going around showing people off naked in public is probably not best to encourage. We don't normally do that ourselves, do we? Then it would not seem proper for public display in my mind. Greeks did do it and Medieval Renaissance Italy did it. But the ways of man and pagan nations are not the ways of God. Further, even in Roman Catholic Italy, open nude displays were not approved. Some might say, the Church was a prude. It is very possible but far from certain. But there were never any openly nude displays in Israel in any of its days right up to its destruction in 70 AD.

That doesn't mean we can't admire such works for the artistic skill employed but maybe they should be displayed in certain sections of a museum rather then just any old place in public. That might be reasonable, perhaps. But let me take this time to point out that these statues were not designed to highlight ones genitals, yet, take Michelangelo's David. His genitals are clearly visible. It may not excite you or me, but that is not to say it was not meant to excite someone somewhere. It may be "art," for whatever that might mean. But today, most would say that is a clean display, one not sexual or provocative. But I say, who is the one who has the right to say whether it is or isn't. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and really, so what is provocative or not is in the eyes of the beholder.

This just further emphasizes and highlight how tricky and unreasonable it is for law to try and classify nudity as being provocative or not. Nudity is nudity. I don't believe the naked body is unclean as far as its appeal or beauty. It is only that we are vulnerable its appearance and influence; enticement and temptation, really. But what nearly anyone today would call artistic or clean nudity in these statues from the Renaissance, was strongly objected to by the "Church." It was unclean and offensive by their measure. So why was it once so bad and now pure art and goodness? And which one, if either, was right? Tough questions and no easy answers.

But my call would be that publically displayed nudity is wrong, unless it is in a museum where the nudity is intended to display the skill and talent of artists in recreating the image of the human body. If these were openly displayed in public squares, then the subtle silent message would be that nudity is not such a bad thing and not looked down upon. That is not what I would want to communicate if I were a ruler. There is a time and place for it, a context where it belongs. A museum could be allowable. The mall? NO!

To clarify, we don't want to brag about our fallen condition and encourage it to be unrestrained and constantly gravitating toward sex. We don't even want to overly encourage what might be natural desires which could get out of hand. We don't want to revel in our sinful or even proper cravings, even though we all have them as part of our inherited condition. So we want to keep our sexual practices and attitudes as private ones. What we think or feel in private is our own business. (Lets hope the government someday adopts that stance as well). We can indulge ourselves in private, in our minds or with our partners. And that is where we want to leave it, too. We don't want to rub it in the public's face. So we want to show good sense and respect.

The thing with porn magazine and videos is that they are not openly visible to all in plain public display. Video rentals keep them veiled in back. Magazines are now covered in plastic so you can not view them, for the most part. Our making them very difficult to access communicates that this is not something openly done or glamorized, or bragged about. It is very discreet and carefully concealed so that kids could not get them unless their parents enable it. Kids then realize that this is not some every day ordinary sort of things, to pose naked or even view it. So if a magazine showed a couple "connected" in a sexual way, they know this is not something just done by anyone anywhere and that it is really only intended for married couples.

We need to keep our group (community) and group atmosphere in as pure a state and high a level as possible. Whatever is good and up-building is what should be held out to the public and each other. We tolerate what we are as a result of Adam, when we are alone in the privacy of our own homes. And we enjoy the sexual relations we are entitled to as married people. We have a right to privacy (though your paranoid government likely disagrees) and that would be the proper place for indulgences that don't cross any serious boundaries. As Solomon points out in Ecclesiastes, there is a proper time and place for everything.

The proper place for sex is not in the middle of public. I say these things to apply to a Christian group. I do not think it proper for Christians to dictate that much to the world they live in. We are, according to the Bible (in Hebrews 11:10-16), aliens and temporary residents in this world and should be happy to live and let live, so that as we do not want others dictating how we behave, we would not dictate how they behave. How they behave is up to God to deal with, not us. If the world wants to carry on in licentious activity, that is their business. It does not need to affect us. We can avoid being harmed by it. That is why God gave us spiritual armor, right?

And while we are here, is public sex proper behavior? Here is what I think. It is only my opinion and has no strong Biblical basis. Flagrant public display is not OK for reasons such as those I have mentioned in regards to privacy and not embarrassing others with our very personal and intimate expressions. But I will distinguish this from a situation where a couple might think there is no one else around to stumble upon them and they decide to have some fun. The place they are at is remote or so they thought. Then, to their surprise, someone stumbles onto them in the middle of it all. Here I don't see the real harm. In fact, it is kind of funny. It was not intended to be public, really. They were feeling frisky and playful and thought they would be alone. Where is the big harm? I wouldn't find it objectionable if I stumbled onto such a situation. As long as they were married, right? ;-) Well, in a perfect world they would be. I would not be upset if they weren't, provided they did not claim to be Christian. Of course, the law says its horribly hideous and obscene. They say its indecent exposure and very serious. But God does not say that. But don't break any laws, that do not conflict with God's commands.

Now this might all seem like splitting hairs and being rather legalistic. Maybe. Then again, maybe not. The problem here is that the human body is intoxicatingly beautiful. It is a very potent drug or can be. Does that mean we can't look at it or appreciate various forms and shapes of it? Is it so horrible to enjoy human beauty? Really, the body is compelling. It definitely challenges us to cope with it and not get carried away. But it does need to be coped with. We can't just let it run out of control. So we try our best to balance one need against the other. It is often a delicate tightrope walk to balance such things. Legalistic? No, just cautious and caring, without being completely unrealistic. Being a prude sucks, but being an exhibitionist might go too far, too. Moderation again!

Recall that Adam and Eve were given clothes by God because it was recognized that it would be a challenge to keep beauty in its place and not have it run out of control. But may I point out that porn is not generally public when viewed and not obtainable by under-aged kids, which certainly does not communicate approval, or otherwise anyone could buy it like they do candy or snacks. So porn violates nothing as regards public attitudes.

And if it does not violate any lust crimes as some suggest that Jesus was doing, then I see no problem with men being curious and excited by an occasional viewing of pictures or videos of beautiful and fully uncovered women. For those single and in their prime of sexual vitality, it is either this option, or fornication in all likelihood. In view of refraining from fornication and adultery, isn't a picture of naked woman a pretty good compromise? Is it really such a big deal. I ask you to give it very serious thought for if we make any little thing a serious sin, in a world so filled and saturated with sexual stimulation, we are likely to make it nearly impossible. Getting a little excited over a beautiful woman is no where near the level of being fornication. We are naturally drawn and attracted to beauty. A mild indulgence is not a big deal or major sin. If you say it is, then spell it out for me because I can not see it.

If I am wrong and headed in the wrong direction, it is your duty to warn me or God will make you account for my blood and sin, because you did not warn me as God required.


Augustus Caesar Testifies
Back to Top  

When Augustus came to the throne as Emperor of Rome (27 BC to 14 AD), he inherited a nation full of sexual freedom and liberation. Less children were being born or raised properly as people were more concerned for their own sexual pleasure and less concerned for family life. Augustus realized that if Rome was to continue to raise great fighters, soldiers, and armies, that he must secure the family unit and encourage breeding and reinforcement of the family unit. He knew the health and strength of the nation depended upon family units. So Augustus tried to improve morals by passing laws to regulate and promote good healthy marriage and family life and to control promiscuity, which threatened family life. So It is not just God or Christianity that believes that family life is very important to protect and prolong. Even a militaristic and hedonistic nation had leaders who knew what was best from the standpoint of remaining solid and powerful from a military and economic point of view.

But it is a challenge to get that genie back in the bottle from whence he came. People do not like morals shoved down their throat. But government has always been sort of forceful in its ways. But in this case, if the nation of Rome wanted to continue their legacy, by now at least 700 years strong/long, then Augustus was right in what he did. Adultery was made to be a crime. Special privileges were given to families of 3 or more kids. Outrageous sexual conduct was outlawed as well.

Now I am going by memory here and so I might get one or two details wrong. I caught this on, I believe, the History Channel (or NGC) on dealing with the sexual laws passed by Augustus. Augustus did not ban prostitution, evidently; and likely believing a ban would never work or be enforceable and that it would be far more than the liberated citizens could tolerate, Augustus did not outright ban prostitution. I believe that Augustus was very enlightened and practical in this respect. And what he did enact as a solution, even more so.

He elevated the status and dignity of the woman of the household and family. A man could still visit prostitutes but prostitutes could only operate in specific locations of a city and had to dress in a very specific way that would clearly identify them as prostitutes. They were not allowed to dress like dignified honorable ladies of the house. One might think this was to denigrate and humiliate the prostitutes but that was not the case. The intention was to make a clear pronounced distinction between the two types of women. One was the honor and respect of a dignified woman to whom all should aspire to be like, and the other one that was not so glorious and very obvious, all the same, so that one could not hide and pretend to be an honorable woman while really acting like a whore. Al this to the end that the family would be protected by keeping prostitution out of the way and sort of out of sight and not glorified, made popular, or easily seen in public. Augustus sort of hid it out of the way of easy normal public view. Get it?

A man was not allowed to commit adultery. He was given an outlet through prostitution, even as it was in Greece. So you could have extra engagements but only with women who openly practice their trade in specific places and dress. A woman of the house could not act like a prostitute or engage in such business. She, too, if memory serves me, might have been able to engage a servant for a little indiscretion, but she could not be promiscuous or outrageous.

Now women of great status and power tended to ignore these laws, as all people of power tend to do. But Augustus was a ruler of excellent quality. He would not tolerate disrespect for his own laws, especially not from his own relatives. It would send a bad message to his subjects. So he banished his own daughter and grand-daughter due to their very scandalous and outrageous sexual misconduct. It would not have been possible to cover it up, anyway. It was well known by many, if you get my drift.

So a woman of the household could not be undignified or have many lovers. She had to be more behaved than women had formerly been accustomed to. But men too, were reigned in quite a bit compared to former freedoms. But Augustus wanted to make a very big distinction between the conduct of a prostitute and that of a "lady." In every way, he made their identities clear and forbid them looking or dressing like each other. In this way, there was no doubt in anyone's mind who was who or who had the dignity and respect, and who did not.

After all, if one is to encourage certain behavior and self-restraint, than one has to reward that behavior and give it great dignity and honor so as to uphold and reinforce what you are trying to encourage. I believe Augustus was showing great wisdom and understanding in his actions. Public perception was very important as he saw it and that is what I have argued for in the 2 previous sections. How will our kids interpret our portrayals on TV and in public places? We need to make clear obvious distinctions that none can misinterpret.

So Romans, all Romans, knew about prostitutes in the days of Augustus. But prostitutes were not highly visible. It would be the same with porn, which is no where near the sin of prostitution, which is a form of fornication and adultery in many cases. Porn would not be readily accessible, but everyone would know that it exists. Knowing it exists does not make it completely OK. There is a distinction made so that there is an understanding that porn is not perfectly good and acceptable conduct, without some reservations.

But in the USA and much of the world today, it is all very ambiguous, questionable, unclear, even very contradictory and hypocritical at times. We don't know where the boundaries are more, or if there even are any. There may not be any. Maybe that is how some intended for it to be. But if we are to be a credible society, with legitimate honesty and integrity of law, then we need to reconsider how we are conducting ourselves and ask if our society and legacy are to carry on and how. If it is to survive in any form, we will need to give more attention to our kids and our families, the backbone of all societies and empires that have ever existed.

Let me illustrate some examples. We condemn porn mags and videos, but we show people running around naked on TV, with those blurred areas making the private or provocative areas not truly visible but yet, we all know they are running around naked. So while we say you should not see it, we do note that many are running around naked and it is done openly in public, on TV. So is it OK or not? I say that message is contradictory.

In the later 90s, and maybe early 21st century for a couple or 3 years, NatGeo was showing actual nudity of some S. American tribes on TV, including under aged girls of all ages, full frontal nudity. But now they blur the private provocative areas. We still know they are naked but we can't see it in detail. But obviously, the people who are naked do not mind, right? This is not the only problem. Why was it OK then, when child porn was clearly not allowed in the USA? They will say it was just "natural" living that was filmed. Yes, I don't argue that, but if it was so OK then, then why did they start blurring it? Were they wrong at first? Then why are they not in jail? If they were OK, then why are we know blurring it out? And natural or not, how can we say it is or is not, provocative? Lots of questions but too few answers that are satisfying. The lines constantly move up and down, back and forth, and yet we believe we should put men in prison for photographing or viewing such nudity. Now that is obscene.

Now if I were given the task of leading the nation of the USA, I, too, would legalize prostitution and regulate it. One can't regulate it or protect the "workers" without admitting it, legitimizing it, and protecting it. Sex workers deserve some basic human rights and dignities. I am not saying to elevate them or glorify them but they deserve all the rights and protections that can be mustered in such an industry so that they can not be abused or used by others. They are doing the "work" and deserve the pay for it.

But since so many ruthless types make fantastic money off of enslaved women, and these men tend to influence governments, which also tend toward corruption and abuse of power, so it is not likely to change. The sex slave business and trade could be ended tomorrow if there truly was a will to stop it. But that secret lucrative money is just too good to too many in power. So we have what we have, in my opinion, by deliberate intent. Prostitution thrives, but in secret and underground with lots of abuse.

My way would eliminate a lot of abuse and indecency. I see that as a great improvement. But Jesus did note that the sons of darkness are wiser, in a practical sense, than as are the sons of light. The sons of light, so called, really don't understand their Master that well. They see Him as some sort of legalistic sort who does not care about people. To the contrary, Jesus often preached mercy and forgiveness rather than judgment, looking down on people and the like. So even among those who are relatively obedient followers of the Lord, they still miss many things in his teachings.

I also want to point out that the Mosaic law forbid prostitutes. Yet in Solomon's day, 2 prostitutes came into to Solomon, fighting over which woman was the mother of a baby both claimed to own. So did Solomon have them both executed? NO! What? Why? He discerned the real mother and gave her the baby. Prostitution was illegal and wrong but enforcement did not stop it. It is nearly impossible to stop. One of the purposed of the law, was to show us how flawed we were as people of sin, so that it would become obvious that we were flawed and sinful and not capable of living up to the law as it was written.

So yes, prostitution is a terrible thing. But having young woman kidnapped and forced to be whores the rest or their youthful lives so that others can profit without any concern for the girls prostituting is just wrong and immoral. The girls are guiltless. They were forced into their circumstance. Either legalize it and protect them from the worst and even help them to escape, or condemn them even as their captors did. Now who is immoral or not?

Likewise, legalize and allow porn or recognize you will likely encourage criminals to force women into porn rather than them doing it willingly as many do today. And I also suggest that child porn, which is a deplorable circumstance, could be minimized and perhaps the parents in poor places could profit from their own kids and maybe the girls would not also have to become prostitutes. Most are prostituted. As I see it and call me radical if you like, But I see a girl posing naked as far better than having to prostitute. But ultimately, if you make it illegal, you only make it more profitable and more difficult to protect those being exploited. If we can not stop it and I don't believe we can, then it is at least better to reduce the harm and damage as much as possible.

Women and girls are helpless and easily bullied and exploited. They can only be helped if we can admit prostitution and porn and acknowledge them as legal so we can offer some protection and possible escape. Making it illegal also makes it go underground so that we do not know it is going on at all. Do we really care about these exploited females or do we just want to condemn them to the abuse and exploitation, insuring little is ever done about it? Now which one is the loving attitude and which one is not?

God is about loving and caring and helping those trodden upon, used, abused, and exploited. Do we want to offer help of just forsake them in the name of supposed decency and righteousness. It is not in anyway decency or righteousness if it turns its back on the powerless and helpless. So you idiots who call yourselves Christians while ignoring the plights of many women, are the ultimate phonies and Pharisees, straining the gnat while gulping down camels, keeping the letter of the law while ignoring mercy and compassion. I hope you rot in hell!

So am I a hypocrite? Do I have a double standard here in this article. Throw your rocks at me, you blind fools. I will have the last laugh on you. I'll watch the birds feed on your flesh and enjoy every minute of it. You know what they say about who laughs last, right?



Not a Double Standard!
Back to Top

Some might think that suggesting that keeping things out of public view while allowing private viewing is a double standard and I addressed that already. But even among families, there is a different way of conduct in the private realm of the family in the house than with the outside broader world. A family might not be afraid to be seen in moments of nudity, for there is a certain trust one has with one's immediate family as it should be. Among a family there is an understanding that they might not share with the world at large. They might talk about things that they would not to outsiders. The family is an individual unit. Families tend to be more "real" and let their hair down more with each other, maybe even be more upfront whereas they might be more gentle with the outside.

So like it or not, we are all different people when alone or amongst family. We have a different face for those in public. Maybe even a 3rd face for close friends. We maintain more boundaries with the outside public than within families or deep within ourselves. In some instances, we may be more careful around our families and more relaxed with outside friends, if our families are strict. In general, Christian families might tend to be more allowing of minor sins, although with some, they are more severe but which ever case it is, there are boundaries and differences between private and public.

Public conduct generally is more guarded and careful, even as it should be. We are all vulnerable to peer pressure and influence of others. It is God given instinct to be influenced by peers and society. One example was already shared about how primitive tribes that lived in isolation and nudity or even shared sexual partners changed when the world around them came into frequent contact with them. They then began to cover up or change sexual habits. Peer pressure is real and works. It can also be a two edged sword, being both a force that keeps things in order or encourages others to break with order and tradition. So what goes on in public does matter very much.

So we need to be very cautious and careful about public attitudes and private ones, too. But in private, married couples have sex. They do not do so in public, correct? Not usually, anyway! We wear public faces because we do not have to face the public all the time as we do our families. With the family, we show too much and see too much. We can not hide forever and amongst our families, we get real.

First, to repeat from earlier, desire for the opposite sex is a valid appetite and urge we need not apologize for or feel shamed of. That is a God given drive in us. But at the same time, we don't brag about how out of control our appetites might be. And when it comes to sex and beauty, our impulses are very strong and what could come from that would be harmful to the public and our brothers and sisters in the faith. So for our protection and that of others, we need to keep our very strong impulses under control and even dampened. That does not mean they are dampened inside or that they are not strong but we blunt them and tone them down for the sake of all. We do not jump for joy and revel in our love of the opposite sex, though nearly all of us probably feel that inside.

A totally hot woman will affect a red blooded man in a very big way. Inside he will go nuts. He could do so in the company of his friends as well. Its understandable, isn't it? But amongst his church group, he would want to tone it down. In fact, in general, he might not want to get out of hand. If he were not raised as a Christian and was used to letting it rip, it would be quite the job to tone it down but it is the right thing to do. Alone by himself watching TV, he might revert back to his old real feelings and that is fine. Its inside whether he wants it or not. So letting it out is a sort of relief.

We are at the mercy of our sinful nature, which really, is not always sinful but often very strong, impulsive, or possibly out of good control. Sin is basically loosing some control over our faculties so that we can not fully control our behavior and certainly not our desires inside of us. So we have to, at times, allow or vent what is in us, whether from Adam or not. We can not hold everything in and deny everything. It is not possible. Sin is who we are and we are only lying if we say otherwise.

Most Christians do not want to admit or be honest about the fact they have sin in them. They prefer to deny it and act as if they don't. But are we loving God and truth if we deny we have sin? And are we benefiting ourselves when we deny our sin? We are not! We must deal with reality, another word for truth. We have sin in us and we will harm ourselves severely if we do not allow the sin to be vented or exorcised whenever possible so that we do not overinflate our urges to the point where they are too big and strong to control any more.

Think of it this way. If you are a nation and next to you is another nation allied against you, do you let them grow and get bigger and stronger than you, or do you prevent them from growing stronger, perhaps by interfering with their breeding, industry, food growing or whatever? Or do you turn and look away and let them grow unbridled so that soon, you are far weaker and can no longer offer resistance and maintain your own independence and control? Obviously, you must find a way to remain superior on power or you will lose control of your enemies.

It is the same with sin that throws our natural urges out of balance. Do we let the sin get too big and powerful, or do we keep the sin small by releasing pent up pressure of growing urges often, so that they can not grow and get our of hand. This is a wisdom most Christians do not understand. The whole concept of sin is a mystery to them. Since they do not really understand what it is, they do not know how to cope with it. So they believe you should suppress and deny sin. This guarantees failure and worse sin. We do not suppress or deny sin. We give it vent in small private doses so that it does not have too much power over us and we can stay in control, at least as regards the big sins, those most important for us to avoid to please God.

Desire for sex when we are not married is a real serious problem. Masturbating or looking at some pictures of naked women is very small by comparison. These are relatively small and unimportant when compared to the sins that really count as our enemies. So we avoid eating the camel and let some of the gnats get away. We prioritize and we don't sweat the little stuff.

Besides, where is the real harm in enjoying the picture of a truly beautiful and arousing female? Don't females naturally arouse us anyway, even as God intended? So if God intended for females to have this effect on us, then why is it a sin when it does? If that picture was of your next door neighbor, it might not be so good. You might seek her out if you knew her but with general porn, there is no familiarity or locale to worry about. The women are strangers. You can't get a picture pregnant or hurt its feelings or get a disease, either. The chance of any real sin has been eliminated. This is a safe indulgence for a young man not yet married.

Of course, older men and married men do not stop being fascinated or excited by beautiful women, especially when they are naked and it is not realistic to think they will not also want to look. They may be married but they are not dead yet, and looking is not going to threaten their marriage. But I'll address this later. So lets look at some circumstances where public and private are different. Maybe you will begin to appreciate why I believe that nudity, even for purposes of arousing with vivid poses in pictures or videos, is not the worst of all things, if we are at least observing the most important things, such as no fornication, idolatry, or other very serious offenses in the eyes of God.


Public and Private Circumstances
Back to Top

So what about pictures and videos that are kept confidentially for private viewing? Pictures and videos could be seen as not crossing any serious boundaries as long as they are kept private, sharing them only with friends who you have an understanding with. But you would not want to pass them around at church or promote such things to the world. People might wonder about you. But that you should show some interest in female beauty hardly seems unreasonable.

What about when parents are caught in bed doing that unspeakable thing? Ah, ah, you know it is speakable and good if they are married, right? What is the child to conclude about mommy and daddy if it is shameful and bad and mommy and daddy act as if it were bad? Think about it! What if a child wants to watch or see what mommy and daddy are doing. while I would say its no big deal if they let the kid see the mysterious physical connection. Listen a kid is bound to seriously wonder about it all. Lying or hiding is silly if you are doing no wrong and have nothing to be ashamed of.

But I do not think it wise to do this only because our nosy government has declared that it knows far better than we, what is proper to allow our kids to know or not. And the government has decided that sex is always bad, evil, wrong, dirty, disgusting, vile, horrible beyond words and you kids will be traumatized for life or they will immediately rush outside and screwed their friends. Well, at least that is why the government seems to imply. But I don't buy it. So anyway, it is easy to excuse yourselves and ask for privacy. To let kids see anything is child abuse by lawful USA definitions and they can and will take your kids away from you.

Its a shame that we can not raise our kids as we see fit. I understand protecting kids from the worst of abuses such as severe beatings, or severe neglect to the point of exposure, starvation, or threat of being killed. But to group all those with things like allowing kids to see how daddy fits inside mommy seems pretty outrageous. Kids want answers and in my opinion, they may very well try it on their own to solve the mystery if the parents aren't forthcoming. Some kids may even be concerned that daddy is hurting mommy. So it should not be a crime to satisfy the curiosity of kids but it is. Governments are far more perverted and dirty minded than many of its citizens are.

Kids can be assured and have it explained that what you do is something very personal and private and that you both like to be alone. You might even want to explain how silly your government is about it all, while you are at it! Clearly, there is a vast difference between our laws of the USA and those of God, where in this sort of situation, God's laws have nothing to say or prohibit, making God far more reasonable and relaxed. I think most people see God and Christianity as prohibitive and prudish but clearly the law is much worse in this department. There are those who want to define and control everything, leaving nothing to choice or conscience. The only conscience you are allowed is theirs, not yours. Even if their way is not clearly supported, they will insist, anyway. Bullies are like that.

So while we may not fear knowledge being given to our kids, the government and many brainwashed and corrupted citizens do. So because there is such a difference in opinions, we have our private thinking on the matter and public thinking as well. For the sake of our kids, it is best to be safe on this one and limit the knowledge allowed.

Keep in mind that in many tribes, one can not have sex without the kids hearing and knowing, maybe even seeing dark images. When pilgrims first came to Plymouth Rock, they all lived in one big room house and still managed to have kids, which absolutely requires sex to take place. So someone had to do something that is very hard to be completely quiet about. There are bound to be at least subtle noises. A little bit of body slapping, squeaking, rustling, heavy breathing, or something similar. We have become unrealistic prudes, even close to psychotic, when it comes to sex. We are very disturbed people who can not see sex in any decent light. And it really is the government who is the main culprit in the affair.

They have volunteered to be the conscience and dictator of us all. They have enslaved us and become our masters in every little affair of our lives. We have no say about anything anymore. Even more shocking is that many who call themselves Christians have been fully in support of this. They should be supporting the individual right to exercise our consciences as we see fit, but they don't give a damn about an individual conscience, so important to God but not them. But their fruits you will know them and turn away. They will regret it, soon. I believe that "Live and Let Live" is a far wiser policy and that intervention in the affairs of others should only be done in the most extreme of circumstances, rather than at the drop of a hat, as we have now. So yes, I am saying that you are all slaves since you have no choice in anything anymore.

Our personal sex lives are no one else's business or should not be anyone else's business. So we do have some things in our lives that are public behaviors and conduct, and other things that are strictly private conduct. The same could be said about viewing porn. It is a private thing that has barriers to being easily obtained by being kept wrapped in stores or placed in adult only sections. And I should point out that if parents are doing their job, then they are making it quite clear to kids what is permissible by God or not and why. This should clear up any confusion and doubt.

Some may ask, "What is really wrong with expressing love and affection in public? Why should sex between married people be something to hide or be ashamed of? It has God's blessing. It is clean." Yes, it is absolutely clean in God's eyes. But should those around you have to endure intensely personal exchanges while a couple enjoys each other? Maybe in a more perfect world, it will be more open and permissible. Maybe not. It is hard to say. But in a sinful world where our desires are hard to control, caution is the wisest course in regards to public sex. Why is public sex so important, anyway? Of course, I do agree that one should not be arrested and jailed for 3 years for such an offense, either. I mean, lets put it in perspective. Its only sex and not the end of the world.

Why don't we bathe in front of each other? Why don't we go to the bathroom without walls and doors? They did in ancient Rome. Why aren't toilets out in the open? They were in Rome. Would you want to be around someone going to the bathroom? Do you want others around you when you go? Why don't married people like to fight with each other in public? And why are we all uncomfortable with people fighting in front of us?

Why? Because we are uncomfortable with such extremely personal and intimate exchanges. Didn't I cover this already? We prefer to allow some privacy to others as we would want for ourselves. That sense of privacy is somewhat innate and instinctual in us. Normally, sex would be one of those things. A couple who respected those around them would not subject those around them to such intense and private moments. Others would be embarrassed for them even if they were not embarrassed for themselves. Now that is not to say that ideas of privacy haven't varied from time to time and from various civilizations. Romans use to have open toilets without any division of the sexes and no sense of privacy. It may or may not be right, but that was how it was done.

We really only need to concern ourselves with the civilization we live in. Those who live in the USA come from what used to be a very conservative climate and to some degree, still is. We are a much more private people than many in the world. That needs to be taken into consideration. Maybe there are places where you could have sex in public and no one would care. There were such civilizations related by historians such as the Greek, Herodotus. But in the USA, they certainly would care and you could be arrested for doing such things. So respect the sensibilities of those around you. That would be the loving thing to do and we do want to be loving as in caring, right?

So yes, public sex is, or can be, disrespectful, even if it is clean in the eyes of God. And being disrespectful is not pleasing in the eyes of God. But neither do I think that people should be jailed or excessively fined for public sex, either. It is about the equivalent of insulting someone, which God forbids but which does not bring a penalty in the Bible other than the one we might get at Judgment Day. Insulting doesn't even involve a state or federal law unless it is racial, which now constitutes a hate crime. Prior to hate crimes, you could say almost anything. Insults still routinely take place in our society without punishment. They are routine in schools where no one gives a damn about anyone. Nice learning environment, eh? Of course, you can say or insinuate anything you like about a man and his instinct for beauty. Even throw him in jail for 3 or 4 years minimum for it. Now who is committing hate crimes?

It is only my personal opinion, but seeing some couples sort of frolic in the water at a lake, or some other discreet place, maybe doing something they shouldn't be doing, doesn't seem that bad, as long as they are being discreet and subtle, staying away from the crowd and not being obvious about what they are doing. The water sort of covers for them and hides them somewhat. It seems kind of natural, to me anyway. But it is against the law so beware. And that is just my personal opinion.

I hope I have made it clear that the way we act in public should NOT be the way we are required to act in private. Private conduct should be private and protected. Neither the government or anyone else should be allowed to poke their noses into our private affairs. But sadly, it seems very clear that there is no "private" or privacy anymore and none reserved or protected by law. They have found neat little excuses to get around any block that exists to stop invasion of privacy. So be aware and be careful for the devil is on the lose and up to no good!

And because our laws have become so legalistic that they do not allow for personal judgment and reason, all behavior is judge as intentionally malicious and harmful, even when it is perfectly obvious it is not. Family life and conduct is no longer sacred ground and off limits under normal circumstances. Families are constantly and easily suspect now. For the "protection of the child, of course! You don't really believe that, do you? Ask that 8 year old girl dancing naked at the beach if she felt protected, which I covered in my Nudity and Modesty article (12th paragraph in that link). I am sure she was mortified to realize her photos were seen by clerks, police and who knows who else. Her whole family was mortified and angered as well. Can you blame them? I wouldn't be surprised if some (undefined) made copies of those photos to enjoy or share with their buddies. After all, most power does not respect its own laws. Its OK for them, just not you.

And I will point out that pictures of naked kids are sold in books available at any major book retailer by order, if you so choose. So while it is illegal if you call it porn or say it is for stimulating purposes but if for art's sake, its fine, at least if it is published by a "reputable" publisher. This is absurd, hypocritical, and loaded contradiction and double standards for which there is absolutely no distinction between what is art and what is porn. Augustus is likely rolling over in his grave right now. But clearly, intent is far more important to some than the actions involved. We have truly lost our minds. Or rather, someone wants to control our minds and say it is right and more important than controlling our actions in some cases. You really have to wonder about it all. And again, I do not think any nudity should be illegal to the point of imprisonment. That is a really bad precedent.

To summarize, the individual conscience and its exercise should be paramount, but it is not. Protecting it would protect privacy and private conduct but they do not protect those, either. As well, we are different in private than in public and we must give special consideration and attention to our public behaviors. Nudity, in a public setting, from the standpoint of a Christian, is not good behavior. Yet for the public, today, on TV, and publically displayed magazines that can be opened, nudity or immodest displays are public ones and not healthy for our society. But private display on video, TV, or magazines should not be a problem for they are small sins, if sins at all, and do not real harm and do offer a release of pent up desires to some degree.



What We Can't Control
Back to Top

What about buying pornography in public? Well, in a perfect world, such stuff would likely not exist, I suspect. But then again, we would all be married as teens, too, and would not need porn at that point . . . maybe. But we don't live in a perfect world and there is no way you could possibly stop or prevent pornography of any sort today, given we all come from Adam and have sin. Even if you ban it, it will still exist underground as drugs, prostitution, and everything else does. The more disgusting stuff is kept very concealed from common public view, anyway. That is fine. But there is still public stuff like Playboy out there. Everyone knows what it is.

Just for kicks, is it possible that after we are restored to perfection, that men will share pictures of their wives off? Would it be a threat or loose conduct? Only God can and will say. I don't think it would be harmful but I could be wrong. Whether admitted or not, married women who are quite beautiful do get the notice of most men, however good and decent those men are. They may not admit it but its true. This is the nature of a man. Beauty gets his notice and always will. But few ever cross the line.

But the danger would be in opening up temptation, especially if the women photographed were local and women you came into contact with frequently. But it is not likely that photography is going way and people will continue to take pictures. If God says no, I am fine with that. If He sees no harm in what I call remote or indirect viewing, then fine. But as well, our desires are quite out of control and we likely have a bit more prurient interest now then might be once we are restored to perfection. But anyway, calculating possibilities can help us better understand where we could go wrong even now or where we might have gone too far.

Even more interesting is what is developing among the young now. They are voluntarily sending naked pictures of themselves with their cell phone/cameras to boy friends or other friends. The papers and the youth call this "sexting," a play on the word, texting, since it is usually sent by cell phones with cameras, although some is done by email as well. And as enforcement has been treating it, they tell the mostly girls who photograph themselves that they are committing a crime. But of course, no prosecution ever takes place. For if they began doing that, you would see parents demanding the laws be abolished. The governments could not deprive us of our civil rights in order to protect us from such horrible dangers as nudity under 18, which evidently among the young is not a big deal and they are right! They have more sense than we do. Sad, isn't it? They put it in a proper perspective, even if they are a little careless about their privacy and dignity.

But I also want to point out that in this case, law enforcement and the government do not want to enforce this law at all. But the girls are breaking the law, to its very letter. No doubt about it. Those girls belong in prison or reform school along with child pornographers. That is the law! If you don't like it, then change it. Or otherwise leave the family with the 8 year old girl on the beach alone, along with a lot of others. The law does not except or exempt anyone in this matter. Bottom line is that law enforcement is not enforcing the law as it is written. Oh, now they are using personal discretion and judgment, otherwise discouraged in law. The law apparently does not apply to everyone although in writing, it does. I love hypocrisy and contradictions. The law is full of them. Whenever you find contradictions, you know the law is likely very unjust.

The problem here is that "under-aged" "girls" (teenagers for now, younger ages likely to follow) are willingly photographing themselves naked and distributing it for free or maybe they intend it for one person only but it seldom ends that way. Boys love to share, brag, or even ridicule. You would never catch me disrespecting a gift like that! So now the so called victim is also the one breaking the law in the 1st place. Young teens don't see the shame in nudity. And they are just beginning to discover their appeal and want to test it out a little. So now the claim that it is a horror and nearly rape to be photographed naked, is a complete joke. So much for the claimed abused. Its all unraveling now. The law becomes a joke.

Now of course, while the girls who send their "gifts" around do not get prosecuted, anyone else who receives or forwards those pictures is prosecuted or warned that soon they will be. But either it is illegal for everyone or no one. That is fair and just. But To single out some and not others is just plain evil. That is selective enforcement and that is no enforcement at all. It is a hate crime against adults, men in particular. But for now, boys are not being prosecuted for distribution, because they are minors. They have been threatened but since none are prosecuted, the threats are a laugh and a joke.

But I can assure you that if anyone over 18 was involved, they would hang them high although letting minors off might threaten the prosecutors, who would be seen as not fully enforcing the law and could look bad, but with 18 year old men, it might not matter. The law and its enforcement hate men so much that nothing will stop them from making men into monsters and hurting them as much as the system will make possible. The law is the law but not really. Only for adults, men in particular. "Kids" are immune from the law and accountability, which is why we are having so many problems with "kids." They know they can get away with murder and do.

Fair just law is law that is applied evenly to all in the same way, with no distinctions or bias. We have lost all sense of decency and justice. Surely what is behind all that can not be anything good. By their fruits you will know them.

And as shame disappears completely among the young, soon nudity will be common and ordinary and almost impossible to stop, unless you imprison entire generations. People should be allowed to voluntarily do as they want with their own bodies and images. There is a show down of one sort or another coming. Governments like excuses to intrude on our civil rights to "protect" us. If we willingly expose ourselves, under 18, and it becomes commonly place, then they may start arresting and prosecuting the "kids", even as they would do for adults who exposed themselves or take, send, or otherwise distribute pictures of themselves. Or they might lower the age for "willful consenting indecent exposure" or some crap like that. It certainly has become a nightmare for legislators and law enforcement.

But as I see it, decriminalizing any nudity seems like the far more mature and reasonable course. That some dirty old man might jack off to a picture is no danger to anyone. They do it now, anyway. They have been doing it since time began. It is not new or different now than it has ever been. But my, what a wonderful excuse illegal nudity is for law to intrude on us as it does and take all our rights away to "protect" us. Now if we could only find some protection from government, right?

Seeing is not sin. Doing is sin.

There are few people, even among male Christians, including many pastors and other leaders, who haven't at least taken a peak somewhere at sometime at pictures in magazines or the internet. The curiosity, intrigue, and excitement of the nude female body is really too much for most men. The nude image of a woman goes right to our core and is a very powerful intoxicant that many reputable men fall for and get in trouble for, only because they are supposed to be "above it all." Bt they are not above being men and loving what men love. They are, after all, just men right to the core. It is a myth and lie that we perpetuate that "good" men do not care about such things or can easily refrain from such. Or that men are bad or wrong for looking or wanting to look. It is time to stop promoting the devil's lies and start admitting the real nature of men and take all that unfair shame and guilt away and stop witch hunting men and tormenting them for their nature.

So in regards to pictorial nudity, is a young man or woman in the grips of the hormones of youthful adolescence condemned because they were extremely curious and drawn to such material? Will you find fault with them or make them feel guilty about such curiosity and intrigue? And what is the real sin or harm in seeing, if it is not lust, as I suggest in another article? In fact, it may even be better that they view it in your presence than to do it behind your back. That way, if they get carried away with viewing such material, you can see it escalate and step in to curb it.

You say, "oh, my kids will never see any of that. I will make sure!" But how do you know that their friends won't allow them an opportunity? In fact, sooner of later, it is most likely they will get an opportunity. You have probably had an opportunity, yourself, at one time or another. And most of you probably looked. So you have no business finding excessive fault if your kids look, too. Remember, God can see all and hates hypocrisy. The devil has made it very easy to get now. It is everywhere. The devil is no fool. Make it easy and no one will be able to resist.

But maybe you feel it should be condemned. Maybe! But I sure wouldn't want to be one to cast a stone in their direction or mine. I just think it is perfectly human to be curious, intrigued, and want to look. The attraction is just too great. The excitement and enticement is very compelling. And a picture is relatively harmless which has been well proven over the last 120 years or more, as I dare say more than a billion (probably several billion at least) men have looked at and seen such stuff, without consequence. Fact!!! So if one were to stumble upon a magazine, one is bound to look. Coming upon it by accident and looking is as bad as searching it out and looking. Whether you were looking for it or not, once you stumble upon it, and consent, you own it, right or wrong.

I doubt that anyone would by judged by God because they had a good long look at the stuff. Maybe even some drooling. We are human, folks. If most didn't look, they would probably be perfect people who never sinned or people totally ridden with guilt and fear who didn't dare to look. I think even perfect people would look, because they would have their faculties under control and pictures or videos would present no harm and would present something very appealing/compelling to the eyes and senses.

But I would question the logic that looking or viewing naked people and getting intrigued or aroused, necessarily constitutes sin. The human body will always be beautiful and exciting to look at, even if we were perfect. I think it is only natural that all females will be beautiful and appealing to men who look on, even if they are clothed. All the more so if they are not. But perfect people or even just people wanting to be good, will not be induced to have sex with anyone other than their wives or husbands, by merely seeing others naked in photos. For even fully clothed, human beauty can be very exciting and yet we are expected to refrain from fornication and adultery so I do not see "remote" nudity as adding much to the normal temptation.

Though I hate repeating, I think it is essential, for people quickly forget when they don't want to admit or remember. Looking at a picture of a unknown naked female presents no danger or sin. A picture of a good looking naked neighbor, on the other hand, is a serious danger, for that is really much more like an offer to stop by and have a better look and more. A picture of a naked stranger is OK but a person you are in the presence of, is much different, too. Much more temptation is present as well.

Christians hate making distinctions and fear shades of gray. But the Bible is loaded with shades of gay. Christians like every thing cut and dried, black and white, one size fits all or nothing; pat, simple easy answers with no thought or strain of thought. But the truth is, we have ignored what really constitutes a sin versus what does not. If it is exciting, it is sin, they say. I say, it is not necessarily a sin if it is exciting, but if it presents opportunity for sin, then one should use extreme caution or avoid it. A picture of a stranger will almost certainly not allow sin. But a picture of your neighbor with nothing on, now that is begging for sin.

Another concern here is how it might affect others, if they knew. Well, first, there is no reason to tell anyone what you do with your privacy. That is between you and God. So don't go around bragging or reveling in your actions. But if someone should see a magazine in your house, is it a big deal? I don't believe it should be. I wouldn't care and would pretend not to notice if it were me, or I might even ask to take a look at it. ;- ) I would not see it as a problem. The only thing I would be concerned with is one's public attitude. If they are bragging to everyone about the great pictures they have or post them all over their living room or something like that, then this would be a problem. They should be told to keep it silent or low key and to themselves. Others do not need to know about that and it doesn't need to be broadcast to everybody like it was something to be proud of.

But really, looking at a few porn pictures is easily done today without any observation. The internet has enabled that. But really, I fail to see why porn should really be looked down upon at all. Beauty is such a powerful drug that no one should wonder why anyone might want to look once in a while. And despite what anti-porn people say, porn can easily be viewed without going crazy or losing ones mind. And the head/mind is or should be, always off limits to others. Lust is a crime of action, not thought.

Sad that for at least 1700 years, we have given so little thought to our beliefs. Of course, videos and pictures have only been around for a relatively short time of about 150 years. So it has only been since the last 150 then, that things have come to market that should have made us take a second look and ponder as to what ground we were standing upon and whether we were being a bit silly or un-necessarily prohibitive or not.

And even very recently, say from the late 1960s onward, and more particularly from the late 1970s onward, that society has become far more permissive and unrestrained. Sex was now very common and much more available that ever before, and many of our young, brought up and raised as Christians, were falling prey to this promiscuous spirit, which did not seem so bad, as, after all, everyone their age seemed to accept the new way of ease, without hardly a question about it. Libidos were making decisions instead of good sound reasoning of all the facts involved in subject.

I feel this alone should have made us take a much closer look and reconsider all things to make sure we were not being unreasonable in what we ask our young to resist. If we had insisted on chastity, then we should have been more reasonable and tolerant of things like porn or masturbation. Masturbation is not even mentioned in the Bible, as best as I can tell so how did it become a sin? That stupid lust interpretation! That's how!

Masturbation should be no source of shame or something to hide. Porn should be indulged with caution and discretion, if only in consideration of the conservative Christians who do not have the courage to look at the issues more objectively. Though I can not find serious problems with porn and have found reasonings that seem to make sense, it is no proof that I am not wrong. When dealing with powerful drugs, such as beauty can be, caution is definitely essential. And I'll deal with the anti-porn crowd before I am done.



Context Matters
Back to Top

Having written this article long ago, I have attempted to rewrite it to some degree and was left with a section that might have dealt with some things now placed elsewhere but I summarize a few things here that ended up without place so I include them here.

Here is an interesting thing to consider. There was a time when women were so carefully covered from head to toe, that a man might get excited merely seeing an ankle or knee of a woman. Today, that would seem laughable. At a beach, even a modest beach, you will see quite a bit. Yet we think nothing of it. However, if we were to see them dressed that skimpy in a classroom, store, or theater like that, we might get quite excited because women don't normally show that much off in a normal public setting, right?

In fact, we might get far more excited seeing a woman in a mini-skirt then we would, seeing them at a beach in a 2 piece suit, even though the suit might show off more than the mini-skirt outfit did. Context and setting make all the difference in the world, don't they? A big difference! It is quite possible, that if a large number of people were at a nude beach, they might not be nearly as excited as they would in a more private personal encounter without clothes or in a more clothed context. Context will affect our view and how we interpret a situation as we have discussed earlier.

Now how about the context of a picture? In person, nudity clearly is out, right? But in picture, as a stranger, the context changes, does it not? Live nudity (such as your neighbor's wife) can be trouble. A picture? Not hardly! From a remote viewing, it loses so much power and danger. Christians have failed to detect that. Now I am really going to turn the table around on you all, with a scripture, no less.

Jeremiah 17: 9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?"

Now most would apply this to nudity and say I am encouraging sin and being deceived by my treacherous heart. I constantly worry about that myself. But try this! What if I suggest that many Christian parents and leaders are the corrupt hearts for they so fear their daughter being the least bit sexual, even, and wanting her to be pure and untouched for ever like the proverbial virgin Mary, that they try scare tactics and stupid vows of chastity while being totally unrealistic about the sexual urges their daughter have, all which were place there by God, Himself!

They ignore the saturated and pervasive atmosphere of sexual temptation and permissiveness as if it was nothing. They insist their young resist every last bit of it, right down to no "dirty" pictures, dirty music, questionable movies, and every little nit picking stupid thing. They bind heavy loads upon their kids that they themselves could never have stood up to. They emphasize good jobs and houses, rather than obeying the more important laws of God. They unwittingly make wonderful allies for the devil. I am sure he appreciates their help. I know I would if I were him.

Rather than give good thought to what is going on around them, they expect the kids to make up for their own intellectual laziness and lack of good sound thinking as parents.

They have made God out to be a sinner for having created sex and marriage, and called His creation wicked and impure, and insinuated that sex is nothing but dirty, vulgar, and wrong. And they are absolutely wrong on all counts and worthy of God's wrath. No bull there, Jack! They have corrupted God and all He stands for because they can not accept or deal with the wholesome pure natural sexuality of their daughters.

So we got some "hearts" that want to soft pedal the problems and justify what ever they come up with, and to hell with reality, righteousness, and God. Gutless wonders who use any excuse to avoid straining their brains at all. God pity their kids!

Another concern I want to address about public displays is when groups of young people, eligible for marriage, get together. Or even groups of married people in some cases. When guys are in a group of strictly their own sex, there is a little more freedom. They might watch a porn video together and enjoy it, maybe even celebrating a little. It can and does happen. They are likely OK. But in the presence of the opposite sex, much stricter codes of conduct need to be exercised.

Women do strange things to men. Men can lose their control and composure. And women can also act silly around men. They tend to excite each other and tend to lose control of themselves in the presence of each other. The sexes are vulnerable to each other. We should respect that fact and be more cautious and reserved in the presence of each other. It should be our desire to live up to the standards of God's law.

That is why things like porn should be enjoyed alone or among those of your own sex. Men and women both have behaviors that are different when they are with their own. Men and women need a certain amount of camaraderie and friendship with their own sex and will tend to behave differently when with strictly their own sex. That is why the Apostle Peter was naked among a group of men only, when Jesus appeared to them at one time after his resurrection. Peter would not likely be doing that if women were present.

And then there are ways that couples behave with each other that they don't behave like when with their own sex or in mixed company. Same with women. We all enjoy a variety of different relationships with both sexes. Each has its appropriate behavior. In mixed company, there needs to be a more controlled and reserved type of conduct to keep things from getting out of hand. And for fallen sinful people, that can happen quite easily. It may change in God's kingdom with a more relaxed attitude in mixed company, but for now, caution is necessary.

And that is why some things are also better done alone in private, such as personal prayer to God, your diary, or looking at porn, masturbating, having sex with your mate, or whatever.



Saturation
Back to Top

Now one more thing in regards to the context and saturation. As I pointed out earlier, if we are used to seeing ankles, knees and thighs, we may not get excited over such things. I see this same principle for many who have seen plenty of porn. It no longer stimulates that much. It looses its power to excite. The curiosity has been satisfied. The mystery is gone. That is why some marriages suffer. They have seen it all, experienced it all. Its no big deal now. The honey moon is over as they say. At that point, a marriage will require real love and appreciation to keep it strong, once the excitement of new love is over. Having a common goal to work towards is a big help. Children normally fulfill that goal.

Even among porn stars, most any type of sex seems trivial because they have done it all and held nothing back. Interestingly, the one aspect of sex they usually haven't explored and find interesting to explore is the emotional, sort of tender, romantic, sensual expressions and caressing type stuff that they want to explore during or after a career in porn. Sensual as opposed to purely sexual as well as the emotional intimacy.

My point here would be that after one has seen plenty of naked bodies and genitals in every imaginable position, it will lose quite a bit of its ability to stimulate. In other words, often the best way to get over being overly tempted by sex is to immerse yourself in the less harmful stimuli such as porn pictures. It reduces sex to a more proper perspective. It is not just me that has found this. I have come across others who have said the same thing. Exposure decreases the need. You will not find anti-porn people acknowledging this effect. They don't want to. It conflicts with their so called wisdom on the matter. But it is true! You might call this an inoculation or partial immunization against undue vulnerability to temptation.

But let me make it perfectly clear. While many might find viewing some porn reduces desire and fascination, there are also those who get locked into a downward spiral of out of control obsession. The more they see, the more they want. These are obsessive compulsive people who tend toward this behavior, regardless of what the stimuli is, being porn, money/greed, food, alcohol, drugs. Everyone has weaknesses. For those who have a vulnerability toward porn, they need to avoid porn and the vicious cycle it creates. That goes without saying for any predisposed weakness. We avoid it. But for many, exposure to porn will reduce its power and that of al things sexual, especially for men, who are very visual to begin with.

Let me demonstrate more on this saturation idea. Many people who do drugs, often progress to more powerful ones. Why? Cause the old stuff isn't doing the trick anymore. Porn is like that. The beauty wears off in its ability to titillate and stimulate. So then some progress to actual sex in order to get that high that porn no longer seems to deliver. So our brain adjusts. I am sure that emotions can keep love and desire alive. And I am sure that actual physical contact makes a difference, too. But still, sex in marriage will need the couple making efforts to get to know each other better, bond, and have common goals they work toward and having a fair amount in common to begin with so that the newness and novelty of sex wears off, the growing friendship will take over so that the marriage stays strong. When we are young and/or inexperienced, everything is so new and exciting, that nearly anything can stimulate us and get us incredibly aroused. That drives us to seek a mate and get married. Then as that loses some of its initial excitement, other factors cement the relationship and keep it together, if we have cultivated the relationship correctly.

Much of the problem with marriage is that we have many unrealistic expectations of it. Marriage is a permanent living relationship, to last forever had Adam not sinned. Marriages were intended from the beginning to produce children on a fairly regular basis. It is partnership that needs to last throughout a child's life and all subsequent children. It is a working relationship. The sex helps give a reason to keep the relationship healthy so that the sex keeps going. We are not allowed by God to switch and change partners or get rid of partners. We have to keep who we got and adapt to each other.

Many take the escape route today. If the relationship has problems, they abort. They might be far more inclined not to abort the marriage if they knew they could not get another partner as God would not let them. Then they might do their best to patch things up. Instead of facing ourselves and making changes, its far easier to walk out. So really, abandoning marriage is because we do not take God's prohibition seriously. If we did, husbands and wives would put up with each other in many more circumstances. The world does not have the outlook on marriage that God commands. But if we are to please God and be accepted by Him, we will have to accept His rules and learn to adjust to our mates rather than run out. And really, the sex becoming a little less exciting is not a big deal. Cultivating love and respect for the other person will keep things pretty enjoyable, just the same. Try going without it for a week or two and see how exciting it starts to get ;-)

I will speak only for men here, but what seems to never lose its excitement or appeal is a new and different partner or extraordinary beauty. I think this might have been an anticipated reaction on the part of God and maybe even desired in a perfect world. The constant arousal and excitement of other women keeps a man's desire high and keeps him coming back to his wife. As mentioned earlier, (or was in in my article on "Lust") there are many feelings that the beauty of a woman stimulates. Feelings of tenderness, gentleness, compassion, nurturing, protectiveness, inspiration, a desire to be better and to impress and others are all things that can be generated by the appearance of a woman. She elicits the best out of a man (and sometimes his worst as well) as regards her appearance. I believe that is as God intended.

But these all get mixed in with the most dominant of all feelings, sexual desire. Because it is so big and overwhelming, the other feelings get lost or ignored, but they are there somewhere in a normal healthy male, I believe. Men and women are good for each other. Prisons are found to have a better atmosphere and less problems when both men and women prisoners work together. Yes, women can be and are inspiring, uplifting, motivating, and they can enhance your relationship with your own wife. I absolutely believe that, beyond any question. And their appearance will also stimulate us, if only on a sub-conscious level that will inspire, motivate, and arouse. This is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. It is not unnatural, it is God-designed and God-intended. We all, in a perfect world, will have an uplifting and motivating effect on each other. We will make each other want to be better and we can do it right now. It is not just our mates who affect us in a positive way. Wanting to have sex with your mate is a positive thing.

Of course, I think that if a couple work hard to show each other appreciation and respect, that will do much to excite and keep a relationship fresh, to; or at least more meaningful. And working together on a common purpose such as raising children also keeps them together and happy as they work together in unison. Having other common goal orientations can also do that for a couple. But other encouraging, warm, charming, uplifting, good looking people will also have their effect, too.

But what some do when they are no longer excited by porn is look for something else that will do it. Well, there have to be limits to what we seek if we care about God. But porn is not the problem when someone will not limit themselves, whether it is good or not. There is no question that sex and/or beauty is a real high, like any drug. And for some, it is the drug of choice. And just as some progress to more powerful drugs when the old ones don't work any more, some will look for that sexual high when the old highs don't work anymore.

Our error is in expecting sex to always be that soaring high we get the first time. It was never intended to remain that high. There are many other things to accomplish in our lives and if we pursue knowledge, child raising and other such activities, then sex does not seem as urgent and important anymore. It takes on less significance while other things take on more. Sex is God's way of tricking us into marriage. Once there, you should expect it to change in time. Remember how great the new car first felt? Or maybe that new sports equipment? Or whatever? But remember how after a little while, the newness wears off and its no big deal anymore, right? That's life the way it really is. Everything is great when its new and different. Then you settle in.

But if a couple fails to take advantage of the motivation that early excitement and attraction gives, to work out differences and create a good solid relationship, then when the infatuation wears off, there will be the problems to still work out and no magic to get them past those problems as easy as it might have been at an earlier time. That is why having a group or community who stands behind you is also good. They can help you along if you need a little help in getting over the hump. But we have little community left in our world. Maybe we could learn from the Amish, who thought that important to keep.

There is a defect in those who constantly seek that extreme high as there is in those thrill seekers who engage in ever more risky behavior to get their high. They will not accept the big high wearing off, just as some will not accept limiting themselves to one partner. These are those obsessive compulsive types always looking for a high, an escape. Not all will accept the yoke of God. Nothing we can do about that. So porn can lessen some of the obsession with some aspects of sex and attraction. That can make living with one's desires and urges a little more bearable if they do not quickly find a mate when coming of age. But it won't solve those addicted to extreme highs and will not limit themselves to what they seek. Let's talk about those.



Addiction and Extremes
Back to Top

Some people have low thresholds for excitement. That is to say, nearly anything excites them or gets them high. They are easy to please or excite. Watch a child some time. Small children are very easy to entertain or please. Small things are very entertaining or amusing. They can be happy just getting pushed on a swing or some silly behavior you might engage in. And their expressions are so much more extreme, too. They really get excited or laugh, squeal, scream, yell, cry, etc.

Adults become more reserved, more muted, more deadened. They are much harder to excite or get expressions from. They are not as easy to please. It takes a lot more to excite or please them and they will not react as strongly as kids do. They have a much higher threshold for excitement.

There are reasonable thresholds and then there are ridiculously high thresholds as well. But for those who have a very high threshold, no ordinary stimulation will work. Whether it is a genetic defect or one that is more of circumstances, we are still required by God's law to limit our desire for excitement. This is the meaning of greed, gluttony, or lust. Too much pursuit of eating or sex or whatever else it is that God requires we keep within reason. And if we require or insist on more than is allowable, we will cease to please God.

I think part of the problem is that as we grow, we allow the world to hurt us and kill our joy of small simple things. Before we realize it, we start demanding the greatest of expectations for everything. A marriage vow can't just be a vow, it has to be a Broadway theatrical production and the most important day of our lives. Why? We can't just get together! We have to party like its 1999. Why? Everything has to be big, big, big!!! Over done, dramatized, exaggerated, stretched to its very limits

A get together is not enough any more. Eating out is not big enough. Sex with our partners is not enough. Entertaining and playing with children and seeing their joy is not enough. We might get a new car but the joy soon wears off. No matter what we do or what we buy or get, we are never happy; it is never enough. We have a definite problem, don't we? And it is not porn!

The problem is us!  We need to take a deeper look at our discontent. We are told in the Bible that in all things, we should try to find satisfaction and contentment. That we can not should move us to examine why. I will deal with this much more in another article but for now, lets just say that if we are not contented with the sexual provisions that God made possible through marriage, then we have a definite problem.

Many Christians blame porn for many problems. The break-up of marriages or perhaps just some friction in them. Rape, fornication, adultery, incest, child sex abuse and many other human failures are all blamed on porn. But there is no serious evidence that porn is responsible for any of those things. Just think about it. Porn is not the cause, it is the symptom of problems that exist. Men who continually feast on porn while ignoring their wives have some deep seated problems. I don't know anyone who enjoys the sight of a beautiful naked woman who would not prefer the real thing to a picture or video, unless the real thing was not at all that appealing whereas the video might feature an incredible beauty. But I digress.

People like to have scapegoats and demons they can point to. Some stupid easy excuse to blame for numerous problems that relieves personal responsibility. What a convenient excuse porn is. Many women find porn very disturbing as it makes them feel inadequate and undesirable. Married men certainly might want to consider why porn is so important to them, especially if they are Christian and they know it hurts their wives. On the other hand, women ought to understand that beauty has a powerful effect on a man's consciousness and that she need not feel in adequate or jealous that he continues to find all women very pleasing to look at. Men can not control the fact that beauty is so compelling to them. A woman who can not accept what men are, perhaps can not accept who God is, who made men what they are to some degree.

The very serious truth is that whether men look at porn or not, they will always find other women very pleasing to look at. It is just that the smart and kind ones don't let their wives know how they feel. They sometimes lie like the devil to their wives about whether another woman is appealing or whether they notice or not. "Oh, no, honey, your the only woman I would ever look at. I could care less about what those other women look like." Trust me, ladies, your husbands are lying to you. Men's response to beauty is genetic, inherited, and instinctual, primal in every way. Out of love for you and concern for your feelings, they lie. But they are helpless to change.

But ladies, you should not make it necessary for them to lie. You need to understand how men operate at a psychological and instinctual level. They are automatically influenced and affected by beauty, all beauty, no exemptions, no exceptions. If they look, if they enjoy what they see, it is of no threat to you or indication of you being inadequate, no reflection of them not being pleased or satisfied with you anymore. It is my opinion that many women resent what they see as a threat or competition from pictures or videos/ movies. It is an unjust insecurity, somewhat of an irrational fear. Now if the husband shows signs beyond just looking, maybe there is reason for concern. But if he just seems a little distracted temporarily, he is just being a man.

Many husbands dearly love their wives. But that does not mean that many other women are not beautiful and pleasing to look at, just as more than one type of food is good tasting and desirable to eat. But just because many women are pleasing to look at does not mean your husbands are going to have sex with them all. They simply like looking because they are men and God made them that way. If you object to what they are and how they function, it is God you are finding fault with. Accept your husband for who he is and what he is.

The other problem, ladies, is that I sincerely believe that a good many women, not all but more than 50% for sure, are very vulnerable to feeling insecure and being insecure. I am speaking about unwarranted, irrational insecurity. This is what we might call jealousy. And nothing can stir a woman to jealousy like another good looking or warm, charming woman. Now if the husband starts flirting, you perhaps have a right to be jealous and insecure. That is not unwarranted or irrational. You have justified reason for concern. On the other hand, if all he does is look, or he is nice to a good looking woman as he might be with all people, then you do not have a right to be jealous. It is unwarranted and unreasonable at that point.

Porn gets right at a woman's most vulnerable weaknesses like nothing else. It can find that slight crack in the armor and rip it wide open. If a flaw is there, porn might very well expose it fast. So women need to do some soul searching as well as the men. If porn is very important to the man when he has a wife, then he might have a problem, but not for sure. Likewise, if a women is insulted or jealous of her husband having a gander at a friend's porn or a good looking woman walking down the street, the wife, too, may have a problem to consider.

Sometimes, homes and relationships can be ruined because of jealousy from either partner. But when porn is present, that is always seen as a good excuse and object to blame, rather then the mates taking a good look at themselves. But it is not the real problem at all. To me, the first rule of thumb for any Christians is never to blame anything else when you can first blame yourself and find guilt from within. It is too easy to blame Satan, the world, or porn. But easy ways out are usually the wrong ways out.

So addiction to porn is definitely a problem. But a mild interest in it is not. Remember that word moderation and how about balance, too? The problem is often our perception, clouded by our own insecurities and fears.
(RSV) 1 John 4:18 "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love."



Does Porn Cause Greater Sin?
Back to Top

I haven't addressed buying anything but give me time. First, how much viewing is too much? I think that anyone who spends lots of money on pornography has reason to be concerned. Will it lead to finally committing a gross sin? I don't think porn leads to anything. In fact, it is its total lack of ability to truly satisfy some that leads them to move on to more extreme things. It is a manifestation of the heart's desire. If the heart desires something really bad, it may show this by first gravitating toward pornography. But it is not the pornography that causes the progression. It is merely a step on the way to what the heart ultimately wants. When the porn is found not to be satisfactory, they move on to things they believe will.

Real Christians will not move and progress to sexual sins. They will either get married or be content with occasional viewing of porn. For some, even marriage is not enough. Shall we blame marriage for leading to fornication and adultery? Shall we say dating is to blame for sin? Shall we say talking to the opposite sex is to blame for sin? Obviously those are absurd conclusions yet we do blame porn because some looked at it before progressing to sin. But for real Christians, they don't make excuses or blame other things. They accept personal responsibility and accountability. They will refrain from violating serious sin against God.

But . . . there are those who will not ultimately limit what their heart desires. They will break loose and rebel against God's law. That is not the fault of porn or anything else but the person who refuses to limit themselves. Others will never let themselves go so far as to violate God's laws and will stop short of sin. It is just that it is wise to be on the side of caution when examining ourselves. Never underestimate the deceptiveness and treachery of our own hearts in trying to deceive and delude us into giving in to sin.

Now about buying porn. Many non-Christians may look down on you for buying such material. They may conclude that you are a hypocrite. But what if I explain myself, you ask? Fine, I guess, if they accept it. I don't say that this is an easy issue. Temptation can be great. I don't think it is fair that anyone should judge someone for wanting to view pictures or videos. I honestly don't think many people care. It is a rather accepted thing in the world, even widespread and popular. But if people want to find fault with you, as they often do with Christians, then they will fault you, unfair or not. Only those of a Christian persuasion care and they should not be so condemning of such things in my mind. So I am really not so sure that buying pornography is such a big problem, either.

But I am not saying that it is OK to run out and buy or rent such material. You want to satisfy your curiosity? Why not? I did? Men are compelled by nature to want to look. Looking ignites them like few other things, at least when it is all new. If you have to, go ahead. I will not judge you. But don't easily brush it off, either. It your habits were well known, it might hurt your reputation somewhere down the line. But ultimately, I think there needs to be a stand that we should not think too much of Christians exploring this area a little bit. I don't think it good or healthy to make it a prominent feature of one's life, indulging in it frequently and continually. Lustful appetites are not the sort of thing you want to get into the habit of giving in to and not trying to discipline and control to some degree. You could end up in trouble. You should not be indulging in porn to any degree without a great deal of caution. Caution is something we always maintain in anything we do, whether in competition, business, eating, or anything else.

Never say, Oh, it could not happen to me! That is when you are most likely to fall from grace. It could easily get out of hand and you have been warned. It is real easy to get swept up in a frenzy of desire. It can become a big monster who is hard to control. Don't ever underestimate it and give it lots of respect. Let your guard down and you might lose. What I am saying is that porn is a symptom, not a cause. We have to carefully watch our symptoms to make sure we are not developing some problems, just as we might with eating too much or getting too greedy in business. In everything, we have to watch ourselves at all times to make sure we are going astray.


The Powerful Nature of Man
Back to Top

Man's nature is strongly led by his eyes. Visual stimuli are extremely powerful. For men, the image of a naked woman is for many men, as strong and powerful as the most intoxicating and addictive drugs one can concoct. This is our God given nature. It is or can be, out of control or difficult to keep in control but we were created by God to be very aroused by the visual appearance of a woman. But let us not ever forget that this is not the only thing stimulated by a woman, naked or not. Delicate feminine body features such as perhaps a slender back, shoulders, or arms can trigger soft gentle tender considerate nurturing feelings, even as babies of children do. These are all visual cues that can lure a man, hook a man, and keep him around and continually bring out these powerful feelings of care and nurturing as well as sexual desires.

Visual cues never stop working or having their effect. This was God's design. Make no mistake about that! Rather than condemn men for behaving as God intended them to behave, we should respect God's will and stop persecuting and punishing men for being men. We might expect a wicked world to harshly judge and punish men unfairly for their God given nature but it was be horrifying and evil for those who call themselves Christians to do so. They ought to know better and respect what God has put in place. Yet, shocking as it is, it is often Christians who are the first to cast a stone at men for being men. Its Christians who label porn as among the greatest of sins, when, if a sin at all, it would be among the least and of the least concern. Let he or she who is truly sinless cast this stone against men.

But really, I think our world is far past caring about porn unless they desperately want to find fault with us and I say, go ahead and find fault with me. For if the worst sin you can find against me is that I find beautiful naked women totally compelling to look at and admire and fantasize about, then you really have nothing legitimate. For what man does not suffer this problem? It is our nature! Its no big deal today for most, except those fanatical self righteous so-called Christians who are obsolete and harsh in what they demand of their brothers in particular. If we are prudes, they fault us. If we enjoy a porn magazine, we are perverts or hypocrites. Jesus had the same trouble. He was damned if he did and damned if he did not. So I don't pay such people any mind. We can't go around always worrying about offending someone somewhere. If some Christians want to continue in the dark ages with narrow minds, having given little thought to anything, let them. In the end, it is God who will judge us all and not each other.


Deep Wounds Distort Judgment
Back to Top

Those who were sexually abused in their young years or raped as adults, will often have their sexual senses and identity grossly distorted so that some of them can not imagine any sex to be pleasing or good in any circumstance. For them, all sex ought to be banned at any age. This is not normal, rational, or reasonable, but it certainly is understandable when you consider what they might have been through. But these abuse victims see porn as a major attack on them personally. They see the sexual desires of all men, even normal reasonable healthy desires, as an extreme threat and possible potential repeat offense against them. And of course, they want to spare all other women and girls such horrors. What they can not imagine is that some women or girls might find a sexual experience desirable. But most do, if they have not been disturbed or traumatized before hand.

These sexual abuse victims have a distorted view of porn. Since it represents so much in their minds, they condemn it all, and all men. But we who are not abused, need to be aware of this. We have to be careful that we do not get caught up with them in this irrational connection between normal healthy desires, porn, and sex abuse. Now it is also true that many abusers might have also been viewers of porn and might have even involved their victims in porn. Again, this is not the fault of porn, it is the fault of the victimizer/abuser. Many people make their own home porn movies and enjoy it and think it is fun. They might dare to show it to others or maybe not.

But the porn is not at fault nor is it the reason that abusers abuse and rapists rape. Ask any serious sex researcher and they will tell you the same thing. Remember that not every licensed practitioner of psychology or psychiatry is competent and qualified. Many are useless. But those who do research at universities are usually much more informed, studied, and qualified to speak about such matters. Porn has never been proven to cause anything. There are associations between porn and rape but not causative ones. Both show an interest in sex but there is where the similarities end. Only women's groups make claims of porn causes rape and without anything to substantiate it other than their own irrational associations, fears, and hatreds. And too often, these women just plain hate men and to be honest, are guilty of hate crimes and need correction of their attitude just as some men need corrections in attitudes toward women. That is what therapy is supposed to help overcome.

But many incompetent and unqualified "therapists" (and there are many, indeed) often encourage the blame game and reinforce errors in thinking, when they ought to be helping hurt women to put their pain in proper perspective and stop looking for escape goats or enablers of their mental imbalance. They need to learn to stop being victims and wallowing in their misfortune and heal and get past the hurt and move on in life. Instead, they are frozen in time and paralyzed, unable to progress any further for those who counsel them keep them where they are going nowhere.

One reason, one big reason for this is that therapists like keeping these hurt women crippled and dependent upon the therapists so that they always have patients and an income. They tell the patients that they are right to feel as they do and don't let anyone tell them otherwise. It is normal that they feel as they do but it is not healthy or productive to stay there and wallow in it for the rest of their lives. Break free from phony hurtful therapists and make a commitment to your healing and becoming wiser and stronger.

Oh, what about the kids, you ask? Kids have a natural curiosity and excitement about the opposite sex, whether another child or even young adults, such as movie stars or musicians, etc. Make clear to your kids what God's laws are in regards to nudity, sex, and the like. But also allow them to understand that it would not be unusual or shameful, if they found such things to at least generate some curiosity and excitement. Explain that we are all naturally curious if not outright excited about such things and might be tempted to look. As long as they know and understand God's requirements of them, and stay within these bounds, then you can work out whatever boundaries you want. If it were me, the kids looking would be tolerable for curiosity's sake. Just avoid fornication! They are going to look anyway, when your back is turned, for the temptation is most likely to be too great.

They should understand that the feelings of excitement and attraction they are likely feeling in regards to wanting to see the opposite sex naked is normal. It's perfectly natural and nothing to be ashamed of. That is the way we are made. We just want to be careful to not break God's laws as we cope with our natural desires. And to keep God's laws, one needs to keep one's clothes on so one does not get tempted to break God's laws. I certainly would not want to lie to them and tell them even looking is evil. They would not believe me anyway, and rightly so. Or they would look and suffer in their conscience for doing so or feel ashamed of their desire, when it is not wrong to feel such things. Uncalled for guilt is not good and can be harmful and distort things.

So it could be an understanding between parents and children that such things could be mildly tolerated. After all, they can't buy any until they are 18, anyway, right? And you know they will likely get to see some pornography with their friends or some other place before then. You can just turn a blind eye. We can't shield or prevent pornography from reaching many of our children. That is just a fact of life. So that being the case, lets prepare them to cope with it and understand it as best as possible so that they don't violate God's laws. Suppressing their instincts will definitely not work. In fact, not allowing them to have or admit those feelings might cause them to distance themselves from you, who does not want to come to grips with their budding sexuality. This is often how that generation gap forms. Besides, a lot of porn is now free and easily obtainable through the internet. It is hard to keep anyone from it now. So you might as well deal with it instead of trying to run from it.

It was pointed out to me by someone raised on a farm that if you grew up on a farm with animals, you very quickly learned what sex was all about. Or living in places where wild animals are commonly around might also afford such an opportunity to learn. Dogs commonly do it, back when leash laws were not as common or enforced as well as they are now. They might witness it at a zoo on a school trip or with you. And at school, kids talk. They know. They see. They are not stupid or clueless. Word gets around at ever younger ages. Its implied all the time on TV. Trust me, the kids know!

I believe we need to allow a certain amount of curiosity. Kids need to feel that a magazine or two may be tolerated without chastisement. They absolutely need to know that their parents understand how they feel and that they are not looked down upon for such feelings. Parents need to appreciate what it is like for their kids to be human and that certain things can be allowed at the right time and the right place and circumstance. But ignorance is not bliss and lying to kids will not work and is not good for them. Be honest. Most parents are terrified that if their kids know about sex or see it, that they will run off and do it immediately. This is insane.



Is Ignorance Bliss?
Back to Top

I have never encountered anything that was too bad or evil to know and that could harm us if we knew it. I have never believed that ignorance and darkness were ever good for any human being, adult or child. Telling them will help them and prepare them. They need to understand and make sense of everything. They are almost certainly going to encounter kids who do know all about "it." I often hear how kids who receive sexual instruction more readily have sex, according to statistics and studies. And I believe them. Here is the problem. They were not brought up and instructed in the ways of God or otherwise it would not have been the problem it was.

Children who are brought up in love, in Christ, and in the proper manner of training will be easily able to see the wisdom and righteousness of God's ways and commands. They can refrain and abstain. It is within their capacity. But then again, if we expect them to avoid sex and temptation after their having arrived at puberty, then we need to address and provide for their needs and urges. They can resist while urges and curiosity are not overwhelming, but once puberty commences, those needs should not be put off any longer. If we wait too long, then it is we who are at fault for expecting too much and being too unreasonable. Either that, or we must allow a limited amount of curiosity and exploration as might be done with porn.

Children need desperately to understand that they and everyone else has some desire in them and some sin in them as well and we all have to deal with it and learn to manage it in our lives. We can't get rid of it or ignore it, either. We are all attracted to and intrigued by the opposite sex and their bodies. That is quite natural and instinctive, beyond our control and not a choice we make. We are born with it and it is time to admit it, to ourselves, our kids, and our brothers and sisters in the faith.

We must not lie to ourselves. We especially must not lie to our kids. They will not be fooled. That can actually make us more vulnerable to sin and hurt our credibility. We must confront it and manage it. We need to bring it out in the open and resolve it. Kids will do that best when aided by their parents rather than their friends who might even want to entice them into something. So let's get with it and bring them out of the darkness and inform them righteously. You can't tell them they shouldn't like it. They know what is in their hearts. If it looks good and exciting (and it will), they will either go behind your backs or become messed up in the head.

Now parents and others will object that their kids are growing up too fast, learning too quickly. We are destroying their innocence. Explain to me, what is bad about learning? Why is it undesirable to become as wise and prudent as possible, as early as possible? Why is knowing about sex such a tragedy for kids to know about in a mature way? Kids having a thorough knowledge of sexuality will not hurt them or destroy them. The more they know, the more they will be protected and not caught off guard. We need to prepare them for the cruel harsh world as soon as possible.

The kids most vulnerable are usually those who are innocent and know nothing of what they are being led into. And they usually feel pressured and end up going along with something very reluctantly or not know exactly how to react or what to do. Ignorance is a horrible curse and danger. Only light and knowledge can help, save, and spare children the dangers temptation and/or predators of those who use or manipulate the unsuspecting.

What I think is much more a tragedy is when a kid falls prey to abuse because they did not understand or know what was going on and did not know what to do or how to act. They were completely unfamiliar with what was going on. It would be nice if we did not live in a bad world but we do and the sooner we prepare our kids for that world, the safer they will be. When someone tries something, the kids should immediately know what is happening and respond.

We often underestimate kids' ability to know, comprehend and deal with serious subjects. We also want to spare them from having to be responsible. But I believe that kids do best when asked at the earliest ages to be responsible and intelligent. Everyone will be better off if they learn as early as possible. Knowledge is a protection not a danger. Kids growing up believing they do not have to be responsible is the real danger. As long as they do not have to, they will avoid it and make excuses. And as long as we accept those excuses, they will continue to give them. That is why our world is so messed up and why we got kids killing and raping, using, and then blaming it on, porn. You get what you ask for.

I believe the real problem is that many have believed for many years that if they know about it they will do it. And we have also believed that sex is horrible and evil and what a horror when kids have to know about it. That is a sick morbid insane attitude that was created by Victorianism and our governments. Time for that to go the way of the dinosaur.

Ecclesiastes 7: 12 "For the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money; and the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of him who has it."

The Bible indicates that wisdom and knowledge are important to a person. Wouldn't it be important to your child, too? So if a child should happen onto someone having sex or come across some porn, or be introduced to it by a friend, it can be coped with. It is not a tragedy, it is an opportunity to explain things to him and give him the right view about it all. But keeping them naïve and in ignorance could make them vulnerable to abuse and disaster. Why would you want to do that to children you claim to love? That would be terrible. So alert them to danger and harm. Let them know what is out there, even at a very early age, certainly by the time they are ready for school. If you don't, someone else will, sooner or later. Do not put off till tomorrow what you can do today.

And even if the very worst should happen, and they should experiment and have sex, it is not the end of the world, not even close. Help them to learn from it and maybe increase supervision for a while till the lessons and instructions have been fully given out and fully accepted and obeyed. We have all made mistakes and recovered. Sex among the young is not as bad as pregnancy and disease are not likely issues. This is why God in His wisdom, gives them a few years without reproductive abilities so that if something happens, there is less chance of harm than there would be if it happened after puberty. Mistakes can be made with much less risk. God is truly wise. Are we as wise ourselves? Parents tend to over-react and blow things way out of proportion. And it is at these times more than others that parents need to remain rational and in control.

A failure is not a failure if we get back up and try again. Some kids are bound to try, no matter what we do. It can all be made right as long as we do not over-react and remain patient and instruct, supplying good reasons as to hwy it is important to restrain our urges and bring them into harmony with God's laws for our urges.


Confronting Our Demons
Back to Top

But what if we find it getting harder to control and hold back, then maybe we need help. Maybe therapy will be helpful. Maybe a very trusted friend could help. But something may need to be done before you end up sinning against God and man. Prayer to God and soul searching one's self are definitely in order. As Jesus said around Matthew 5:28, it is better to get into the kingdom of God lame, crippled, and blind then to have your whole body pitched into Gehenna, meaning that you are judged and die. It is scary to take a deep look into ourselves and ask ourselves serious questions that only we can answer. But that is what has to be done. Soul searching is what some call it. House cleaning could be another way to describe it. We all need to do it all the time.

We need to confront the really dark bad things in ourselves. We do not need to feel overly guilty or think that only we have such a problem. Truth be told, I believe all people have dark ugly things within them. That is the nature of sin. We might be ashamed of what we find inside but don't be, for everyone has stuff like that inside them. It is just that many will not admit to it, not even to themselves. They lie and deceive themselves and everyone else, too. The Pharisees were condemned by Jesus for this pretentious attitude. We need to be honest with God and with ourselves, if to no one else. We do not need to confess everything to everyone and probably it is better if we don't. But we do need to do it with ourselves.

Don't you hate it when others lie to you? So why would you lie to yourself? Lying to yourself will only get you in trouble and make you vulnerable to temptation that you deny is inside you. Some may only find cleansing in revealing themselves to someone they trust. That is fine. But be careful for some might not be real friends. In order to obtain help, we may have to open up to someone. Just try your best to be selective about who it is you choose. Hopefully, this article will be of some help all by itself.

I thought I would bring up something here as well. Jesus spoke of a sower of seeds. Some seed fell among good soil. Some fell in sand, on rocks, in parched soil and the burning sun and the wind. Much did not take root and grow and flourish but that which fell in good soil grew and thrived. Among those alienated from God, the odds are against them. If they are brought up poorly by parents who do not love abundantly or teach the ways of God, they may come to nothing even as seed in bad soil does.

Not all who come to Christ will stay with Christ. As John says, if they were of our sort they would still be with us but because they were not of our sort, they are no longer with us. Some will not be able to handle the laws of God. Some will refuse. Jesus said that many travel the easy wide road to destruction (in Matthew) and that many who find the narrow cramped road to God's Kingdom will not be able to travel it (in Luke).

Faith is not a possession of all peoples. God looks for those who are worthy and produce fruit. These will prosper if they are watered, fertilized, and get plenty of sun, so to speak. They are called and chosen from out of mankind. When someone leaves for a life of sin, we should not marvel. It happens often says Jesus. But among those who are not beyond redemption, following some basic rules and not being too strict nor too permissive, and being realistic about what to keep and what not to worry so much about will be able to travel the rough road leading to salvation.



Cautious Contributions
Back to Top

Whenever you buy porn, you could be contributing in some way to the continuation and flourishing of porn. They keep making it because people keep buying it. That may not be so bad depending on what the porn is (like Playboy), but it could be that those involved in a few of the more extreme pictures or videos were not necessarily willing participants. In effect, they could have been forced, which in essence, is rape, if sex is involved. But you don't have to assume the worst, either. And lots of porn is legitimate, leg, and consensual. But would you want to contribute to that? Force is a reality but not the common thing. Too many are willing to do the milder stuff so force would be completely unnecessary. Most of those who detest porn and the porn industry always present the worst case scenarios but not the most common or likely scenarios. Typical of their crowd. They are so lacking in credibility and sound reasoning.

Neither is all porn harmful to participants. Many women who pose for Playboy (mild porn) actually find it helps their career and gives them a money boost in life. They appreciate the opportunity. In some instances, you might actually be helping them. Not all women object to being photographed or video taped. Many women also willingly engage in more extreme forms of pornography. In fact, many now contribute pictures of themselves naked to the internet without any money involved. They do it for free. You can hardly call that exploitation or abuse. Most girls who appear in "Girls Gone Wild" videos, do it for free and for fame, status, or notoriety.

But exploitation is an interesting subject. So often, those who complain of exploitation are not the ones being supposedly exploited, but the do-gooders on the side-lines who feel they need to protect others from abuse. Or maybe they were abused. Do they think everyone is? Midgets and deformed people often used to enjoy the attention and the good money they used to earn with P.T. Barnum and other such side shows or freak shows. Then along came the do-gooders who protested the so called exploitation. The side show freaks were quite upset and displeased with this concern for their welfare. They enjoyed a good income with those shows and now have nothing to replace such income and attention.

These side shows had enabled many of them to earn far greater money than they ever could have, otherwise. They often lived in significant opulence and luxury. It would not have been possible without the side shows and they loved being a part of those shows and receiving attention. They did not want to be "helped" or "saved." They were happy as they were. But the do-gooders were not going to listen. Eventually, people began to feel guilty, against all evidence to the contrary, and side shows ceased to be a good profit making business.

It is much the same in porn. Many careers have been rekindled or started up for the first time due to Playboy. Another interesting venture that has begun with the internet are girls who pose in bathing suits as "models." Men are evidently lining up to pay for this display. Many are horrified that parents would allow such things. Well, why not? These men have always drooled over sales fliers, or stared lustfully at the beach, the lake, the pool, the mall, or wherever. So they are doing it anyway. Why not make some money out of it?

{ Aug. 16, 2008, as of about January of 2006, I think it was, such sites were stopped and those promoting them prosecuted, after having been ignored for 6 years or more. Many groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the like protested substantially but I guess authorities feared something they will not yet tell us about so they closed it down. Many of those sites featured girls in suits no different from what you would see at the beach, lake, or pool. It is ridiculous but that is how it goes with the law. }

The argument, again unsubstantiated, is that the girls are in danger. You mean they weren't and aren't when they pose as models in sales fliers, or at the beach? See the error in their logic? They are not nor have they ever been in any danger that girls everywhere have not always been in. People just detest that men could ever see a girl as being too beautiful to look away from or exciting to look at. Whether this attitude toward men's reaction to beauty is good or not, it does seem to be a reality. But consider the other side.

Whether these girls pose or not, men will still be drawn to their beauty. That will not change. But look at the opportunity these girls can get! One girl's site, ( jessithegirl.com or jessithekid.com -I forget which- now gone ), according to the National Enquirer, perhaps back around 2000 or so,  pulled in $200,000 in one year. $200,000??? Hell, I'll pose naked for that!!! And stand on my head, too! Listen, for too many of us, life as struggling middle class or working class will be a reality for our whole lives. And there will be plenty who will live in poverty forever, as well. Imagine what $200,000 could do for anyone in the world. Its like winning the lottery. Imagine the breaks and opportunity such money could bring.

If you were a girl in poverty or whose parents struggled as working class people and circumstances, wouldn't you love a chance to get out of it and maybe get a chance to go to college or start a business after high school or whatever. How much better would your parents be when they are not stressed by barely being able to make the bills or live in a lousy part of town. How much better would a girl's life be if her parents could afford a better life style? There is so much opportunity and relief that could come from being able to legitimately earn $200,000 without having to sell your soul. And I would hardly call posing in a bathing suit selling your soul. You wear one at the beach anyway, and don't get a penny for it.

Some will object and claim as the law did, that some girls were posing provocatively and that men who viewed them to get excited were committing hideous thought crimes. Such things have been described as illegal by law. But like the ACLU, I think this law is grossly flawed for many reasons. First, nothing has ever defined what provocative is or whether it was intentional or not or even whose intention it is to provoke. 2nd, they have not shown that provocative posing and photography truly is harmful, dangerous, or a threat. 3rd, that men chose to be aroused by females deemed too young, which could be as old as 17. It is instinct, says I. 4th, it is indistinguishable from dress and behavior of these same girls in public such as at the beach or pool or even the mall where some dress rather provocatively. It is indistinguishable from pictures in fliers or magazine ads, or TV, all of which could be viewed by men and not be prosecuted, or could they?

I am not so sure how far the government would like to go with this. But they sure are concerned about our instincts and imaginations. As I see it, if you can condemn a man purely for his instinct and not his actions, then you can prosecute and jail any man at any time for anything. Maybe this is part of why the ACLU was and is so concerned about this absurd legislation. It is a modern day witch hunt. Isn't our government wonderful? Makes you wonder what they are really up to, doesn't it?

If poor people in 3rd world countries could make decent money merely selling pictures of their daughters over the internet, then maybe they would not feel compelled to sell them into prostitution or prostitute their kids, themselves. Some might not be at all bothered selling nude pictures of their young daughters. They might not see nudity as being so bad, harmful, humiliating, or exploitive. I would not condemn them for it. It might even relieve some of the exploitation and abuse. If they could make money simply posing nude, maybe they would not have to prostitute themselves as many do. And they could get out of poverty, maybe. But you know what? The do-gooders are not going to have it. No way! They are going to prevent the so called abuse and exploitation. Let them be prostitutes instead, say the do-gooders, unwittingly.


What Next?
Back to Top

What next? Forbid girls to be in bathing suits at the beach? Forbid any modeling in any sales flier? Start banning certain types of clothing? Shall we also throw parents in jail for dressing or letting girls dress in certain "provocative" clothes? Surely you can see how ridiculous it could easily get. We could end up back in the Victorian Stone Age without any effort. Or maybe we would prefer those Muslim outfits (Burkas, I believe) that cover everything, including the head and face. So now laws without any reasonable definition or distinct boundaries can be enforced upon anyone at any time. Some might not be concerned till an ad they place gets them in trouble or parents end up having their kids taken away for questionable dress standards. Remember that girl I mentioned who was photographed by her parents on the beach naked? So it already has happened and will no doubt happen again and get worse. Laws are created to be used and enforced and with a goal in mind.

I know, too many think it will never happen but too many parents have already had kids taken away for no reason or violation of law as it is. But the law is so ridiculous that what is certain is that it can not have a good intent and must be intended for worse yet to come. Its a foot in the door! And you fools allow such laws to be poorly written and enforced because you are so absurdly terrified that men are thinking horrible things in their heads when all they may be doing is admiring the beauty of your daughter. For this you will take any risk to gouge out their eyes, brains, and instincts, as if that were even possible and jeopardize your own parental rights and lawful freedom, and put society in great danger with yet another witch hunt. You deserve whatever you get!

We have become a sick nation of people obsessed with what goes on in the minds of people. Motivations and intents have become more important that actual deeds. Now it is not so bad to kill, as long as hate was not involved. I have never known murder to be anything but hate or at least indifference, which I consider to be a form of hate. Besides, men have always believed that girls as well as women, are beautiful, cute, or whatever. This has been going on for at least 6000 years and if you believe in evolution, at least 150,000 years, or even several million years, if not more. Further, scientific and natural studies have shown that even animals It is only in the last 140 years that we have begun to be concerned about it.

But now we see danger around every corner. Spies and terrorists in every foreigner, witches and demons amongst our neighbors, Satan worshippers coming to a place near you, and child molesters in every man. Lions and tigers and bears, Oh My! You people are really sick. You have gone completely insane, full blown psychosis. Can't wait to see the government and DHS drag your kids away because you let them dress provocatively and are a danger to them. You say it can't or won't happen? But it already has.

Logan Marr was a 4 or 5 year old girl in Maine. Christy (now) Marr was her mother. Christy's only crime was that she was poor and had been falsely accused by her wicked domineering mother to the DHS. Logan and her baby sister were taken away, despite the mother having broken no laws nor having intentionally (if at all) placed her girls in any danger, despite allusions to such, which were unfounded. But Logan was killed by her foster mother after which the state quickly gave back the baby to the mother. But Logan was gone. And to add insult to injury, the state is, by law, immune to any responsibility, accountability, law suit or prosecution, despite the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which states that the law and government shall not deprive anyone of property or liberty without just compensation and due process of law. Christy Marr was deprived of her daughter's life and received no compensation for any loss. Apparently the state of Maine law supersedes the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the USA. And evidently State laws and their governing officers are in no way accountable to anyone or anything. So it is now official! USA citizens have absolutely no way to make their elected officials accountable for anything they or their hired hands do. Be afraid, be very afraid! Your government has no accountability.

And similar circumstances like these have happened in other states like with the Christines in Oregon and other states, too. It will go too far as it has gone too far. And you love it that way. God looks better all the time. I recall in the early 80's when Maine wanted to pass seat belt laws, at first just for kids, like 4 and under. Maine people protested saying this is just a foot in the door. Oh no, say the legislators, this is not a foot in the door. Kids like to move around in the car and they could get hurt. We want to protect kids from themselves. Mainers reluctantly accepted. But every few years they moved the age up and in about 10 years, seat belts were mandatory for everyone and now carry a very stiff fine for non-compliance and cops are on every corner trying to catch someone. Maybe you have even seen the threatening commercials! Click IT or Tick-et! It was not only a foot in the door, but a very profitable one at that. That was the intention from the beginning, no doubt. Government only cares about money and power. Nothing else matters.

Safety which in the case of seat belts can only be shown to be barely even marginal, even when in an accident, should not be the province or concern of the state. People have or should have the right to make their own choices and decisions as to what risks, within reason, they take or not. Hang gliding, parachuting, riding a motorcycle, walking in the wrong part of town or at the wrong time, riding AmTrack or whatever is our right to decide. But in the search for ways to extort money from citizens, governments have found a unique and handy pretext for taking money from us. They take a very small and insignificant risk, and blow it way out of proportion, and threaten us with stiff fines after the laws have been around for a while. They know better than we, what is in our best interests and this is the pretext I dread and fear. My rights and those of all are now null and void. I would rather face a hoard of zombies or vampires or than a nightmare like a state, government, or law out of control.

Oh, you say, zombies and vampires and the like are not real. Are you sure? Even been to Washington DC? Corporate executive offices? Zombies and vampires would be preferable to me. How many people have zombies or vampires killed in movies? Few hundred? Few Thousand? Some governments have killed in the millions. The Chinese Mao regime is between 60 and 100 million. Do you prefer that to creatures of the imagination?

What is particularly heinous about the seat belt fines is that it is so easy to forget them, quite innocently and unintentionally, or to not immediately remember them for a few minutes or at the first light or stop sign. And for this we are brutally mugged by the law. Worse, if we get in no accident, there is really no harm. Further in Maine, for all auto accident deaths, 52% were not wearing belts and 48% were. This means that at the very worst, you chances of death are nearly 50/50, regardless of seat belts. So for not much more than 50% odds, and only if you have an accident that were to cause your death, you chances of living or not are improved maybe 2%, and for this, the state says they are well justified in fining you for your "protection." And if you add in the chances of even getting into a serious accident, very small to begin with, and then if  you do, you have a 2% better chance of living through it if  you have belts on.

This means that if you have a 1 in many thousands of a chance of a serious accident that can possibly cause death and that number could be 1 in 100,000 or more, then multiply that by 2% and you have a 1 in 5 million chance of living rather than dying by wearing a seal belt. For this, you can be fined $50, $150 2nd offense, and $350 for 3rd. So not much chance of a death outcome being changed but a big chance you will lose some serious cash to the state, without ever even meaning to. To punish forgetfulness is really mean spirited, especially when so little is really and truly at stake, odds wise. so citizens are being seriously affected by seat belt fines in very tough economic times and all the state wants to do is make it much worse for you. Boy, they sure care about you, huh? And yet, you prefer the state to God, eh? Suit yourself. I'll take God, myself.

If they can prosecute you and jail you for alleged thought crimes, what thought is it they will next go after? Sedition? Thinking poorly of the government or speaking poorly of it (yikes!)? Criticizing your politicians, maybe? Maybe hate crimes that you are supposedly teaching your kids! Maybe you are a bad influence on your kids. That has been done before in ancient Greece. Socrates was executed for being a bad influence on the young men. See where you are heading? All because you are way too concerned with something that was never any danger in the 1st place and was supposedly in someone's head! Thoughts are more important that actions now. Amazing! Had someone told me this in high school, I never would have believed it was possible. But ya know what? I believe now!

They see everything as abuse and can not see that some avenues are also possible opportunities and that not all feel the same way about certain things as they do. Porn is one of those things. Not all see it as bad to participate in and not all see it bad to look at or buy. Each should be able to decide for themselves and not for anyone else, what they will do. And in Christianity, I do not believe there is the clean line of distinction that some see. I believe it needs to be reconsidered. Porn is not fornication, not even close!

But I do believe that there is a grave danger in  a government who seeks to intrude and dictate as much as possible in our lives rather than as little as possible. I believe in applying the doctor's Hippocratic oath, First do no harm, then if possible, do some good. Translated for political application, First, stop serious crime, 2nd, do no harm, 3rd, if possible, help and do some good. When the law intrudes where no good is done and harm is quite possible, then that is a bad law which needs to be repealed. I would think that more concern would be shown for real actions rather than thoughts, which have never been proven to be any good or harm. Bad thoughts have been around since time and humans began. We will never know what was in many peoples' minds and they will go to their graves without us knowing what might have gone through their heads and its best that way. How many might have thought many things that, had we known of them, we might have been very frightened? But nothing ever came of those thoughts, nor did we get all upset or concerned, either.

Even more absurd is that the Bible tells us that the world in planning some very horrible things for humanity in the near future. Most of the world will be killed off. Talk about hate crimes and dangerous thoughts, huh? Planning the demise of maybe 90-95% of the world's population? And these same ones want to punish us for harmful thoughts? Now that is truly insane, hypocritical, and bizarre if ever there was such a thing. And God foretold most of this at least 2000 to 3500 years ago.

I believe that all of us have many disturbing thoughts or impulses all the time. That is why it is best we stay out of each other's heads or we would all be terrified of each other because we all have this odd idea that everyone else is dangerous except us. We accept it in us and do not believe we are in danger of acting on our dark thoughts but we would fear anyone else having them. So it is best if we never know then we can not get upset and scared. But I believe that those who want to intrude into our minds are of a paranoid mentality and are up to no good. They fear that people are not happy with their plans and might be plotting against them so if they can justify getting into our heads, they can eliminate those who they see as dangerous. Is that really where you want to go?

Let me say this. There are many who do not want to go along with what the people at the top are plotting and planning. Some even want to use violence, if necessary, to resist this new world domination. But God tells us not to have anything to do with a rebellion or overthrow. God will do all the overthrowing when He is good and ready. But we are to remain innocent and subservient to the superior authorities, which would include the New World Order, should it come to be. I strongly recommend my article on Neutrality and War.


An Absurd Contradiction!
Back to Top

Now here is the most ironic part in government law definitions. We have been discussing porn. I have defined porn in this article as nudity which is intended, in all likelihood, to stimulate arousal. This because I did not feel that casual nudity was necessarily a violation of anything and was of no harm. I felt that the highlighting or showing off the genitals was a good line of distinction, but also that this type was not necessarily bad or impure, either. But now the law says that if girls are dressed and posed provocatively, such as they claim were on child model sites closed down in late 2005 or early 2006, then this is enough to put some in jail. We have girls who have clothing on, and yet it is considered of the most horrible offense, completely outlawed, which is a more harsh judgment than we have reserved for the worst types of adult porn. It gets even worse.

There are books published by the like of Jock Sturges or Sally Mann in which kids are completely naked and yet that is OK, because it is not deemed provocative and is considered artistic or natural. First, I am not finding fault with Sturges or Mann or their work. I am not even finding fault with "someone" determining that the nudity was not offensive, dangerous, or violating laws. But I am shocked that we can be such hypocrites in our standards, making those who photograph girls in bathing suits guilty of provocative porn and jailed, while complete and absolutely naked kids are not provocative porn. There really seems to be no rhyme or reason to the absurdity of rationale that they who make and enforce laws offer to us. It leaves a good man wondering if the world had gone completely mad.

And perhaps more absurd is that the girls who pose are deemed not guilty of any crime and neither are their parents. Only photographers! Wait, parents allow kids to be photographed supposedly provocatively, in ways considered illegal and worth putting photographers away and yet not the parents? Some parents did not think their daughters were even provocative and were quite clean and proper. Some girls were not even in bathing suits. Shorts of modest cut and pants and slacks, too. One such mom, whose daughter was dubbed "Cindi' claimed this on TV and from what I saw, she was right. Of course, I have always thought that the real reason these sites were attacked by the USA government was because they feared too many men who felt persecuted unjustly and unfairly were gathered at one common place and could be tapped into and shown too many good reasons why they were innocent and guiltless if the only thing they did was admit that beauty was compelling in young teens.

So in order to scatter the flock and keep these men from becoming evangelists for men's rights and not be persecuted and witch hunted for what they found beautiful or not, they shut down the web sites with their prosecutions and the parents were, I suspect, threatened with not starting their own sites doing as they had been previously through others. And though many groups such as the ACLU and others protested, the government would not hear it and unjustly and wicked put all the blame on just one or two parties when at least 4 were involved. Web site owners/managers and photographers on the one hand and parents and children on the other.

But though the government did not prosecute parents or girls, they did get very tough with the other 2. But the law does not distinguish between parties and if the law was appropriately enforced, then parents should have also received the same sentence that photographers did. But they did not. Why? Because the law never had any consistent and clear legal definition and was full of contradiction and should have been thrown out of court to begin with. And by dividing the 2 sides, they could accomplish selective enforcement, which is a complete corruption of the law. Proper law and enforcement and does not allow for prejudice or playing favorites or prosecuting some while letting others off without due process of law and according to the law.

If a prostitute solicits a john, do we only prosecute the prostitute? Or a john and not the prostitute? Not hardly. It take two to tango, right? But if the girls and their parents were also prosecuted, they would unite with the photographers and put up a damn good fight that might likely defeat the whole ridiculous law of "provocative display" or "intention to provoke." So to stop the promotion of a gathering and uniting place for men vilified for their natural instinct for beauty and feeling very misunderstood and persecuted, corrupt maneuverings were made to chase them down and scare them all away. Notice as well that as best as I have heard, no men who paid to view these sites were prosecuted when the photographers were.

Now hold on here! Surely those who bought and paid to see were guilty if no others were, and yet no, none of them were prosecuted at that time and there were plenty of them who had subscribed to one or more of these sites. This is perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the entire fiasco. The evidence of a farce if ever there was one. Had they prosecuted these in mass, the ACLU could have launched a class action and likely picked the law to shreds. The only thing that needed to be accomplished to stop the men from subscribing was to shut down the sites and that is what they did. Most walked away guiltless, apparently. They just want to prevent a unified dedicated group from exposing law for its absurdity.

While dressing in skimpy clothing such as bathing suits could potnetially be provocative or intended to provoke, but how do you prove such things? Clothing is normally a means to hide and conceal the human body to some degree so as not to be too provocative as complete nudity would be. So if having some clothing on, clothing that is quite acceptable to sell or wear in certain places, then how is it that it is not OK on the internet? And even more unimaginable, how is it that absolute nudity and nakedness is considered less provocative than kids who are clothed to degrees accepted as proper in some contexts? I am lost and dumbfounded. This is the height of contradiction if ever there was such a thing. And why is it that I should not be concerned about laws and a government that can be so blatantly contradictory and hypocritical? There is no real boundary there, which does not constantly move anyway that someone or anyone wants to move it. The law is impossible to observe or understand.

If a good looking naked girl of say, 14, is not provocative, while 14 year olds in bathing suits are, then why don't we just let them all run around naked at the beach? This is why I can say anything about the government and make it stick for this is the height of absurdity and any government that can conduct itself like this is capable of absolutely anything. Of course, the fact they have done hideous medical experiments on people without their knowing or not being informed only adds to what I say but we won't go there. It would be too easy, wouldn't it? And then there are acts of torture, which is clearly against the law and yet not prosecuted. This is why God must eventually destroy the evil that we have become. We are no longer fit for life and decency.

And how did we get into such trouble? Because we allowed the pretext that what goes on in the head is worse than actual actions. Yet another absurdity. Regardless of why someone kills, the victim is just as dead, either way! And we let laws that have no definition and no distinction from ordinary conduct be allowed to be prosecuted and punished, as if everyday behavior were a major threat to us all. First, we need to recognize that we are not really in any danger so we don't need silly laws protecting us from what we should not fear. And we desperately need some sanity and reason brought back to our world. Its way out of hand.

Anyway, some people think it is horrible to be photographed naked or at least provocatively. But I should point out that while rape was punished by death in the Bible, forcing someone to get naked (as long as that was a far as it went or not much more) has never come close to being punished the way rape is, in the Bible. In fact, being stripped by itself is not even addressed in the Bible. Being forced to pose naked is not as horrible as rape. Publicly humiliating maybe, but not nearly as bad as the horror and abusiveness of rape. That doesn't mean it is not an embarrassing experience but let us not exaggerate it out of proportion, either. It's not rape. You can't get penetrated, diseased, or pregnant from being photographed.

The bodily intrusion and penetration of a rapist is far worse than being photographed naked. We have blown everything so ridiculously out of proportion. And there are plenty of other things that could be equally embarrassing and humiliating such as various sorts of betrayal, teasing, tormenting, harassment, or whatever, that is not punishable by death or imprisonment or often even a fine. Besides, most people are not forced strip and be photographed. They do it willingly. Some even do it for free. Some go around on the beach in a way that would get someone in prison if it were published (or at least photographed for) on the internet.

Yet another inconsistency and hypocrisy! How many are we up to, now? And I could keep going, too. Now can you see why the ACLU is so upset? You should be, too, but you're too numb and asleep. You like the present state of affairs, right? You'll like them even more, shortly, when martial law is declared and every last right you ever had goes out the window. Oh, don't worry! Its definitely on the way. And you should have no doubt about that one. You helped bring it on, by allowing for gross contradictions and abuses in the law.

And let me also clarify that I am not saying if someone were forced to be photographed naked, that there should be no penalty or punishment. Such a gross violation of someone's rights deserves punishment and deterrence. But at the same time, it is not rape and not ever close by comparison. Some might be mortified by being forced to be photographed naked. I don't blame them. But bad as that might be, I would still far prefer that to being physically penetrated and violated, which could also cause, in the case of a woman, possible infection with disease and pregnancy, too, as well as the likelihood of permanent psychological scars.

There needs to be some reasonableness and given the far greater harm done by rape, forced photography deserves a significantly different level of punishment. Yet, I will point out yet again, that men can get more prison time for exposing themselves than they often get for rape. There is such absurdity in our laws. There is such absurdity in ourselves. But be warned, those of you who call yourselves Christians, that there is no room in God's kingdom for those who embrace absurdity that violates goodness, fairness, decency, justice and Godliness. So repent or face the music very soon.

You'll go out of your minds over abortion, yet ignore such other horrible abuses of human beings. I guess I having trouble understanding it all. I expect this from the world and the devil, but not those who claim to be Christian. From them I expect more. But I guess I expect too much. But be warned, God still expects a lot and you better be ready when He does.


Abuse in Perspective
Back to Top

Now back to abused women who see abuse in everything and clearly can not see a man in an objective way. These are some of those who see a man's instinct as a threat to every known thing. Nothing would make them happier than to see the world cleansed of men. Absolute hate crimes. Men are hunted like dogs. There is an all out war against men, since they are seen as those most capable of resistance to the planned abuses of government, I suspect. So abused women are allowed to speak at legislative hearings to promote hate laws against men, using any pretext they can imagine, regardless of how absurd or hypocritical, or unbalanced such a pretext might be, to eliminate any man at any time, that might be deemed someone in the way of "progress." Progress for whom? See if you can figure it out.

I would like to point out, though, that abused women often seek out jobs in the porn industry as a way of acting out their former abuse. These are not the ones I refer to just above. For these women, participating in porn feels comfortable and familiar to them. They often seek out abusive treatment in the porn they perform because they have sort of become acclimated to it and don't seem to mind it as much as others. Early sex abuse certainly does warp and disturb the mind. Humans are very delicate and unfortunately, the world is rough and cruel. But what I want to point out is that the porn industry does not necessarily make these women what they are. They were already damaged. But watching them perform, you can see the former damage manifest itself in the things some quite willingly perform now. But not all perform for this reason. Some are just not that bothered by any of the things they perform for to them, its all just acting and pretending and no big deal. That further harm is being done is doubtful or at least, far less than the original abuse of childhood. But they do it willingly and that should be respected and allowed. They are old enough to decide what is best for them. Whether they seek psychological counseling is also their decision only. They could if they wanted to.

Many of these acts performed are a sort of sacrilege of a woman's image and body or somewhat abusive of women. God certainly never intended to have women treated this way. But we all are a little twisted inside. Respect for what God intended should make us avoid such things as much as possible. But there is another factor. Just as the women who perform may be twisted, so may our minds be, who watch it. As long as neither one is being actually hurt, and both are willing participants in the indirect exchange, the twist is not seen by me as a significant danger. It is only in the head.

One thing for sure, pornography will continue to be around whether you buy it or not. It will always remain very compelling to many men. As with all things, avoiding extremes is likely a good course. Mild pornography is harmless as I see it. Going into the more extreme stuff is much less certain. People may think nothing of you buying Playboy. But buying some really extreme or degrading stuff could cause others to think less of you and hurt your chances of being taken seriously as a worshipper of God. But I am not going to sit here and tell you that you should never look at or satisfy your curiosity about some of the more "serious" stuff. Many and most men have done so by now. I have seen some of it. Its hard to avoid it on the net. But as much as possible, we always want to try to keep ourselves within healthy proper boundaries.

Oh and what do I consider extreme? Well, I don't think any sort of genital exposure is bad or any sort of penetration or genital stimulation that is normally not harmful and injuring. But if people are being hurt bad or seriously degraded, one might use caution. Even that is hard to judge or draw a line on since much of it could just be acting which is sort of what porn is all about, anyway; fantasy without the real reality being involved. Pornographers create illusions just as Hollywood does. So relax and don't be so uptight. But never forget that what turns men on is different due to what they experienced, often without being aware of how they were being affected as very young kids. All men are curious about nearly everything. For whatever the reason, most men have to least see what it looks like for a woman to have a donkey "accommodate" her. Most human minds are attracted to the unusual or bizarre. It is a part of our nature. So I don't want to get self righteous about extreme stuff. Its usually just acting or posing and no real harm done. Its all about fantasy and illusion as well as the bizarre or unusual, which also fascinate.

Balance and moderation in all things is desirable. Sound familiar? It is the same here with porn. You will not die or go crazy looking at porn occasionally. But nothing is ever free of danger. We can drive a car too fast and reckless, too. We can eat too much and become gluttons and ruin our health, right?

Should we limit or perhaps ban hard core porn? It would be great if we could, but has the war on drugs worked? No! Did Prohibition work? No! How's that war on terror going? Well, its still going on, isn't it? 9/11 was 9 years ago as of this writing, 2010. And no, I don't mean the terror the government is using on you and I. Its the terror they are supposedly trying to protect us from! I am not sure who is fighting for who, or who they think their enemies are. But we don't seem to be making progress there, either. The war on prostitution? Nope! How about that war to take back the night? Has it cut down on rapes? Statistics suggest nothing has changed! How about sex trafficking and child prostitution around the world? Not much progress there, either! The war on poverty? The war on hunger? The war on illiteracy? Ya know, it seems like we aren't winning any wars anywhere. Are we actually trying to win any of these? If we are, we have a 100% failure rate. We have never won a single victory. Not much of a record! And if we tried to stop hard core porn, it would just be yet another loss to add to the pile we already got.

The only ones who seem to suffer from these wars are us as our rights and freedoms are all taken away and the economy goes to hell and we lose all our jobs and homes. Hey, you don't suppose it us they are really waging their war on since we seem to suffer the bulk of casualties? Just kidding . . .  maybe! ;-)

Laws don't work too well, really, if those who make them are not sincere in their motives and purpose. A law in useless if not enforced sincerely and diligently. As long as there is sin and flaws in mankind, there will be markets for things we do not like or think good. But it is my opinion that the best way to stop something is to make it legal and give it a place without giving it prominence or making it sound OK. Remember Augustus Caesar? Making it legal destroys a good deal of profitability. It is profit that makes things worth risking prosecution of the law. I saw/heard an interview (on TV) with a prostitute in the Bronx, NY, who said that prostitution is much less profitable today because too many women are willing to do it for free. I could see that. Sex is now such a common commodity that less men need to go to prostitutes to get it. Legalize it and it would go down even more to where many might stop doing it, for lack of profit.

But we will never be able to stop humans from pursuing vice. That is not my goal, anyway. I simply want to take the guilt out of a good deal of porn. That abuse once went on is no reason to deny the porn industry and its employees, nor to keep abused ones from profitable jobs. No more than freaks should have been denied to participate in freak shows without their industry being harassed. In addition, I am tired of men being persecuted and feared unjustly and without good cause. I am tired of the hate crimes committed against men and God.



The Blame Game
Back to Top

So often, porn is blamed for all sorts of bad behavior. Porn makes men rape. Porn makes men crazy and breaks up marriages. What a load of crap. This is clearly a liberal bunch of nonsense by people who love neither science, philosophy, or truth. People blame alcohol, they blame guns, they blame porn, they blame the stars or the moon or astrology. They blame TV, music, movies, magazines, the media, the government. It is a disease and not a moral flaw, they say. They will do anything in their power to duck personal blame and responsibility.

Worst of all, we will except those poor, tired, lame excuses from them and let people off the hook for bad or disappointing behavior. No one wants any personal accountability and responsibility anymore. Blame anyone or anything except ourselves. Well, it is time to put this baby to bed. We are accountable and responsible for our behavior and actions. It is we who make choices and should answer for them. To blame inanimate things for our poor choices and moral flaws is wrong.

Porn does not do anything. It is we who look at porn and some do stupid things afterward for they are damaged in the head and will not limit themselves. It can be viewed without consequences and is often done so by millions. Fact! Guns do not kill people. It takes a person to buy the gun, aim it, and pull the trigger. It is not a fast food joint's fault is one gets fat. It is our fault. How would we even know to sue unless we understood the food could make us fat? It was our lack of control, not the restaurant. The problem, when someone commits a rape, is not porn. It is the person. I could go on about this but will leave it for another article on Personal Responsibility. But porn should not be used as an escape goat for our own shortcomings.

This should pretty well resolve most objections to porn, in and of itself. If there are problems, we need to look at individual's rationale and resulting behavior and not porn. Our flaws are in ourselves. Let porn be exonerated from here on in, in regards to people's actions. Lets stop making men criminals for mere longing or attraction to whatever. And we also need to consider laws that are contradictory or absurd and repeal them or make them consistent and reasonable. Crimes should prohibit actions, not thoughts or inclinations. Many go from cradle to grave with thoughts, inclinations, and desires without ever having acted on them. But because they are not detected as a convicted felon is when caught committing a crime, we do not have the good as evidence. But all people have many dark secrets and most live their entire lives relatively free of consequence.

Humans do seem to love escape goats and witch hunts. They always need something to pick on. Such behavior, sadly common throughout history at various times, is a real big sign of what we could call serious neurosis and paranoia, if not insanity/psychosis. That we have so much of it at this time is evidence that evil seems to rule the world and that the devil is firmly in control of things, though not for too much longer. But until Christ comes, it is the devil who rules and he has come down to us with much anger, given that he has little time left to do his dirty work and do it he will. He is doing it now. You could blame him but remember that he has lots of helpers in the world among us as well.


Accusations Fly
Back to Top

There are lots of interesting charges made against porn by therapists (quacks as far as I am concerned), "experts," women's groups, and Christians alike. They throw the blanket over pornography and condemn it all, under all circumstances, as I have discussed earlier. But, I question the validity and wisdom of what they say, by using the scriptures in points made earlier about being overly righteous and expecting too much. Before I do that some more, indulge me in just a few paragraphs here for a minute.

First, they always deal with the hard core sex addicts as they call them. Men addicted to porn! But they do not address those with a mild or occasional curiosity and fascination. They do not believe such persons even exist. For them, it is all or nothing. Not all people have problems looking at some porn. They won't admit this or make this distinction. Are they being honest and addressing all situations? NO! So their credibility is not very high or scientific, either.

Then there are the accusations of lust. That is dealt with in my article about Lust. You read it, right?

An accusation made is that porn is the CAUSE of all sorts of bad behavior. How insane! That is like blaming guns for killing rather than the person who pulled the trigger. Or blaming marriage for adultery and rape in the cases of men who get married and then go on to commit such crimes. Porn is a symptom, not a cause. It does not cause rape. Men who do not love God's law rape and porn has nothing to do with it. And as regards the higher incidence rapists who view porn, one would expect that, understanding that they sought relief and satisfaction from porn and did not get it so they went to the next levels. They could have sought help but preferred to pursue the crime. They have always been struggling with sexual issues.

Here is a typical accusation: "Pornography is not harmless...it degrades and dehumanizes women."

Notice the blanket statement. More accurately, porn can degrade or dehumanize, but does not have to. More correctly, some porn "appears" to or pretends to dehumanize and degrade since the people being photographed or filmed are simply acting out their roles for the cameras. Many things can degrade or dehumanize. Bosses find many ways to degrade and dehumanize their employees, perhaps at times deserved, many times not deserved. Parents can degrade and dehumanize their kids. Coaches and teachers can degrade and dehumanize their students. Shall we ban teaching, coaching, parenting, and working for employers or companies? Governments can degrade and dehumanize as well. We dehumanize our enemies. We do it to men, right? Governments "randomly" strip search citizens without reason, for the sake of security. Some are even searched in their private areas and body cavities. In fact, governments are among the very best degraders and dehumanizers. They employ lots of torture to degrade and dehumanize, all in the name of security, even though we have defined torture as unlawful and evil in any context.

I believe a shapely female naked body is beautiful and inspiring. It is a work of art. It is visually compelling. As for degrading or dehumanizing, first, that is in the eye of the beholder. Some view any sex or nudity as degrading and dehumanizing and ultimately, we would need to blame God, the creator of our naked bodies and sex, if that is the case. So lets rule out all sex being bad. But lets say that some women find giving oral sex degrading. How do we determine if that is so? Is a wife also degraded for giving her husband such pleasures? Well, if they do not like doing it, they should not. But does it follow that all other women must see it as degrading? I don't see why that should be. I don't think giving one's partner pleasure is bad, regardless of which body parts you use to do it. I hardly see why it should matter which parts are used. The point is pleasure, not parts or technique.

I want to show how what might be obvious is not so obvious and could be disputed. I am going to turn a common perception on its head. Watch this. Perhaps a woman might object if a man wants to recreate what is typically called "the money shot" in the porn industry. Most porn on the internet will end with the money shot. The guy or guys will ejaculate on the woman after having displayed a number of various sexual interactions. While some may not like the idea of having semen ejaculated or dripped on them, again, it does not follow that all find will find it this way. Some may not care and if it seems to really excite their mate, they may not see any harm in it. They accept his fluids in other places, right? They may not see the fluid as being any worse than syrup or any other sticky substance.

For some reason, do-gooders and the formerly abused are never content to choose only for themselves. They want to shove their standards down our throats and make us swallow their views instead of our own. They become just like their abusers, seeking to force their ways on others. But they can't see it. They simply must tell us all what we can and can not do, as if legislating it is some how going to stop it. It does not! They want to stop all abuse and I can't blame them but its not possible and they need to come to grips with that.

To them, they are protecting the world from abuse. But I can protect myself just fine. I don't need or want their help. I know they wish that someone had protected them when they were young and I understand that. But the honest real truth is that no one can be 100% protected and that it is unfortunate that there will always be victims of abuse till God comes to fix it all, finally. Better would be for those abused to seek truly good qualified professional help to aid them in coming to grips with their pain and abuse so that they can move on and enjoy life and not have the need to boss others around and make everyone do as they want, which is what their abusers did to them, right?

Forgive me for the following which is very graphic but very necessary to make my point blunt and clear.

I want to ask a few questions about this scenario of the "money shot." While I grant that most will not like any sort of sticky or gooey fluid or whatever on them, if it is objectionable to have it poured, dripped, or squirted onto their bodies, how much more so should it be to have it injected into one's vagina? Honestly, if you can stand the normal missionary position full coital intercourse, which demands, according to some but not me, that semen not be wasted and must be released inside the woman and allow to impregnate if possible, then really, some might see getting sprinkled with semen on their bodies to be a break and a better or preferable option. Wiping off a small amount of semen on the outside is seen by some as better than having to wear pads and wait for the inevitable to come dripping back out. Sorry I had to put you through that but you did have it coming and my point is very valid! So you see, whether it is beauty or abuse, it is in the eye of the beholder as to whether it is abuse or not. I am not being facetious when I say that the money shot might be a better option to many.

The real problem here is that some people see all nudity (and the sex that so often goes with it) as something ugly, horrible, and degrading; or they see women showing off their genitals as being humiliated, embarrassed, abused, exploited, or whatever. Always negative, of course. Only problem is, that is not the reality all the time. Some women actually enjoy provoking and getting guys excited. Some even do it for free and enjoy it. Why is it that we see giving pleasure and excitement as being so wrong?

{ I need to point out that any display of a woman in a provocative way, is not a sin if done for her husband, exclusively. }

Many women enjoy showing off their beauty. Many also appreciate the good money they receive from magazines like Playboy. Many also love the boost it gives to their careers and the attention they get. Many women are grateful for the opportunity to pose naked. Many are doing it for free now. So this argument is trounced as well. It can be an uplifting experience, both for the poser and the viewer. Of course, nudity used to be worth more. With exhibitionists who do it for free, it has lowered the value for many. But again, that is because some are willing to do it for free and that is their right. If you don't like the pay, don't do it.

Another accusation: " Porn is a sickness that causes men to view women as body parts and not as human beings."

Sorry, but that is just not true. That is the defensive reaction of women who know nothing about what they speak. They are placing their own perceptions onto others. It desperately needs to be pointed out that while certainly no where near as big as the men's market, there is a women's market for male porn. Women, while not in large numbers, also buy or look at porn. They will not agree with the "parts" theory, either. But just because someone sees body parts and not people, does not mean that all do that. Men are not sick, perverted, or morally flawed because they find women's bodies incredibly exciting and stimulating. They are normal, healthy, and created by God to be that way.

Now it is true that men are obviously very intrigued by women's private parts. It could seem that they are preoccupied with those areas. Partly, this is because those parts are denied to men most of the time. But many men also love the rest of women's bodies, too. But we often see those other areas all the time. The only parts we don't see at all are those private ones so they tend to get more attention. Those "parts," more than any other place on or in a woman, represent the most absurdly intoxicating pleasure. That is the signal they ignite in a male. That is why we keep them covered normally. It is natural for those parts to affect us as they do. No need to feel guilty and no one should hold a man guilty for such things. It is as God created it.

But I think women are insecure in that men's reactions to a woman's body are so strong that the woman fears that her body is all the man is interested in. That is not always true. Many women have the beauty to attract a man but many often fail to keep him as they don't have personality, substance, or the like to hold him captive. But if he stays, there is most apt to be something more than physical attraction there. But a man does lose his sanity around a woman's body, for sure. It is thoroughly intoxicating. A woman does have to be reassured once in a while. But she should not assume that just because a man goes nuts over her body or that a single man goes nuts over the picture of a naked body, that he is only interested in bodies or parts. He deserves a little more credit than that.

Besides, it is very silly to imagine that a man would be anywhere near as excited if there were just a small object and area the size of a vagina that functioned as one, if it were possible, were to be made available. While it is the vagina that accomplishes the better part of the stimulation that takes place, I will assert in the strongest emphatic terms that though the vagina is the most physically active part, it is the least stimulating, from a psychological standpoint. It is the woman's entire body and appearance, which is so stunning and attractive, as well as her participation and reactions; even the intense close proximity to the other person. It is a holistic reaction. Is is the live interaction with another human being that makes the whole encounter so exciting. It is by no means just or even primarily, the vagina. Yes, men often like to get right down to business, but still, it is the physical presence of the entire woman that is such a thrill. A vagina all by itself would do little for a man, were such a thing possible. It is her entire essence that brings so much to the table.

I should point out that rather than faulting the man or suggesting that he has a problem, is it possible that it is the woman, who is disturbed and assumes the worst in a man. The poor man is naturally and instinctively attracted to a woman and does not understand why it is he should feel so guilty. Even women often go nuts over naked male strippers. Why are other women not also condemned? In a word, more hate crimes against men. Men are pigs, chauvinists, and absolute monsters, right? Some women just hate men and want to vilify anything a man likes or does. And governments are happy to go along with it so that they can eliminate any man they want any time they want, by finding him guilty of an alleged thought or hate crime against women or young women.

Here is a very typical and hysterical example given by idiots: "When she went to live with relatives, Sandra was forced to pose nude for pictures and was repeatedly raped from the time she was four until she was 15."

Now I guess it was the pictures that raped her. But I suspect it was the relatives that raped her. So why does the porn get blamed? Yes, they took pictures of her. But that is not what motivated them to rape. I believe it was a lack of love and respect for her as a person and a lack of love and respect for God's laws, or the nation's laws, too. But I guess we all have our own views! But some will do anything to fault a man's love for female beauty, when that, by itself, is not the problem. It is people not respecting the rights of others to decide what they want or not want to do. And men are the most common and unfairly accused victims in our modern obscene world turned upside down by forces bent on evil. While some men rape, most do not. But all but the most disturbed, find women exciting and attractive. Probably most would take pictures if they could. But not nearly as many would rape ( I hope ).

Another quack response:
"Porn can also be extremely harmful to children who are exposed to indecent material at an early age. A therapist for a nine-year-old boy and his family who have seen the results of early exposure to porn, said porn affects children most because of their lack of maturity on sexual issues. Sometimes pornography has a powerfully damaging effect because the child is emotionally vulnerable in some way, or sometimes simply because the exposure comes at such a young age that the child is not developmentally prepared to handle such explicit sexual material."

Well, yes, sexual imagery can be overwhelming. Isn't that what parents are for, to clear it up and talk about it and help put it in perspective, even as they might have to do for food, money, or whatever? Help them cope with it and make sense of it if they should be exposed prematurely or overly exposed! I believe that kids are capable of becoming "developmentally prepared" if the parents explain and instruct them. Understanding sex and putting it in a proper light is a relatively easy thing to do that they blow way out of proportion. I rather think it is some parents who are developmentally retarded and not fit to raise kids and help them adjust to sexual issues in a healthy way. They would rather run from it and ignore it because its uncomfortable to deal with. Whose fault is that? Though we would all like to spare our children from being exposed too early, it sometimes can not be prevented. But it still can be fixed. Why didn't the parents seek help right after the incident if they could not handle it themselves. Why didn't the DHS take their son away from the parents since they had proven themselves unfit as parents?

Besides, I do not buy or accept the argument that in most cases, a child can be exposed or overly exposed too early or prematurely. Kids can handle things at nearly any age or time if they have parents willing and capable. But if you're brain dead and retarded, then you won't be very useful to your child. Of this I am certain! Don't blame the porn. Blame yourself and your lack of ability and resolve. And if you can't handle it, why not go get some help from someone else to help you along. A professional, a pastor, your parents, a good capable friend, or the like!

There is a lot we could ask. Why are parents so afraid of sex and so complexed about it? It is possible the boy got his pathology from his parents rather than from the early exposure? How would you prove it was the sex and not the parents' poor handling of it afterward? Or maybe it was the parents avoiding dealing with it at all that screwed the poor boy up. I would say the therapist did a rotten job of determining the true cause of the problem . . . Bad parenting or no parenting! You parents better shut up about porn before you end up getting blamed for your kids and get them taken away. And it would be easy to fault you.

The real danger and problem is when parents avoid doing anything. That is the real cause of damage to children . . . a lack of instruction, guidance, and parenting! That is what is at the heart of most problems in children. The other danger that makes porn confusing to kids is that we make them feel horribly guilty and shamed in finding it exciting or having been caught looking at it. So they then end up screwed up as a result. Again, the porn was not the problem, it was the disturbed view of the parents and society that then, in turn, screws up our kids. Maybe we should ban ourselves.

I came across Playboy at about age 9 under my father's bed, a gift from his brother in law and not a bad gift, either! My mother came upon me and told me how disgusting and awful it was. Oh, of course, I said. I went along with the game. But I never believed a word of it. I just learned to be careful when I looked so that I would not get caught again. And I didn't go crazy, or have sex, or rape, or anything. Of course, I have written this article. Does that qualify? ;-) In fact, I was very slow to get on to anything about sex. Maybe kids should be exposed to porn earlier if they are like me. Or maybe exposure to porn has little to do with anything. And it is also possible that I may be just plain slow, anyway.

Why would God make something so overpowering that it could not be handled? What if a kid accidentally sees his parents doing it? What if he sees animals doing it? Come on and get real. Such things could and do happen and are easily resolved unless a parent is all screwed up in the head about sex and doesn't want to deal with it or doesn't know how. If that is the case, there is no helping the kid, anyway. Kids are necessarily dependent on a parent's ability whether we like that idea or not. If the parent lacks ability as a parent, the child will suffer, no doubt. Some people should not be parents. They are not qualified. It time they and we admit that! Don't punish everyone else because a few are incapable idiots.

Further, it shows how stupid many therapists can be about this subject. A therapist would not want to blame parents anyway, for they are the ones paying his charges for "treatment," so he would have to be crazy (and corrupt, which significant numbers are, in my opinion) to do that. Parents might resent such accusations and not come back. They may have been responsible for much of the kid's real problems dealing with sex. But much better to find something benign to blame so as not to offend anyone and keep them from coming back and not keep the money coming in.

In general, I find the psychology, psychiatry, and other mental treatment professions to be highly suspect for many reasons. You might do well to look into them more carefully, rather than take their word on anything. Try thinking for yourself and considering other viewpoints, for in the abundance of counselors there is wisdom.

Yet another example of junk:
"A therapist went on to tell the story of a family who was affected by porn when their son was exposed to an adult movie on HBO at a friend's house. From that point, the boy began looking for pornographic internet sites and became addicted. The culmination of his addiction was when his mother caught him molesting a friend's three-year-old daughter. The therapist said he has found that this type of early exposure to illicit materials affects people when they grow older."

Apparently, when the boy was exposed, his parents were able to do nothing to help him make sense of it or behave himself. They seemed to know about the progression. He became addicted and they did nothing? How did they determine he was addicted? Was he? Or was it just an excuse for the very bad and inexcusable behavior? You mean to tell me the boy didn't even have enough sense to see that it would be wrong to molest a 3 year old girl? Do you expect me to believe that? Do you believe that? He was old enough to stay at a friends house and old enough to scan the internet so I suspect he was old enough to know better. But why make him responsible? Let's make pornography the one who is to blame, as if porn made him do it. How irrational! How insane!

And again, we might look more closely at the parents. How much of their son's lack of regard for a little 3 year old girl might be the result of rotten parenting skills? Further, if he was older enough to become addicted to porn on the internet then I suspect he was at least 10 if not a teen. A little old to not know better than to harm a 3 year old girl. As well, the boy might have turned out this way, even if he did not have early "exposure" to porn on HBO. How do we know and how was it determined that it was the porn and not the way he would have turned out anyway, since sexual behavior is, for the most part, instinctive and automatic, and not something we consciously and deliberately change or cultivate, no more than why some like chocolate more than vanilla or vice versa. We like what we like. It is natural and automatic. But we love the blame game and are always looking for excuses and escape goats. Personally, I favor blaming parents or nothing at all. Some kids are going to go wrong, no matter what.

And you mean to tell me the parents had no clue he was visiting porn sites and "addicted" to them? So they didn't check out his viewing on the net and were probably clueless about anything he did. I suspect this gets more at the heart of the matter. The kid brought himself up. The parents paid little to no attention to him. They certainly did not want any blame or embarrassment and so they blamed the porn. I am not buying it and neither should you. Further, did the therapist, who blamed the porn, did he/she look into other possible factors like the parents, usually the most relevant and important part of any child's development and the first place a therapist should look if they are not completely incompetent and incapable? I doubt it!!! The therapist also have their reasons and agenda for blaming porn and men. But it is not scientific nor honest.

Further, what male, of nearly any age, would not find porn, at least initially, very engaging and "addictive?" Its bound to be very exciting at first and any male, upon first discovering it, will engage in it heavily for at least a brief time. Addiction? Prove it! But I repeat, the porn was not what made this idiot molest a 3 year old. This "kid" was born to lose. There is no excuse for why he did it or what he did. Stop making or allowing excuses! Punish him lawfully and legally as the law allows. And really, the law should be pretty strict here, even though it is not.

But I would also question the vague non-descript description of "molest" here, too. Did he touch or explore without physical damage? Did he try to stimulate? Or was it worse?  The first 2, while regrettable, were not that tragic to the girl, in all likelihood. Might have little long term impact. Worse would stand out and might do lasting harm. Did they over-react or did they make light of it? Depends on what he really did when they say "molest."

I know the law says that even a "touch" is the equivalent, basically, of rape. I just disagree with it. A touch is far from a completely and actual rape. The law fails us all by not making some pretty clear and precise distinctions in levels of crime.

The boy has some real problems with aggression and other issues, too. I am sure there were plenty of warning signs and things that could have been done. But no one had enough skill and would no doubt resent a therapist telling them they needed to improve their parenting skills. No therapist would do that anyway. They would rather blame porn instead and keep charging $75 to $150 per hour and have the parents continue to hire them to "help" the boy and parents avoid any personal responsibility or blame. I should have been a therapist! I would have had to sell my soul but I'd have plenty of dough, no doubt!

The blame game is a dangerous game that helps no one and prevents nothing. Blaming porn as a cause is not good logic. Porn is a symptom. The real cause is in ourselves. Having said that, I would like to have you consider what the Bible has to say about porn to help clarify things.


This Just In,     June 5, 2010

I had just revised this June 1 when a day later, I get a link to another anti-porn article. It actually comes from a source that does a pretty good job on marriage and agrees with me somewhat on the young marrying young. A wife laments that she has been married to a "sex addict for most of my 25-year marriage." So he is all messed up, supposedly since he has been labeled with a bad name.

"I'd tell myself my husband, Paul, was normal, that every man was into pornography. All the while, I silently suffered tremendous damage to my self-worth, blaming myself for my husband's problem."

Now I don't know how much time Paul spent drooling over naked women but I guess it was a regular feeding for the most part. And yes, most men enjoy looking at pictures of naked women very much. Its just that some are too cheap to buy much ;-) But not all refrain from spending money on such things. Meanwhile, the wife feels terrible, worthless, inadequate and maybe even responsible and so blames herself.

This perfectly illustrates what I say. Women believe they have not done their job enough or men would not need other or additional stimulation. They do not understand the male nature. We are visual and the female image/body is most compelling to us. No matter how beautiful a woman is, she will never be, and never could be, the only woman who can or will ever excite her husband. Men love all beauty. They are not prejudice or picky. Any and all beauty is welcomed. A woman has been falsely led to believe that magic takes place when someone falls in love and suddenly our instinct just goes out the window, complements of the holy spirit or some other crazy thing. This is the lie that must die. This is the expectation that should never have been.

At this time of writing, all sorts of celebrity husbands have been getting in trouble for playing around on very attractive and desirable women. Tiger Woods being perhaps the most notable. Jessie James, politicians and too many others to list. One would think, wow, married to such hotties! Why would anyone play around on them? A very good question. Of course, if one respects God, one must avoid this more than just about any other sin. Its one of the big 4 in Acts 15.

But though hotties these women were, they were not the only ones. And part of any human being's nature and makeup is their love of variety, change, something different, unusual, novel, something to break up a routine. Some guys cheat with women who are not even as good looking as their wives. Being different is as exciting if not more so than beauty. We all like a change of pace. But when it comes to marriage, it is absolutely forbidden by God. God made sex for a reason but trying everyone who intrigues or fascinates you and leaves you curious is not that reason. Sex is a reward/incentive for marriage and breeding, not for recreation and pleasure.

So women have no real reason for feeling like it was their fault. Many men who cheat are terrified of their wives leaving them. The guys do not want to lose their wives but the enticement of sex makes them risk everything anyway. Sex is not a rational response and neither is cheating. Women need to understand this. But here is problem number 2 and its a big one!

Looking is not cheating or adultery. Go ahead and look up adultery in the Bible. Adultery is sex with someone else! Sex risks disease. Sex risks falling for someone else and causing loss and hurt. But pictures are not sex. In fact, if you caught your husband giving a woman a kiss, that is not grounds for adultery. You have a right to be very mad but you'll also have to get over it because the important line was not crossed. God decides what the line will be and it must involve sex!

Its odd because women take a friendly relationship with no sex as more of a threat than if it was just impulsive unplanned sex on the spot with no relationship and no real meaning or feeling. It is that emotional connection that often bothers women the most; but feelings, if not precisely expressed, are not grounds for adultery. Sex must be involved. I can not say that sex is exclusively just connection of the genitals of both people but it would have to be nearly that serious. Hurt feelings are not enough to divorce. Some real concrete action must precede divorce.

So even if porn was totally forbidden, it would not constitute adultery and divorce. The woman we are discussing, says she never actually caught her husband looking at porn. It was confessions from him that alerted her. He felt guilty and confessed. This does relate to how most Christians perceive lust, when Jesus said if you lust for a woman, you have committed adultery with her. But this scripture is commonly mis-translated and min-interpreted as well. But you need to read my article on that. But lust is not a thought. It is action or intent to act, even as gluttony requires actual eating or the intent to eat like a pig. Merely enjoying eating or thinking about it is not enough.

She next says: "When I finally stopped denying the seriousness of his addiction, life seemed unmanageable. How could I cope with my crippling emotions of pain, anger, and shame? How could we go on? I needed answers—but didn't know where to turn."

What is the seriousness of his addiction? I think it is in her head and false understanding and expectations. She blew it up way out of proportion, having no idea what a man is truly like. Pain, anger, shame? May I add, mentally disturbed or neurotic; maybe even insane? She thinks adultery has been committed. Maybe she should be committed. At the least, I think she needs some serious Bible study because she is confused about lust and adultery as most Christians are today.

Her husband had accepted Christ a month before they married and the wife a little later. She explained that when Paul was 10, his dad left for another women and his mother went back to work, leaving him with his 2 older brothers. They introduced him to porn. Lucky him! He became sexually active as a teen. "Sex made him feel cared about; it replaced the care and concern he missed at home." I see little wrong so far, other than he was not a Christian at this time but his feelings and reactions were not bizarre or strange or deviant, really.

So he would confess and she would get hurt and upset. He accepted the blame instead of realizing that it was normal and natural for a man to have this kind of curiosity and pleasure at looking at beauty. Why get so upset? But most are taught that this is horrible wrong and evil and that they are sure to go to hell, right? A wild out of control monster is what they say he was. I beg to differ. 

He tried for 12 years to stop. He confessed a dozen times in that time. So he sought some help. "Paul confessed his addiction to a pastor, who challenged him to monitor what he watched, where he went, what he looked at. The pastor believed Paul should have a male friend who knew about his struggle and could question his purity at any time."

Monitor and control what he watched or where his eyes went? Wow! Why not just gouge his brain out, for who can control their impulses enough to not even look? What madness is this? Absurd! Unrealistic! Insane! And what if his "purity" could be questioned? That does not stop him and simply forced him to confess. Many would just lie and do. And he could have done the same and no one would have ever known or needed to know. It would be between him and God and no further if he wanted. It never occurred to him that he was innocent. Perish the thought! ;-) So he jumped up on the cross and nailed himself to it. Thanks, but I'll pass on that one. Once was enough for me. I have Jesus to pay for my sins.

Paul felt hopeless! Who could blame him? He can't change what he is and this had been going on for 12 years and in most men, continues throughout their lives till their dead and buried. This time the wife asks him about it. He admits relapse. Fool! But it was different this time. "For the first time in our marriage, I actually had a different reaction. I didn't feel as though I had to carry the responsibility of this whole mess myself. It was time to seek counsel together!"

"Through a Christian counselor, we discovered Paul used pornography to numb his pain. When life felt out of control, this "pleasure" made him feel better. It had nothing to do with me not meeting his needs—and everything to do with his feelings of inadequacy. Pornography gave him a sense of power, if only for the moment. "

In other words, boys and girls, he used pornography to numb his pain. Did you just see what I saw? Another lie. He did not use porn. He likely used his hand and I need to be graphic here. He used sexual release to numb his pain or better put, to enjoy an escape, a fantasy, a release, which is how most of us often use sex. It makes things better, at least for a little while. Sex is a high, for sure! So she is not even talking about porn anymore. She is talking about masturbation and sexual behavior. Porn is a means to help get there. But it can also be phone sex, or a female's personality, or the situation or circumstance that is exciting. Porn helped enable him to get high and escape, just as he might also do when having sex with his wife.

I think its just a lot of excuses. Men need to get sexually high more than women, most of the time. They are men and that is how they are. If you can't handle it, don't get married to a man. Stay single. Its you right not to marry if you do not want to. Now get this next.

"Through counseling, Paul and I learned to communicate our feelings and work through those painful, out-of-control times. We developed a new intimacy in our relationship with each other and with Christ. We stopped blaming each other for our feelings and actions. We took responsibility for our own disappointments."

This is fantastic. Now we are getting somewhere. She and he stopped blaming each other. It almost sounds like what I call "acceptance." Acceptance is a big part of Alcoholics Anonymous and their program. Rather than try to change everything in life, which usually is not possible, just accept it as it is and move on. Don't try to change what you can't change. It is that way with desire and sin. We are born sinners and can not change this. We are better off to accept it and ask for mercy from God who will give it. We are bought and justified by Christ so start acting like it! AS well, they began to talk far more and understand each other and become much more close by revealing so much more of each other, to each other. That is how intimacy is achieved. She took responsibility for the silly ways she reacted and he did so, too. Next she reports:

"This isn't to say we never dealt with any more episodes. After almost two years of counseling, I found out Paul was disappointed with me one evening. I'd chosen to go out with a needy friend rather than stay home with him. He ran back to that "pleasure" to numb his pain."

Hey, he gave her a break! Look at the thanks he got for it! Despite all this time and effort, this man can not change his skin or his brain and brain stem. He is what he is and what God made him. Note the next account:

"We reached a turning point about a year after Paul's last failure. I again was a camp counselor at Bible camp with our kids during the summer, while Paul stayed home. That first week, Paul kept busy. He even called his counselor one evening in tears over his distress about being alone. It was a tough week for Paul—but he remained pure."

When she says pure, she means he did not masturbate but would only get off with her and not his hand and mind. Now if the wife is not around and you still want some, what is wrong with self stimulation? What is impure about it? Masturbation is also not adultery. Sorry ladies! He held out a week but he is a man, after all. Finally, he could take no more. A week is nearly an eternity to a real man. Masturbation is a great way to keep a man from falling to temptation to cheat. Need a fix? Then have a fix and be done with it. Masturbation is a good way to preserve a marriage. Now this next one is wrong on so many levels.

"When we came home from camp for a week before we had to return for a second week, Paul did everything he could to manipulate me into not going back. He was convinced he couldn't go through another week of fighting his urges alone. But Paul needed to see that only Christ could save him from himself. It wasn't my job to be his savior."

Since he is not allowed to masturbate and "defile" himself, he wants to keep his wife handy. Well, if you don't allow him an outlet, and you limit it to just you, then you better be around a lot. He did not want to fight his urges. Indeed, fighting those urges is not likely to work. That is why masturbation is so important in this whole formula and why I wrote an entire article on it. It is a vital part of this equation. She says that only Christ could save Paul from himself. I don't think Christ intended for Paul to suffer. All Paul had to do was give himself a hand. But his wife says she is not his savior. I take this to mean, she is not his salvation or relief for sexual urges. But actually, she is. The Bible says so. So if she does not want to fulfill her obligations, then she should have no problem with him relieving himself. So you see, this really is about the meaning of lust and masturbation, not porn. It gets better.

"As I stood my ground about returning to camp, Paul fell apart. We both ended up sobbing. I grieved over the incredible demands he put on me; he grieved over my refusal to take control. I never gave in to him—but he finally gave in to Christ, giving him complete control. Since this time he's been able to remain pure in our marriage. It's been more than three years now."

He has had the problem for 14 years and now that he has gone a year since, she figures everything is fine and fixed. I think not! He may just be waiting for guilt to build and force him to confess again. Or he may have reached the point where he feels change is hopeless, which it is, and just keep quiet with a deadened conscience ( a serious problem, for sure) and give up inside. Or he could give up realizing he is a sinner at worst, and be forgiven by Christ for his nature, which Christ himself created once upon a time. Or he may struggle with relapses through out his life. There is no certain victory here unless they finally realize the truth together. That truth being that he is a man made by God to be a man. Enjoy being a man!

This guy is perfectly willing to crucify himself and accept great blame when he should have no shame and be proud of what he is. His wife beats on him mentally for being a real man. A hen-pecked man, for sure. I won't say what I would tell her.

Christ doe not eliminate our sin. Some say he does but they are just lying and pretending for which they shall answer, for making people believe such things are possible when they are not.
"I've shared my story so others will find hope, too."
See? She says hope. I say frustration that no one can accept a man being a man. She thinks she solved the problem. She has not. Not till she recognizes that being attracted to beauty and having more desire than your wife can always handle are not sin. The desires are appetite that needs fulfilled to some degree. And if one must seek it alone at times, rather than having the wife always be the source, this is not wrong or bad, either. She needs to understand that she married a healthy normal man, whose only sin was being created by God and born of Adam.

The author and confessor ends on a good note. ""One of the most significant verses to me in this whole journey is James 5:16: "Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.""

We need to be honest with who and what we really are. We need to stop lying and pretending about things. Honesty, truth, candor, sincerity, and other such things are the only way we can please God. Lies and myths belong to the devil. So we do not to confess to each other about what we really feel inside and struggle with. If we do, we will realize that lust is not what we thought and masturbation is not wrong and that love of beauty and desire do not stop just because we get married. Nor do any us us, male or female, stop noticing the opposite sex. But if and when we feel ourselves being tempted or desiring someone else, then we seek our mates or ourselves to relieve our strongest urges so that the temptation becomes small and manageable rather than huge and out of control so that it will erupt like a super volcano. Temptation is a necessary part of life. We all must face temptation and resist it and resisting it is an art and skill we need to learn, so that when the devil comes to tempt, we can resist those temptations.

I don't want to belittle this woman, who had the courage to share her experience. She does us all a favor in telling us what she has. She has shown us how she views the whole situation and that helps us all to see things more clearly and in better perspective. She means well even if very misguided. But I have also wrote and hope people like her and her husband can be freed from the prison and enslavement of their mind and false ideas about things. Guilt about our sexuality has been very hurtful for far too long. We need to get this right or we will only continue to struggle and fail.

Consider this. If my car is not running well because it is low on oil in the engine but I add water to the radiator instead, will it then run better? Of course not! It will possibly even ruin the engine since I did not treat the real problem the right way. If we try to fix our sex problems by assuming we are committing sin when we are not and simply need to allow a more realistic approach to relieving our appetites, then we guarantee failure in one way or another. There is great danger in causing people to give up hope in their struggle and either start to lie or believe we shall or will have to accept God's adverse judgment in time.

We carry guilt that we do not need to carry around. Yet most people reject the chance to be free and more at ease with themselves and their fellow believers.


Another Update, May 20, 2011
Back to Top

I came across this from this link:
http://www.kyria.com/topics/marriagefamily/marriage/romancesex/6m3062.html?start=2

I will use quote from this article to explore a few more points or further reinforce them. I am rather amused by the attempts to vilify porn and man's nature as well.

It is said:    “The visual stimuli of pornography leave powerful and lasting memory traces.”

I'll say this: I have not personally found many porn pictures or videos that left lasting impressionable traces. I have found ordinary pictures that often did more. As well, I found the most powerful and lasting impressions or memories came from regular interactions with women, unknown to them, of course. I also find that much porn is forgettable. Note that most men do not revisit many porn pictures, despite saving them on computer or magazine collections. It is man's insatiable craving for variety. As odd, too, is that men often cheat on women not nearly as attractive as their wives. Why?

Because you don't have to be the most beautiful woman to attract and excite a man. An "ordinary" woman can often accomplish the very same reaction. Its not the beauty that does it. It is often curiosity, the forbidden fruit syndrome, the desire for new experiences and variety, and perhaps a different personality. It is very upsetting to a woman to know her beauty is not enough or that a "lesser" woman can still do the trick just as well.

But in all the instances I mention here, what remains always is man's instinct and nature which he does not choose or have a lot to do with. His only job is to try and control it so he does not break God's law. Controlling it will never be easy. That is where many Christians sin, in suggesting that God is going to magically fix everything and wipe out the sin we are born with. He will not! That is ours till Jesus returns to fix us.

But as well, people exaggerate the power of porn. Powerful and lasting? I say fleeting and fickle! Who are they really kidding?! They have never even thought about anything they say.

They say:    “The combination of strong visual/auditory stimuli, the high risk-taking quality of "naughty" behavior and our own sexual reward system create strong patterns. But you can break through those neurological sequences by controlling your mind, substituting new mental images and relying on the power of the Holy Spirit.”

There are 2 critical statements there in bold face. Indeed, our own reward system, our limbic systems in our brains, contain strong powerful patterns and impulses. We can not fix these or stop them. They are always there whether we like it or not. This is that sin the Bible speaks of. Now, they admit the system, which is sin, whether they want to recognize it or not. Yet, they turn around and say you can break through these neurological sequences, which are better called impulses, appetites, and drives. We can not break these. We are sort of enslaved and held hostage by this sin. We can not stop these impulses. We can refuse to give in to them but not eliminate them. They are ours till we die, unless you believe in Primal Therapy as promoted by Dr. Janov and want to submit to his therapy. Otherwise, you are stuck and we all are.

The Holy Spirit will not bail you out. There are ways you can deal with these urges without denying you have impulses to the contrary. One can relieve or reduce out impulses to manageable levels if we are willing to allow more in the bedroom and accept that masturbation might be a reasonable outlet to relieve. God will not give you a way out if He has already chosen another solution for you which you do not want to admit.

They say:    “You control your mind by choosing to extinguish rather than reinforce the pornographic memories. When those images come to mind, willfully think about something else. Each time you refuse to replay the "tapes" in your mind, the associations are weakened.”

Do you see the repeated flaw in their logic? We can "extinguish" impulses and thoughts which were never started by our minds to begin with. Something much deeper in us makes those thoughts come up. We do not reinforce porn images when we give them room in our imaginations. To the contrary, we release much of the power and force they come up with, and leave them greatly diminished when we give them vent through our mates or masturbation. Anyone who has ever had powerful gripping fantasies knows full well that there is no banishing such powerful urges. They will not take no for an answer. The "associations" are never weakened unless we "exorcise" them through sexual release with our mates or ourselves.

If you deal with false assumptions, then what you try to fix with those false assumptions will fail as well. You must identify the correct problem before you can prescribe the right solution. We must deal with the true realities at hand. Christians as a whole have not done that. They live in a fantasy world of largely lies.

“They also protect you from the destructive effects of the pornography (which encourages promiscuity, creates unrealistic demands and questions a person's desirability or potency).”

What they say in essence is, porn encourages promiscuity. Do you see the insanity in that very stupid statement? It is our internal impulses that encourage and beg for promiscuity. Porn has nothing to do with it. We like porn because internally, it is an appetite we all carry and which is, due to sin, often out of control. Blame the wrong cause and you will treat the wrong problem and have no success.

As well, they say porn creates unrealistic demands? It does? I thought it was I who decided what my expectations were or should be. Porn also is said to make us question our desirability or potency. It does? I thought it was our own unjustified insecurity that did that. Let me illustrate a few examples.

A wife finds some porn magazines and sees beautiful women with great bodies that are superior to her looks. She concludes, incorrectly, that she is not good enough or can not compete with them. She is not competing with them. She thinks she is. Her husband does not look because she is not pleasing or satisfying. He looks because all female beauty is very compelling, regardless of its source. The sooner a woman can accept a man's nature, the better off she will be. Then she does not have to worry that she is not as beautiful as the porn queens. Her man is only looking. As long as he is only looking, She has no real reason for concern. But she was told porn is wrong, sinful and dangerous and much more. She has been lied to. Now she punished her man instead of putting her boot up the hind end of some stupid church leaders and gossipers.

A man might see guys in pictures and videos who are very large in their male members and might conclude by comparison that he will not satisfy his wife with his lesser sized little buddy. Again, how stupid! I know there are some slutty women who do love big things and have had enough to be well acquainted with the difference and have needs to seek the (bigger) difference due to "overuse" of their own parts. But unless you are married to one of these loose women, you will not have to worry. Most people who are dissatisfied with sex are usually their own problem. The ability to be aroused and climax are also originate internally. And they are only fixed internally. It is rarely the fault of the partner or the partner alone.

False Assumptions Plague Christianity constantly and everywhere. As well, governments take advantage of these fallacies and make use of them in their own corrupt agenda. Its easy in their war on men to say a man is fully in charge of his entire spectrum of feelings and impulses and tastes, so that, if desirable, if the man is a problem for them in some way not normally illegal, they can accuse him of thought crimes and desires and lock  him up to silence him, although they say it is to protect. That, too, is a lie.

Paul points out that Adam was not fooled but Eve was. Men are a little more problematic for those who want to rule the world so they would prefer more docile women who might not be so quick to bite the hand that feeds. Men are very competitive with each other. Women are more cooperative and tend to compromise easier. If any feel this is very unfair, you are welcomed to believe that, but I stand by what I say. It does not mean that all women are less intellectual and easily compromised but there will be more women that are then men. For example, out of 1000 men, maybe 10 will stand up against the current. In 1000 women, maybe only 5 will object. While both have very few who object, the number of men still exceeds women by twice as much. These numbers might differ from what I give as a possible example. But they illustrate the odds.

As such, women are preferred by leaders for their "obedience." As such, men are quite irritating for their independence and competitiveness with other men. How nice if we can claim they are evil and sinister for their manly desires. Then we can dispose of them as needed, if they get out of hand. Ah, treachery, how thou art loved by evil.


How Much is Too Much?
Back to Top

This is a valid and important question, for even if porn represents no sin or harm at all, it can be overdone and become an obsession/compulsion just as food, money, alcohol, drugs or anything else can. So how do we know if we are in trouble? Well, if it is interfering with normal life routines and causing some degree of dysfunctional behavior, such as always being late for work or missing work days; causing lots of money to be spent, especially if one does not have enough money to comfortably pay for the "habit." IF one is neglecting other important things in life, especially Bible study or school studies and education, then its a real problem.

Or maybe we find ourselves wanting far more, thinking about sex, without being married or something like that. This is not so much a porn problem but is aggravated by porn. Then we need to seriously consider getting married or seeking help. But I have some strong opinions on the control of sexual desires, which do come to the fore when presented with visual stimulation. Sexual urges are very powerful forces and are not easily tamed. Suppression will not work. And what is more, I got Sir Isaac Newton agreeing with me to some degree.

If a person has very little that they are interested in or that captures their attention or excites them, they will usually gravitate toward food or sex. So it is vital for good healthy well rounded individuals to have a number of things that really hold their interest and intrigue them or even excite them and make them want to pursue it more. Whether its sports, study and research, a good book, music, helping people, or whatever else, these occupy our minds and time and keep us from gravitating towards the lowest common denominator, our sex drive/appetite.

For me personally, being caught up in serious personal study of so many things and writing about some of them is something I have a passion for and competes with other interests. This causes sex to often have to take a back seat to other competition for my brain and body. Physical fitness also helps this. Some photography as well. Plenty of things.

As I see it, a rounded person should have lots of curiosity and interest in many things. The biggest problem is finding enough time for it all. But if you do not find something to excite you and absorb attention, then you will have a very hard time coping with sexual interests. So I don't dwell on exactly what is too much or dangerous but believe the best way is to explore life and find as many interesting things as you can and pursue what is most appealing for it it is not, then it will not hold interest long if at all. You got to compete with sexual instinct which is quite the competitor.

But also be aware that no matter how busy you are, there are going to be moments of rest and no activity and sooner or later urges will come to the fore and demand to be satisfied. Self stimulation is an important outlet to release the urge and "exorcise the demons," so to speak. Such urges will not let themselves be ignored. You can't chase them away forever. They will have to be dealt with on a regular basis. But with lots of other activities, I think you will be fine. If you seek God out, He will let Himself be found by you. Pursuing Godly knowledge will keep you relatively balanced and protected by God's spiritual armor.

Godly devotion is sort of like a good diet in that it keep you well fortified and defended from spiritual viruses.


New Thinking or Not?
Back to Top

This section is a commentary on findings from the following:
                  The Great Porn Experiment: Gary Wilson at TEDxGlasgow
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wSF82AwSDiU

I am not sure what the motivation or conclusion really was. Perhaps it was just to get us thinking, and if that was its only goal, I congratulate them. I do not think this is a religious presentation, per say.

The focus was on the unique "experiment" that has been presented to us by the internet making porn so easily available. It is showing us things about our behavior, not previously understood in a full sense. Internet porn allows what marriage does not. Constant novelty and variety. Its not just seeing a naked woman or a beautiful woman, but every sort of variety of beauty and appeal. Endless change and uniqueness. This was never available in previous times in the history of our species. It is unique to our day and age.

This effect is very powerful, very addictive. In my view, the stimulating power of a beautiful naked, fully displayed in every way - woman - is the most powerful stimulation and potential addiction in the world. Drugs by comparison, are rather tame. The speaker said that drugs like heroin, etc, only hook about 10% of users. He never specified how many men who have viewed porn, ended up hooked. But I know for a fact that many men look at porn and do not get hooked, either.

But I will say this! No man can look away from a beautiful naked woman. Wilson quoted this: "Guys who do not watch pornography do not exist" —Simon Lajeunesse, PhD. Too many Christians and others, too, do not want to admit this. They fear the power a woman's image has. It is a worthy enemy, but we can only overcome that enemy if we are willing to admit it exists.

Here were some quotes or observations given:

"Study stymied by lack of Internet porn newbies" (Everyone has been at it for some time.) Most boys start in at about 10, says Wilson.) But in the end, they found another group to compare: Former internet porn addicts – the missing control group. But this was over-blown, too. I'll address it soon.

The addiction cycle was brought up and that there are very visible brain changes in addicts. But those seem to correct/reverse themselves in those who stop addictive behavior permanently. Many different addictions like food, drugs, etc, were similar.

Concerns were expressed: "Teen brains gradually strengthen heavily used circuits-and prune back unused ones. " Yet, the evidence he gave still suggested that recovery and reversal still seem to take place in recovered addicts. In other words, young boys exposed were no more a danger than men being exposed, as far as recovery goes.

Continued consumption (of porn)

Structural brain changes:

1              Numbed pleasure response

2              Hyper-reactivity to porn

3              Willpower erosion

Willpower erosion was never quantified or even defined. I say that anything can be a temptation, even food or money. We all have to learn to cope with our desires. Wilson got into chemicals in the brain but the bottom line is, that we are dealing with addiction. No dispute there.

The effect that got the most attention was that porn was incredibly intoxicating to those new to it. But porn eventually causes one to become desensitized to porn stimulation. It ceases to get you that high. In fact, what this presentation by Wilson shows is that it, over time, cripples sexual response in men. This is the very same effect of drug addictions. Pain killers stop killing the pain or are not nearly as effective. Like all addictions, it is never enough. I do want to give some attention to the deadening-desensitizing effects. Mainly mentioned was Erectile Dysfunction. Men could not get it up anymore over naked women or even real women in person live, in the bedroom.

Porn-Induced Erectile Dysfunction (ED)

Recovery Times

Older men: 2 months

Young men: 4 - 5 months

I suggest that younger men take longer to get over ED because the testosterone is much higher in younger men than older ones. So the addiction is also stronger and longer to overcome.

"Internet Porn is Killing Young Men's Sexual Performance" - Survey by the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine, February, 2011

  "It starts with lower reactions to porn sites. Then there is a general drop in libido, and in the end it becomes impossible to get an erection." - Dr. Carlo Foresta, head of the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine Internet Addiction Brain Studies.

Now think about this! What was the moral danger of no longer being able to respond to sexual stimuli, providing you are not married, which means with marital obligations in the bedroom? No danger. Porn loses its power. I see this as very positive. Why? You get the excitement out of your system. Soon, a beautiful, naked, provocative women is just an ordinary thing. We put it in perspective and balance. Now other qualities can take on added importance like personality, care, concern, nurturing, intelligence, talent, values, etc.

Of course, visual appeal is not the only force that causes adultery or promiscuousness. The thrill of seduction or "conquering" if you will. The thrill of the chase, the challenge of it all! Further, those things which get amplified with your wife, also can get amplified with other women. Each women represents variety and novelty, even if it is more due to personality than looks. Porn has always been a good escape goat for those who do not want to admit any moral failure. Blame the porn! "The porn made me do it!"

Who dares blame the personality? The novelty? No one I know! Sex is an overwhelming temptation, if we have never addressed why it is so. But I will say this to consider. When sex is new, it is very powerful. Why? Because God intended that the 1st love was powerful and lasting. It will wear off in time, but there is enough in that 1st encounter at its start, that should last and prevail. Concern for the other person's feelings should stop any wandering. So that initial strong, powerful, deep reaction cements the long term effect.

But porn does not seem to present a real danger at all. The desire to wander is not caused or even related to porn. It is the desire for variety and novelty, which are very superficial and meaningless. The affair quickly loses that intensity and is no better than the marriage, if not less than the marriage. We need to see marriage as God intended it.

I do note another aspect brought up by Wilson. I have always said that many men, particularly those on the make or the prowl, think about sex 99% of the time. The rest only think about it 90% of the time, which means they think about other things 10 times more than those always on the lookout for sex. Said another way, some men spend 1% of their time not thinking about sex whereas others spend 10% doing do. The 2 by comparison are quite different. Wilson makes these quotes:

"Since quitting, girls notice me or did I simply start noticing them noticing me?"

"I've been to psychologists and psychiatrists for the last 8 years..." "My anxiety is nonexistent. My memory and focus are sharper than they've ever been. I feel like a huge 'chick magnet,' and my ED is gone too. I seriously think I had a rebirth, a second chance at life."

"I feel like the next Sir Isaac Newton or Leonardo da Vinci. Since I quit a month ago, I've literally: started a business, taken up piano, been studying French every day, been programming, drawing... and have more awesome ideas than I know what to do with...."

And this is why I say that often, the best thing about men getting old and testosterone levels dropping is that they finally discover they have a brain, and not just a penis. What a shock! Being young and healthy are both very hard to contend with. Temptation is at its greatest and most available. When those disappear, we have time to think about things. This is why old age is valuable. You don't know what you had till you lose it. Then you can reflect.

But what Wilson's presentation shows is that porn is not the danger that many make it out to be. It might even be a help. You can't get a picture pregnant nor hurt its feelings. I think it is possible that Wilson was simply trying to show that thinking and many other possibilities open up if we get past the sex thing. And if this is so, I applaud his efforts. I do think it banished those porn bashers. And that is a good thing, too!


Gary Wilson & TED II
Back to Top

This addresses an article in "The Bollard," a local Portland monthly paper, also available online ( thebollard.com ), November 2013 issue, pg. 18:
SeXXX Education - How Maine schools open doors to porn

While this highlights "Portland's" problem, it admits it is a nation-wide problem, if not world-wide as well. Schools have introduced laptops and now iPad tablets. Students have constant 24 hour access to the school computers and online activity. This allows unlimited access to porn, which is likely the number one use of these iPad tablets. It appears to be beyond the ability of most parents to control and many would not know how, if they wanted to stop it. In fact, it is likely not something that can be stopped.

Although schools and school officials deny responsibility here and across the nation, I believe it was the intention of the government to allow this access to porn, ultimately. Whether this is so or not, matters not, for regardless, porn is now within reach of anyone of any age, and boys are delighted beyond words. Now boys face the same temptations as men with largely the same results as with men. Porn is addictive. Males can not resist its incredible appeal, which is the appeal of beautiful naked women.

I want to bring up as a side point that Google Chrome browsers supposedly allow you to browse incognito. Illicit pages are not recorded in the history of the browser. Safari and Firefox can do the same thing. This could lead some to believe that this might protect them from law enforcement or secret government agencies from knowing what they are looking at and visiting. Don't believe that for 1 second. You might escape detection by parents, but not spies, which are mostly the government type. There are no nice guys when it comes to browsers, internet services, search engines, or anything else. So be careful my friends. The Devil watches us all, at all times. Make no mistake about that! His human servants do the same in his behalf. Do not doubt that for a milli-second.

Anyway, let me introduce you to Dawn Hawkins, Executive Director of Morality in Media, a national anti-porn organization. She is quoted in the Bollard article. That means there will be little to no credibility in she or they say. Just watch! Hawkins:

"We know it's a huge, huge problem with the youth, she continued."

>> OK, what kind of problem is it? Always vague generalities. No doubt, all or nearly all young males are viewing it a lot. But she has not statistics or data with any concrete numbers. You'll find no science here!<<

"This kind of material can ruin their lives."

>> How so? But in fact, eating can ruin lives. Drugs can ruin lives. Hoarding can ruin lives. My mother destroyed her health and died sooner than she had to, because she could not stop buying and hoarding and feeding animals and living rats, pigeons, and squirrels. Some starve themselves to death, thinking they are fat all the while. Any behavior can go to far. How far does a porn addict need to go before he is truly harmed or "ruined?"<<

"We're finding so many people addicted to porn, engaging in dangerous activity, like group sex acts, that any age is not safe."

>> Here is the next big problem. She links other problems as being a porn problem. She has no idea which problem she is really concerned with or addressing. Confused and lost with no credibility insight. What constitutes an addiction to port, I ask? Engaging in dangerous sexual activity is not porn anymore. Now we are talking about sex, not porn. Porn is just pictures. Sex is a whole other subject but she has not figured that out yet. Clearly, the young exist to day with no standards at all. Most parents today were brought up in a promiscuous environment and were often promiscuous or with multiple partners before marrying or getting pregnant. This is not the problem of porn. Porn knows where to stop - with pictures, not real activity.<<

"Sex trafficking, prostitution, rape, sexual violence; all that is a lot more prominent when pornography is involved."

>> What she is really saying or implying is that porn causes all those other problems. Porn make you rape, trafficking, prostitute and be violent during sex. All from seeing a picture! Imagine that! Its sheer nonsense! The male instinct, twisted by society and the inherited sin of Adam, is certainly a problem that seeks out many different outlets. Porn is often the 1st stop. But the instinct demands more and they do not limit themselves, even as some overeat or whatever. Do we blame food when people overeat? Do we suggest banning food? Of course, that would be insane and yet we suggest banning photos, like that will stop the male instinct. See the problem?<<

Magazine says: "Hawkins noted that it's difficult to scientifically study the effects of Internet porn because researchers have a hard time assembling a control group of young male subjects who don't watch smut online."

This was what Gary Wilson pointed out in the section above. But Gary did show us that most porn addicts can recover. In fact, Gary shows us a more constructive interpretation of porn "addiction" by pointing out that there are other worthwhile things to pursue that have meaning and give meaning to our lives and that maybe what is lacking in too many of our lives is a meaningful pursuit in life that would help override our base instinctive behaviors.

To be sure, there is a temporary joy in sexual pleasure with strong urge to pursue that, as God intended there to be. But this was only one of many pleasures He intended for us. There are many other meaningful pursuits that we should be pursuing. But are we showing out kids that? Are we doing that ourselves. My argument has been for many years that pursuing God on many levels for wisdom and understanding, for growing in intellectual powers and reaching out to others are good things to pursue.

One thing for sure, though. Gorgeous naked women will never stop being extremely appealing to the male species. Another thing for sure now. The devil has seen to it that all children will the thoroughly tempted and tested to their very limits and parents will not be able to stop this, nor should they. What they should do is prepare their kids for temptations, to be able to resist them or handle them without bring harm to themselves and overly distracting themselves from other important pursuits.

Time to stop blaming porn for parental inadequacies and lack of child teaching and preparation. If you have a boy, and I am not ruling out girls, but it is more certain with boys, that they will see porn and they will enjoy it. They will get an incredible high from it at first. Parents need to come to grips with this and stop thinking they can stop this. The devil will not be denied his chance.

You can run but you can not hide and you can not shelter and hide your kids from it, either. Stop being so ridiculous about pictures and start teaching kids how to understand people and treat their feelings with respect. Most kids today are vicious and cruel to other kids and adults, too. this is the real cause of sexual violence, violent kids without compassion or caring. The anti-porn crowd has missed this one, too.

It really comes down to credibility, something that so called Christians parents have never had because they never have given anything 2 cents worth of serious thought. They have not used their brains at all, which is the problem the kids end up having as well. As they say, the fruit does not fall far from the tree! The parents and church leaders have never had any credibility in the eyes of youth since the 1940s, if not since the beginning of time.

We shall reap what we have sown and if we do not sow or plant anything, nothing will grow for us, either. Are you going to keep making the very same stupid mistakes that every generation before you has made, or are you finally going to wake up in the last days? I have thought this important enough to write in long extensive detail to try to show the errors that have plagued us from the beginning of time. I gave my life to it. Now its your turn to give it some serious credible thought.

Here is what most stupid religions, dumb feminists, and governments with evil intent can not accept or want to ignore.

Sex and the Power of the Visual    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9WZFeA4FzI

He Wants You    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlZsGpWJmos



What Happened, Anyway?
Back to Top

Sexual restraint, control, and discipline are essential for a good healthy society of imperfect or perfect people. But we have rejected good sense and are no longer content to put up with healthful teaching and living. And we are constantly enticed to join in the sexual rebellion/revolution and enjoy ourselves. And for a brief time we would. But in not much more time, our world will totally collapse from our recklessness and rejection of Christ and his rules and regulations.

The History Channel broadcasted a short multi-part series entitled "Sex in the 20th Century." The show I saw was on Monday, April 23, 2001 in the evening. The comment made on the show was that sexual attitudes and practices have changed more in the last 100 years than in the previous 10,000 years. I would agree! But why? And was it good or bad?

Part of the problem stemmed from Victorian Society in the late 19th century, which went to the other extreme of the pendulum. Victorianism was very repressive and overly conservative compared to the previous attitudes in previous ages. I will deal with that more in another article, too. It did no one any good, anyway. It was this movement that destroyed the credibility of more moderate conservatives in the USA. The liberal subversives used this extremism of the Victorian age that had been passed down to discredit all American conservatism which had much value to society.

People did not want to be constrained by the overly unrealistic and oppressive burdens of Victorian prudishness. So they fought for birth control, porn, dating, less clothing, and everything else. At first, many of their crusades were reasonable and legitimate such as birth control and perhaps some clothing modifications. But they did not want to just break out of that which was too restrictive. They wanted, ultimately, to reject God's laws entirely. This was neither wise nor prudent for anyone.

But what many fail to realize is that the Comstock laws, forerunner of the FBI morality laws, were as much a contributor to this problem as Victorians were. As Well, there were forces in industry and commerce who sought to radically change our sexual views and practices by means of non-profit corporations who sought to influence government laws and public views so as to create a great change in sexual behavior. This is why things changes so little over 10,000 years and then suddenly, abruptly, and radically, sexual behavior was so drastically changed in the last 100 years.

But you will note that the Bible warned about trying to be too righteous and expect too much as Victorianism did. It failed, didn't it? And it will always fail. We need to be realistic about what we can expect. And that naked women have such an incredible narcotic affect on men, should we deny this in pictures or videos? It is too powerful, too easy to get, too hard to stop and not that harmful, either. Men will seek out what they want, anyway, in most cases. So let those satisfied by porn be allowed to have it so that we will not have as many problems with prostitution, non-marital sex and other more harmful vices. Those who are sexual deviants and will not constrain themselves will not be satisfied with porn or anything else.

But on the other hand, many have gone from cradle to the grave viewing porn and nothing ever coming from it. This will never be admitted by many but it is the absolute truth. And of some women who are hurt by finding their husbands viewing porn, they really don't have a good excuse for getting very upset. Such a powerful drug as beauty should at least be allowed this minor indulgence by a husband/man. If a woman can not understand that her husband is a man and that a man will be affected by beauty, then she has no business getting married in the first place. She is not able to accept what all men are. She should keep to herself rather than try to change a man, which is just not fair. Would it be fair for a man to try to change a woman to get her to behave more to his liking? We both must accept each other for what we really are and not get fooled by myths, distortions, lies and expect what we have no right to expect in each other. Nor do we have any business finding fault with what God has made us.

Men are men! Deal with it, ladies! Your husband's predisposition to beauty is natural and not by and of itself, a threat or danger or a slight to you. It you were the most beautiful woman in the world (as if there was just one), he would still love viewing the wide variety of beauty abundant in the world. This is what you should have been told by your moms and dads a long time ago. Your church leaders should also have made this clear. It is the truth and it is high time someone said it. I guess that someone had to be me. Someone has/had to do it. I accept the assignment.

So compared to Victorianism, so completely unreasonable and unrealistic, what liberal subversives suggested after, seemed rational and reasonable at first. But now that we are getting a good dose of what radical liberalism brings, and we can see that it is no better than that which it condemned in Victorianism. There is a reasonable moderate happy medium, which we need to find. And no one is better qualified than God, Himself, to guide us in the way that is right. The Bible has not changed. It is the same as it ever was. Only our understanding of it has changed. And maybe it needs to change some more. That is why I wrote this.

We look at the 50's and how people objected to the gyrations of Elvis Presley or the moderately "long" hair of the early Beatles or Rolling Stones. The 50s parents also heavily objected to the music in general. It seems silly, doesn't it? But then we kept going further, pushing things to the limit all the time. Before we know it, now we encourage and allow nearly anything on stage or on screen and I think it is very harmful. We went too far.

Now we need to look at the 50's and the 90's and see where we went wrong, where we crossed the line. We need to find that happy healthy medium. We need to draw a line in the sand and hold to it. My goal in writing here was to help us find that happy medium that we are in such desperate need of. We don't want to be prudes but neither do we want to be reckless, immoral degenerates past all good sense. I hope I have helped toward reaching something of a happy and healthy middle ground that will lead to proper living that will let us into the Kingdom of God.

So I don't want anyone to run out and recklessly indulge in pornography with caution thrown to the wind. That was not what I wanted or intended. But if we expect our young to be denied the proper outlet for their sexual desires upon the arrival of puberty, then we must allow some partial exploration of the opposite sex by means of porn, or we can be damned sure that they will fail by doing something much worse. Porn is a far better result than fornication or adultery. Put porn in perspective. It is pictures that are very exciting and pictures can not do much and neither can we do much with pictures. It is just that simple.

And in the bedroom, there needs to be more understanding and perhaps, playfulness. Couples should enjoy each other and have fun. Sex was supposed to be fun and enjoyable and especially guilt free. And so it should be. It is also natural to be curious about it and want to know as much as possible. People should not be hindered in gaining that knowledge. Ignorance is never bliss. Knowledge is always power and good. So if the young want to read about it, I would say that is fine. Knowledge is not dangerous or fornication, either.

Paul offers this counsel for all to consider.
Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another.

Yes, there are a number of things I have shown you could do that would not constitute a sin or constitute very little sin and we all have a little in us that must be allowed. But it is not an excuse to kick up our heals. That was never my intention.

We need to acknowledge the sin in humanity and allow for a certain amount of grace among Christians. The Bible commands that Christians love one another. True love means we will not be harsh, demanding, or unreasonable in what we require of our brothers. Our demand for righteousness will be tempered with love and mercy upon the human condition of Christ's brothers. That was my mission in writing this and the many other things I have written.

Further, we need to stop the very unjust, unfair, witch-hunt war we are waging against men and their instinctive love of beauty for which they were born with and which makes the world go around and was created by God, no less. It need not be feared or misunderstood. It is not a threat or danger. If some men go beyond the boundaries, which some will, then we can punish them as we do thieves, murders, traitors and the like. That is what the justice system is for.

Jesus said, I want mercy and not sacrifice! His entire ministry was in opposition to the Pharisees, who were always looking down on the people and judging the people harshly and acting self-righteous when they had no love in their hearts. Jesus had a way of bringing out tears and repentance in people as Jesus showed love and mercy, whereas they had previously felt unredeemable and unworthy because of people like the Pharisees. Jesus showed them that there was still hope for them in regards to God.

Young people today face a world a hundred times more harsh and bizarre than anything that any of us have ever experienced prior to maybe 1980. They are in a similar position to what many were in Israel when Jesus arrived. The young people need help, much more than we ever did. And they need a more realistic and reasonable standard for which to try and live up to. If the expectations are not realistic and are too far out of reach, then the young people will give up hope and not bother.



Sticks and Stones . . .
Back to Top

So I wrote what has occurred to me to be a more realistic evaluation of what God really expects of us. I have given it no small amount of thought. I didn't want to be reckless as the 60's counter-culture was in rejecting everything they had ever been taught. I tried to be very careful. This is the result. I would love to hear feedback on it. I expect it to ruffle some feathers. There are many modern day Pharisees who will be just as insensible and hard hearted as those of Jesus day. They went so far as to crucify Jesus on a cross. They made all sorts of unjust accusations against him while he was alive, until finally they managed to get him executed.

So I would not be surprised to be called lots of vile names for what I have written. Self-righteousness is a disease that knows no boundaries as is amply demonstrated in the death of Jesus. But I hope that some will be reached and helped by what I have written, just as many were helped by Jesus before his death. And of course, by his death, all were helped so much more.

I add now on Aug. 4, 2008, that I have had some interesting responses to my sex articles. I have had many who responded very enthusiastically, to say the least and I kept all their comments. But for a few of those, they saw it as an excuse to totally cut loose. I did not ever say that fornication or adultery were OK. I said masturbation could not be shown to be wrong and that porn did not likely present any real danger, anymore than food or money does. But some want to break loose and will use any excuse to do so. They shall be judged. But most found it to be incredibly liberating of guilt and a breath of fresh air, which is what it was intended to be.

And of course, where would we be without the modern day Pharisees. The funda-mental-ists of various sorts find my stuff horrible, for I do not honor their traditions (that have no Bible merit) and they say I am wrong to set my sights so low for people. They ignore how badly they have failed their young and lost most of their young to the world and to the devil. They see failure and defeat as a victory. It must be wonderful to be so blind and oblivious to the truth. However, they also fail to see that they shall be judged in the same manner as they judged others. They don't seem to grasp the implications of this. I am willing to stand before God for what I have written and published. And I shall be judged with a heavier judgment but then again, I would be judged if I, with my knowledge and ability, were to refrain from trying to guide people to the truth of God's word. So I can not escape judgment, one way or the other, and can only avoid the worst by doing my best and being reasonable in my demands of those who want to serve God. I hope the "Fundies" are as well prepared.

They do not understand the concept of priorities and giving lots of attention to the big concerns and not sweating the little concerns. They want to try to live perfectly, which to the best of my knowledge is first, impossible, and second, will only bring disaster due to its guaranteed failure. But just as Jesus could not reason with the Pharisees, so I have not been able to reason with the Fundies and do not care. They must be judged just as the Fundies of Jesus' day were judged. You who have read this have seldom ever come across such a thing as this. Now you can make a better decision with better broader information to consider. Consider it wisely for there is little time left to consider anything.

It is unfortunate that I had to even bring this subject up. It should not have been necessary except for the fact that most who call themselves Christians, gutless spineless wonders that they are, are so afraid of dealing with this subject, that they have given it a great stigma and caused enormous guilt in dealing with it. Their idea is that if you ignore it, it will go away. Of course, that has never worked but they keep on doing it anyway. Further, I ask, what are they afraid of? Is sex, in itself, a sin? Or is it just sex without marriage that is wrong? I surely hope they can answer that one right. If it is OK at all and it is, then why ignore it or worse, run from it?

While there was a time when no one talked about it, that certainly is not the case today. It is discussed everywhere on TV, radio, books, magazines, newspapers, therapist's offices and between many friends, co-workers, etc. So then why are we will still so ashamed of it as is no one spoke of it anywhere, ever? That is why I had to bring and and address something that should not have been necessary. But it does not bother me to bring it up. It bothers a lot of others that I bring it up. Sex is supposed to be fun and enjoyed if a couple is married. But due to stupid movements of mankind's past, often a rather recent past, everyone has been fooled into guilt and shame. I hope I have exercised the demons and gotten rid of the unjust guilt that has hampered the ability of couples to enjoy themselves and their sexual abilities, which God endowed them with and called it, "GOOD!"

As it was revealed in a vision to Peter about eating unclean things, the voice in the vision said, "stop calling unclean what God has sanctified--made pure--called clean!

(RSV) Acts 10:
9  The next day, as they were on their journey and coming near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour.
10  And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance
11  and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth.
12  In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
13  And there came a voice to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
14  But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
15  And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed, you must not call common."
16  This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

Are you listening??? Yes, I will be called a pervert even as Jesus was called a glutton, a drunkard, and possessed of a demon, a sinner who healed on the Sabbath, etc. It comes with the territory. But when a wrong has been committed, as is the case with sex having been twisted and distorted by the devil and his followers, then one can no longer continue to ignore the subject. And there is no need to ignore it anyway, as if there was anything truly wrong with it under the right circumstances.

So if you are married, enjoy the few benefits of marriage and cut loose and enjoy each other. Satan has made life so difficult that marriage has almost become a curse. If you can't enjoy sex without guilt, your marriage will almost surely fail. Really, when you think about it, sex, by nature, is where you cut lose, loose control,  and get lost in the delight of the senses. If you can't let go and get lost in the joy and pleasure of it all, then what hope is there for you? If one can not enjoy life in some small way now in this life, you might as well consider ending it all. Don't let the devil or his followers who call themselves Christians but are not, push you around and rob you of the joy God intended for you to have if you are married. That would be wrong in every way. It's yours, God gave it to you, enjoy it with enthusiasm, vigor, and a clean conscience as God intended.

And if you are single, you need not feel guilty that you feel so attracted and drawn to porn. I personally would be worried if you were not. If you have arrived at puberty and are not married, you have my condolences and empathy. But as well, I will not judge you for enjoying the sight of beautiful naked women when opportunities present themselves to see such things once in a while. You are as a man was intended to be. Don't let others look down on you for that. You have nothing to be ashamed of in your love and passion for female beauty. But do not let it cause you to fornicate for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.


Related Articles
Our Sinful Condition
What is Lust
Is Masturbation Wrong?

Nudity & Modesty

Vulgar and Sexual language in the Bible
Sex Taboos
Marrying Young
Neutrality and War

The Christian Conscience


 
Back to Home/Index/        Truth 1 - The best site on the internet!

Back to Top