02-08-2007, 05:27 AM | #111 |
Senior Member
|
Yes, the Church should listen to Archaea......lol. That way they get a textbook example and can learn how to replace inspiration from the Spirit with arrogance of stubborn, unchangeable and WRONG opinions....because of course, like UtahDan, SU and CaliCoug, Archaea is always right no matter what.
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'. Last edited by RockyBalboa; 02-08-2007 at 05:57 AM. |
02-08-2007, 06:03 AM | #112 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Jordan
Posts: 1,725
|
Quote:
I was trying for humor but sometimes my version of funny isn't the same as everybody else's version |
|
02-08-2007, 12:17 PM | #113 | |
Active LDS Ute Fan
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nantucket : )
Posts: 2,566
|
Quote:
__________________
"It's not like we played the school of the blind out there." - Brian Johnson. |
|
02-08-2007, 12:18 PM | #114 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: M-I-S-S-I-S-S-I-P-P-I... Isn't it so fun to spell?
Posts: 1,701
|
Quote:
__________________
"Mormon men are inherently sexy..." -Archaea |
|
02-08-2007, 01:52 PM | #115 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 533
|
This thread has certainly evolved!
This topic has really gone places that I never imagine!
Reviewing some responses: 1) I agree that the problem with pornography is worse in the church, causes more problems (in the church) than that of alcohol or drugs. I don't have the numbers to back it up, but I get a feel that in general, our membership has been ingrained sufficiently long, that "drugs & alchohol" are "bad", against the WoW and have this challenge in manageable form. 2) Times change. Drugs & alcohol "used" to be a problem. Addiction could result, chemical reaction take place..problem. However, the adversary has a new tool. Porn. In a way, I can see a porn abuser becoming addicted rather easily. Once viewed, natural hormones released...get that "high" without thinking you're actually "taking anything into your body" <<like drugs or alcohol>>...but you ARE taking something into your body. Worse than drugs or alcohol...once they are gone...they are gone. But, IMAGES stay in your mind forever. Can be recalled at will. This 'high' can be 'recalled' without ingesting something. Verrrry dangerous. 3) Most 'men' <<speaking of men only here>> are more 'visual' than are women. It's in our makeup. Therefore, again, it is most likely MORE addictive than drugs or alcohol because it is the more near the same effect on 'most' males. Alcohol abuse/addiction is very different for people. Becoming an alcoholic is very addictive for very few people...some have had to purposely abuse alcohol etc. to the point where it had to become addictive. Porn..in my opinion, works immediately on most people. I would tend to believe that a very high percentage of viewers get the desired reaction that they were looking for upon their decision to look. 4) Combine this instant reaction <<hormones released>>, ability to be recalled whenever needed, convince a young man (teen/20's) ie. high sexual drive, you've got trouble...you've got someone that will easily become addicted. 5) If years of this ensues, can any women measure up? Physically? Visually? Sexually? You've got a problem. 6) Combine this with marriages where things aren't all that cozy. For whatever reason, if intimacy isn't what is should be for whatever reason...if a man either chooses to go there, or reverts back to it....you've got problems. Naivity is NOT the correct response when countering the effects of porn. It is a reality, it is a major problem, it is I believe, THE main cause of ruining marriages, keeping young men off missions, keeping young men from postponing marriage/committing to meaningful relationships to eligible young women. If one believes it is NOT a problem, I think you've got your head in the sand, and don't have a firm grip on what is going on in the world, and especially in the LDS world.
__________________
Hello......helloo.......HELLLOOO! |
02-08-2007, 02:19 PM | #116 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
02-08-2007, 02:24 PM | #117 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
02-08-2007, 03:00 PM | #118 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The People's Republic of Monsanto
Posts: 3,085
|
Quote:
Ideas about visuality and masculinity are rooted in the assumption that males are more reasoned and rational, that they are, to use the enlightenment terms, more empirical and objective. This bias has been used to keep women from holding public power (the Victorians really took this to the extreme--Victorian women came down with the "vapors.") and to define activities associated with the feminine as frivolous, sensuous, and irrational. To the degree that this is true it is in large part because we have culturally made it so. We have naturalized ideology and treated it as objective fact. Culturally speaking, this comes to a boil with a simple fact: the male gaze has a cultural acceptance that the female gaze does not. This derives from the fact that our culture is very much patriarchal and is the rationale behind such fascinating phenomena as both men's pornographic magazines and women's fashion magazines having hyper-sexualized women on their covers. Women's sexuality is being constructed on masculine terms. These covers tell men what to like and women to be what men like. The rise of "Men's Health" culture may reflect that women's gaze might be being rehabilitated. The jury is still out on this. Another result of our patriarchal culture is that female sexuality is constructed with much greater specificity than is male sexuality. Sure, there are "hunky" guys, but women's expectations of male attractiveness have many exceptions and have greater variation. Female sexuality, on the other hand, is obsessively precise, is in some measure infantilizing (women are encouraged to shave legs and arm pits, to be pre-pubescently thin, are encouraged to look youthful, and should be "moist"--an obsession that has its roots in fertility and menstruation). So many women have come to construct their own femininity on masculine terms--welcome to hegemony. It should be no surprise, then, that both women and men have come to think of women as less visual. Our culture discourages women from exploring their visuality. It punishes them for doing so. Study after study has demonstrated that human sexual behavior has great commonality with the sexual behavior of other primates. Female primates will stick out their chests and posteriors to attract mates. It is not a coincidence that this is the same posture that occurs when a woman wears high heels. Similarly, primate males will flex their arms and chests, and will display the food they have gathered to attract females. One need spend only about two minutes in a singles bar to see men doing this with their postures and wallets. These behaviors are in some sense inherited. Problems arise when the behaviors of one sex are used culturally to trivialize that sex, and when behaviors of attraction are compelled in otherwise neutral contexts. Men put on tuxedos for special occasions, but women put on their sexuality every day. If a man looks unkempt he will be given a pass in many situations--he may even be applauded. If a woman goes out without makeup and without her hair done and wearing sweat pants, many people will semi-consciously disapprove of her and some will wonder if she's having her period. Maleness is normative, femaleness is not. In a broader sense you have the "Cougars" and the "Lady Courgars." So women's sexuality is used against them and visuality is no exception. Many women recognize this on some level and so are caught between resenting their own sexuality and embracing it at the risk of cultural disapproval. Symbolically, our culture still sends women to the edge of the village. Historically speaking, the priveliging of sight over other senses that has arrived with the Enlightenment contributes to the porn problem. Sight is a distancing sense, a sense that always communicates our seperateness from others. In that sense (literally) porn is alienating. It is also a commodity and so is about the repetition of sameness. Sex, on the other hand, is about all of the senses and like natural reproduction, is about the repetition of difference. Check out my rated-R post (or I can board mail it to you), for more detail on this. I'm just summarizing here.
__________________
"Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; " 1 Thess. 5:21 (NRSV) We all trust our own unorthodoxies. Last edited by Sleeping in EQ; 02-08-2007 at 03:24 PM. |
|
02-08-2007, 03:37 PM | #119 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Very enlightening, Professor. Or should I say, very, post-modernistic.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
02-08-2007, 03:52 PM | #120 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Drum 1 Rocky 0
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|