BaylorFTW said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't perceive Prairie Bear as being pro-porn. I think like most Americans, including myself, he just wants the government to stay the Hell out of our bedrooms and personal lives as much as possible. You cannot legislate morality.

No offense to Rep. Powell, but I think legislation should be introduced declaring politicians a public health hazard.

---

Of course you can legislate morality. We do it all the time. The real issue is with enforcement and not legislation and whether the government is willing to push enforcement of unpopular laws. But even there it can be done.

And once again, ubiquitous porn is not a freedoms issue it is a public health hazard issue.

---

Morality is a subjective topic. What is immoral to you may not be for someone else. What is next? We ban all dresses and skirts for women that are above the knee-line? We outlaw cleavage?

BaylorFTW said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't perceive Prairie Bear as being pro-porn. I think like most Americans, including myself, he just wants the government to stay the Hell out of our bedrooms and personal lives as much as possible. You cannot legislate morality.

No offense to Rep. Powell, but I think legislation should be introduced declaring politicians a public health hazard.

---

Of course you can legislate morality. We do it all the time. The real issue is with enforcement and not legislation and whether the government is willing to push enforcement of unpopular laws. But even there it can be done.

And once again, ubiquitous porn is not a freedoms issue it is a public health hazard issue.

---

By your standards the internet is a public health hazard and deserves government intervention - disagree.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't perceive Prairie Bear as being pro-porn. I think like most Americans, including myself, he just wants the government to stay the Hell out of our bedrooms and personal lives as much as possible. You cannot legislate morality.

No offense to Rep. Powell, but I think legislation should be introduced declaring politicians a public health hazard.

---

Of course you can legislate morality. We do it all the time. The real issue is with enforcement and not legislation and whether the government is willing to push enforcement of unpopular laws. But even there it can be done.

And once again, ubiquitous porn is not a freedoms issue it is a public health hazard issue.

---

Morality is a subjective topic. What is immoral to you may not be for someone else. What is next? We ban all dresses and skirts for women that are above the knee-line? We outlaw cleavage?

---

Christians have absolute/objective morality from God. Subjective morality is a problem for atheists and agnostics as they lack an objective standard on which to base their morality.

Also, we can come together as a society and generally agree upon where the lines should be drawn. We have done it in the past and can do it again. I wish we could get to the point where we have cleaned up morality so much we are worrying about dress length.

However, I should say that my high school did have a dress/shorts length requirement for women. If it was too short, you were sent home. And on one of my jobs, the company had requirements on what kinds of clothes could be worn. For example, women couldn't wear capris. So they were able to legislate some morality. And guess what, the world kept on spinning and the sun came up every morning.

Keyser Soze said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't perceive Prairie Bear as being pro-porn. I think like most Americans, including myself, he just wants the government to stay the Hell out of our bedrooms and personal lives as much as possible. You cannot legislate morality.

No offense to Rep. Powell, but I think legislation should be introduced declaring politicians a public health hazard.

---

Of course you can legislate morality. We do it all the time. The real issue is with enforcement and not legislation and whether the government is willing to push enforcement of unpopular laws. But even there it can be done.

And once again, ubiquitous porn is not a freedoms issue it is a public health hazard issue.

---

By your standards the internet is a public health hazard and deserves government intervention - disagree.

---

Let's save that for another thread. I am disappointed that so many of you keep trying to deflect to other topics rather than deal with the issue at hand.

BaylorFTW said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't perceive Prairie Bear as being pro-porn. I think like most Americans, including myself, he just wants the government to stay the Hell out of our bedrooms and personal lives as much as possible. You cannot legislate morality.

No offense to Rep. Powell, but I think legislation should be introduced declaring politicians a public health hazard.

---

Of course you can legislate morality. We do it all the time. The real issue is with enforcement and not legislation and whether the government is willing to push enforcement of unpopular laws. But even there it can be done.

And once again, ubiquitous porn is not a freedoms issue it is a public health hazard issue.

---

By your standards the internet is a public health hazard and deserves government intervention - disagree.

---

Let's save that for another thread. I am disappointed that so many of you keep trying to deflect to other topics rather than deal with the issue at hand.

---

It is not deflection at all. I agree 100% porn is bad. Just disagree that it is the government's roll to separate the public from bad things.

Cigarettes, fatty foods, sugar, suggestive music, certain words .... where to start where to begin? I don't trust you to make that list and you would do a better job than the government.

BaylorFTW said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't perceive Prairie Bear as being pro-porn. I think like most Americans, including myself, he just wants the government to stay the Hell out of our bedrooms and personal lives as much as possible. You cannot legislate morality.

No offense to Rep. Powell, but I think legislation should be introduced declaring politicians a public health hazard.

---

Of course you can legislate morality. We do it all the time. The real issue is with enforcement and not legislation and whether the government is willing to push enforcement of unpopular laws. But even there it can be done.

And once again, ubiquitous porn is not a freedoms issue it is a public health hazard issue.

---

Morality is a subjective topic. What is immoral to you may not be for someone else. What is next? We ban all dresses and skirts for women that are above the knee-line? We outlaw cleavage?

---

Christians have absolute/objective morality from God. Subjective morality is a problem for atheists and agnostics as they lack an objective standard on which to base their morality.

---

I respect your opinion, but I think you are being a little nave and idealistic. So you are saying that atheists and agnostics cannot be moral people? I am a Christian but I disagree. Even Christians themselves disagree on what may considered moral. In my opinion, the Bible left us some guidelines to follow but at times some pretty blurry "instructions". Deuteronomy 22:5 says "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone that does this." Personally, I don't think it is morally wrong for a woman to wear slacks.

BUMBA1 said:

---

Porn is nothing to play with. It is one of the enemies many weapons used today to introduce sexual immorality and a warped concept of intimacy into the minds of young people. Sex outside of God's design leads to chaos and destruction.

---

Hi Mom.

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

Show me where the state prevented research in to porn.

---

Read Libido Dominandi. One example deals with Judith Reisman and the OJJDP (Office of Juvenile Justice an Delinquency Prevention) in the early 1980s..

---

Got anything since my kid was born?

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/04/pornography

Pretty broad and no mention of state suppression of research.

BaylorFTW said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't perceive Prairie Bear as being pro-porn. I think like most Americans, including myself, he just wants the government to stay the Hell out of our bedrooms and personal lives as much as possible. You cannot legislate morality.

No offense to Rep. Powell, but I think legislation should be introduced declaring politicians a public health hazard.

---

Of course you can legislate morality. We do it all the time. The real issue is with enforcement and not legislation and whether the government is willing to push enforcement of unpopular laws. But even there it can be done.

And once again, ubiquitous porn is not a freedoms issue it is a public health hazard issue.

---

Morality is a subjective topic. What is immoral to you may not be for someone else. What is next? We ban all dresses and skirts for women that are above the knee-line? We outlaw cleavage?

---

Christians have absolute/objective morality from God. Subjective morality is a problem for atheists and agnostics as they lack an objective standard on which to base their morality.

Also, we can come together as a society and generally agree upon where the lines should be drawn. We have done it in the past and can do it again. I wish we could get to the point where we have cleaned up morality so much we are worrying about dress length.

However, I should say that my high school did have a dress/shorts length requirement for women. If it was too short, you were sent home. And on one of my jobs, the company had requirements on what kinds of clothes could be worn. For example, women couldn't wear capris. So they were able to legislate some morality. And guess what, the world kept on spinning and the sun came up every morning.

---

Yes the world spins in Saudi Arabia just fine.

FTW, I respect your conviction and want-to. I don't have the time nor care enough about the issue (+/-) to get in a point for point back and forth.

Off the top of my head per your post, I find it disingenuous to pick/choose outrage. When a vast portion of any congregation needs a mirror to see their genitalia or there is a financed new car "look at me" lineup in the parking lot, or their divorce rates are the same as general pop (I could go on), picking this to be legislated is a bad look. We have a consumption problem in this country. "Only a fool" would think those issues don't spill into their everyday life.

If you knew anything about me, you would know I love research. I literally got back in town last night from a 3 day health care seminar which I presented a case study at. I don't start from an answer and then form my question (like you do) I am open to where data points me. In addition, I'm not religious so justifying a "sin" is laughable. Its been a long time since I've searched anything. My personal belief is that as long as no children are involved (Catholic church) and everyone is consenting more power to ya, and if it's not your thing that's great too. Personally, I find your over the top judgmental attitude proof as why the church isn't for me, so thank you for that anti-witness.

Lastly, I am not pro porn, I'm pro anti-gov in my home. If used responsibly, porn can give a couple a sense of "uncertainty" (1 of 6 human needs as identified by Stanford human behavior studies). It can also be damaging. You might be able to handle the local bars BOGO burger deal, an alcoholic not so much.

Hope that helps give some perspective and the rest of your day goes well! Life is too short to continually look for what to be outraged at next, and that appears to be your M.O.

1st off, kudos to you for walking the walk and treating your body like the temple scripture calls you to do.

2nd, I don't see the "well it happens elsewhere too" as a legitimate excuse. I do jujitsu/judo and get thrown to ground/choked half to death 2x a week. If I'm going to put myself through that and I wasn't vastly superior at fighting than general pop WTH would it be worth? In my eyes, the vastness of this scandal TO CHILDREN FROM LEADERSHIP, no less, made me lose respect for anything the Catholic Church wants to preach to me about. For right/wrong hope you can understand.

Again, not a move the needle issue for me so this will be my last post on the subject but appreciated your reply and wanted to acknowledge it.

BaylorFTW said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't perceive Prairie Bear as being pro-porn. I think like most Americans, including myself, he just wants the government to stay the Hell out of our bedrooms and personal lives as much as possible. You cannot legislate morality.

No offense to Rep. Powell, but I think legislation should be introduced declaring politicians a public health hazard.

---

Of course you can legislate morality. We do it all the time. The real issue is with enforcement and not legislation and whether the government is willing to push enforcement of unpopular laws. But even there it can be done.

And once again, ubiquitous porn is not a freedoms issue it is a public health hazard issue.

---

Health?

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I respect your opinion, but I think you are being a little nave and idealistic. So you are saying that atheists and agnostics cannot be moral people? I am a Christian but I disagree. Even Christians themselves disagree on what may considered moral. In my opinion, the Bible left us some guidelines to follow but at times some pretty blurry "instructions". Deuteronomy 22:5 says "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone that does this." Personally, I don't think it is morally wrong for a woman to wear slacks.

---

Atheists and agnostics can be moral but they have no objective reason to do so. They are simply choosing a preference to do so and lack the standing upon which to criticize another atheist or agnostic who chooses not to do so. A couple general questions for you to consider:

1. As a Christian, how do you decide which of God's rules to follow and which to ignore?
2. As a Christian, should your morality come from God or man?

BaylorFTW said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I respect your opinion, but I think you are being a little nave and idealistic. So you are saying that atheists and agnostics cannot be moral people? I am a Christian but I disagree. Even Christians themselves disagree on what may considered moral. In my opinion, the Bible left us some guidelines to follow but at times some pretty blurry "instructions". Deuteronomy 22:5 says "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone that does this." Personally, I don't think it is morally wrong for a woman to wear slacks.

---

Atheists and agnostics can be moral but they have no objective reason to do so. They are simply choosing a preference to do so and lack the standing upon which to criticize another atheist or agnostic who chooses not to do so. A couple general questions for you to consider:

1. As a Christian, how do you decide which of God's rules to follow and which to ignore?
2. As a Christian, should your morality come from God or man?

---

Is this your demon or your belief? It's not uncommon to see people who believe homosexuality is wrong while others believe its wrong because they can't accept it as who they are.

Is this a closely held belief or are you porn addicted? You can tell uncle Tommie. I'm a counselor.

tommie said:

---

Is this your demon or your belief? It's not uncommon to see people who believe homosexuality is wrong while others believe its wrong because they can't accept it as who they are.

Is this a closely held belief or are you porn addicted? You can tell uncle Tommie. I'm a counselor.

---

No, I've never been addicted to porn. I stopped looking at it altogether when I got more serious about my faith.
How about you? Has your porn watching become an addiction for you at points in your life? Have you ever tried to stop watching altogether? How do you know that you aren't addicted to it if you have never stopped doing it for say a year or whatnot?

Also, I don't hold it against people who have struggled with this addiction. Instead, I applaud their efforts to try to rid themselves of sin. I wish the rest of society would support them.

BaylorFTW said:

---

tommie said:

---

Is this your demon or your belief? It's not uncommon to see people who believe homosexuality is wrong while others believe its wrong because they can't accept it as who they are.

Is this a closely held belief or are you porn addicted? You can tell uncle Tommie. I'm a counselor.

---

No, I've never been addicted to porn. I stopped looking at it altogether when I got more serious about my faith.
How about you? Has your porn watching become an addiction for you at points in your life? Have you ever tried to stop watching altogether? How do you know that you aren't addicted to it if you have never stopped doing it for say a year or whatnot?

Also, I don't hold it against people who have struggled with this addiction. Instead, I applaud their efforts to try to rid themselves of sin. I wish the rest of society would support them.

---

All I have are jokes. No addictions. Except today.

I was on the hub watching this one porn (a three way) between RD2 and two dwarfs (midgets). The one gets on the shoulder of the other. The bottom one works on RDs man parts and the top on his uppers.

I recommend it. It's hot.

Addiction? Or sexual relief every now and then? (Or daily?)
Alcoholism or a beer every now and then (or daily?)

BaylorFTW said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I respect your opinion, but I think you are being a little nave and idealistic. So you are saying that atheists and agnostics cannot be moral people? I am a Christian but I disagree. Even Christians themselves disagree on what may considered moral. In my opinion, the Bible left us some guidelines to follow but at times some pretty blurry "instructions". Deuteronomy 22:5 says "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone that does this." Personally, I don't think it is morally wrong for a woman to wear slacks.

---

Atheists and agnostics can be moral but they have no objective reason to do so. They are simply choosing a preference to do so and lack the standing upon which to criticize another atheist or agnostic who chooses not to do so. A couple general questions for you to consider:

1. As a Christian, how do you decide which of God's rules to follow and which to ignore?
2. As a Christian, should your morality come from God or man?

---

Christian morals are no more objective than anyone else's. See #1.

Waco1947 said:

---

Addiction? Or sexual relief every now and then? (Or daily?)
Alcoholism or a beer every now and then (or daily?)

---

Porn is looking upon another woman with lust. The bible says to do so is committing adultery in your heart. We are also called to avoid sexual immorality and be sober minded. The bible tells you what sexual relief is ok. It is called marital sex. This isn't an apples to apples comparison because drinking a beer isn't a prohibition in the bible. The sin is drunkenness. However, I will admit that I personally now avoid drinking altogether because it can invite other sinful behavior besides drunkenness.

BaylorFTW said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Addiction? Or sexual relief every now and then? (Or daily?)
Alcoholism or a beer every now and then (or daily?)

---

Porn is looking upon another woman with lust. The bible says to do so is committing adultery in your heart. We are also called to avoid sexual immorality and be sober minded. The bible tells you what sexual relief is ok. It is called marital sex. This isn't an apples to apples comparison because drinking a beer isn't a prohibition in the bible. The sin is drunkenness. However, I will admit that I personally now avoid drinking altogether because it can invite other sinful behavior besides drunkenness.

---

Onanism. Sheesh.

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Addiction? Or sexual relief every now and then? (Or daily?)
Alcoholism or a beer every now and then (or daily?)

---

Porn is looking upon another woman with lust. The bible says to do so is committing adultery in your heart. We are also called to avoid sexual immorality and be sober minded. The bible tells you what sexual relief is ok. It is called marital sex. This isn't an apples to apples comparison because drinking a beer isn't a prohibition in the bible. The sin is drunkenness. However, I will admit that I personally now avoid drinking altogether because it can invite other sinful behavior besides drunkenness.

---

Onanism. Sheesh.

---

You are getting awfully worked up about sins of Christianity considering you don't believe in it. Even Epicurus would appreciate some restraint.

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Addiction? Or sexual relief every now and then? (Or daily?)
Alcoholism or a beer every now and then (or daily?)

---

Porn is looking upon another woman with lust. The bible says to do so is committing adultery in your heart. We are also called to avoid sexual immorality and be sober minded. The bible tells you what sexual relief is ok. It is called marital sex. This isn't an apples to apples comparison because drinking a beer isn't a prohibition in the bible. The sin is drunkenness. However, I will admit that I personally now avoid drinking altogether because it can invite other sinful behavior besides drunkenness.

---

Onanism. Sheesh.

---

You are getting awfully worked up about sins of Christianity considering you don't believe in it. Even Epicurus would appreciate some restraint.

---

BFTW you appear to be the one worked up. Masturbation is a terrific way to keep youth from sexual intercourse. Great alternative

Waco1947 said:

---

Masturbation is a terrific way to keep youth from sexual intercourse. Great alternative

---

So at what point when a guy who is so used to beating off to progressively stronger images that he can no longer be aroused by an actual woman great for today's youth?

Please investigate current studies about the damage it does to the minds of the people today.

If you're getting your info from Kinsey, you're sorely behind the times.

Another serious question, did your seminary teach you this philosophy? If so, what theology or studies did they base this teaching?

I fully realize that porn pales in comparison to some of today's bigger issues like abortion and opioid dependence; however, the average age for children to view porn for the first time is around 9 years old.

It is stealing innocence from youth and giving them a very distorted view of sex.

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Addiction? Or sexual relief every now and then? (Or daily?)
Alcoholism or a beer every now and then (or daily?)

---

Porn is looking upon another woman with lust. The bible says to do so is committing adultery in your heart. We are also called to avoid sexual immorality and be sober minded. The bible tells you what sexual relief is ok. It is called marital sex. This isn't an apples to apples comparison because drinking a beer isn't a prohibition in the bible. The sin is drunkenness. However, I will admit that I personally now avoid drinking altogether because it can invite other sinful behavior besides drunkenness.

---

Onanism. Sheesh.

---

You are getting awfully worked up about sins of Christianity considering you don't believe in it. Even Epicurus would appreciate some restraint.

---

I am not worked up about "sins of Christianity" whatever that is. I just want to protect individuals from people who want to use the state to accomplish what they cannot do via sermons.

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Masturbation is a terrific way to keep youth from sexual intercourse. Great alternative

---

So at what point when a guy who is so used to beating off to progressively stronger images that he can no longer be aroused by an actual woman great for today's youth?

Please investigate current studies about the damage it does to the minds of the people today.

If you're getting your info from Kinsey, you're sorely behind the times.

Another serious question, did your seminary teach you this philosophy? If so, what theology or studies did they base this teaching?

I fully realize that porn pales in comparison to some of today's bigger issues like abortion and opioid dependence; however, the average age for children to view porn for the first time is around 9 years old.

It is stealing innocence from youth and giving them a very distorted view of sex.

---

Basis for "progressively stronger images"? Damage? And if you can answer the state restriction on porn research question, too, that would be useful.

The church's view of sex is the distorted one, too focused on reproduction.

quash said:

---

Basis for "progressively stronger images"? Damage? And if you can answer the state restriction on porn research question, too, that would be useful.

---

Please do some research into how it affects people. You might find it interesting. Check out how it rewires the brain to crave more and more. See how it requires more depraved images to get the same release of dopamine to stimulate. It's effects are very similar to drug dependency. Please research how porn plays a part of 50% of divorces today.

I am not aware of the state restriction on porn research. Please provide a link to it.

quash said:

---

The church's view of sex is the distorted one, too focused on reproduction.

---

This is false. The Church has the healthiest view of sex. She understands that it was designed to be enjoyed by married couples for both unitive and procreative properties.

It is society that has devalued and distorted the view on sex.

Coke Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Basis for "progressively stronger images"? Damage? And if you can answer the state restriction on porn research question, too, that would be useful.

---

I am not aware of the state restriction on porn research. Please provide a link to it.

quash said:

---

The church's view of sex is the distorted one, too focused on reproduction.

---

This is false. The Church has the healthiest view of sex. She understands that it was designed to be enjoyed by married couples for both unitive and procreative properties.

It is society that has devalued and distorted the view on sex.

---

I've been asking for the link, I'm not aware of such restrictions either.

Society has it right. Nothing magical happens at a wedding to make sex better.

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Basis for "progressively stronger images"? Damage? And if you can answer the state restriction on porn research question, too, that would be useful.

---

I am not aware of the state restriction on porn research. Please provide a link to it.

quash said:

---

The church's view of sex is the distorted one, too focused on reproduction.

---

This is false. The Church has the healthiest view of sex. She understands that it was designed to be enjoyed by married couples for both unitive and procreative properties.

It is society that has devalued and distorted the view on sex.

---

I've been asking for the link, I'm not aware of such restrictions either.

Society has it right. Nothing magical happens at a wedding to make sex better.

---

If the wife gets pregnant, the child has a mother and father to take care of him/her.
If the wife gets pregnant, she has a husband to take care of her.
If the wife gets pregnant, it provides added purpose to the husband's life.
To honor God's commandments of marital sex, provides honor to man, woman and a future child.
A society that favors marital sex over premarital sex is one that supports higher moral values.
What is magical about a wedding night is a man and a woman commit to each other to form a family.

God's Order
1. Relationships
2. Marriage
3. Sexual Intercourse
4. Children.
It's all there in Genesis 1-2

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Basis for "progressively stronger images"? Damage? And if you can answer the state restriction on porn research question, too, that would be useful.

---

I am not aware of the state restriction on porn research. Please provide a link to it.

quash said:

---

The church's view of sex is the distorted one, too focused on reproduction.

---

This is false. The Church has the healthiest view of sex. She understands that it was designed to be enjoyed by married couples for both unitive and procreative properties.

It is society that has devalued and distorted the view on sex.

---

I've been asking for the link, I'm not aware of such restrictions either.

Society has it right. Nothing magical happens at a wedding to make sex better.

---

If the wife gets pregnant, the child has a mother and father to take care of him/her.
If the wife gets pregnant, she has a husband to take care of her.
If the wife gets pregnant, it provides added purpose to the husband's life.
To honor God's commandments of marital sex, provides honor to man, woman and a future child.
A society that favors marital sex over premarital sex is one that supports higher moral values.
What is magical about a wedding night is a man and a woman commit to each other to form a family.

---

I don't believe in magic. Not even the kind that thinks a wedding is some guarantor of two parents.

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Masturbation is a terrific way to keep youth from sexual intercourse. Great alternative

---

So at what point when a guy who is so used to beating off to progressively stronger images that he can no longer be aroused by an actual woman great for today's youth? Show me the data.

Please investigate current studies about the damage it does to the minds of the people today.

If you're getting your info from Kinsey, you're sorely behind the times.

Another serious question, did your seminary teach you this philosophy? If so, what theology or studies did they base this teaching? Seminary taught me God's order - Relationships, Marriage, sexual intercourse, children

I fully realize that porn pales in comparison to some of today's bigger issues like abortion and opioid dependence; however, the average age for children to view porn for the first time is around 9 years old.

It is stealing innocence from youth and giving them a very distorted view of sex.

---

It is a distorted view of sex but guys have been looking at Sear catalogs and National Geographic for decades.
Parents need to educate their kids or some 15 yr old idiot will.

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Basis for "progressively stronger images"? Damage? And if you can answer the state restriction on porn research question, too, that would be useful.

---

I am not aware of the state restriction on porn research. Please provide a link to it.

quash said:

---

The church's view of sex is the distorted one, too focused on reproduction.

---

This is false. The Church has the healthiest view of sex. She understands that it was designed to be enjoyed by married couples for both unitive and procreative properties.

It is society that has devalued and distorted the view on sex.

---

I've been asking for the link, I'm not aware of such restrictions either.

Society has it right. Nothing magical happens at a wedding to make sex better.

---

If the wife gets pregnant, the child has a mother and father to take care of him/her.
If the wife gets pregnant, she has a husband to take care of her.
If the wife gets pregnant, it provides added purpose to the husband's life.
To honor God's commandments of marital sex, provides honor to man, woman and a future child.
A society that favors marital sex over premarital sex is one that supports higher moral values.
What is magical about a wedding night is a man and a woman commit to each other to form a family.

---

I don't believe in magic. Not even the kind that thinks a wedding is some guarantor of two parents.

---

It's a contractual guarantor, not a magical one.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Basis for "progressively stronger images"? Damage? And if you can answer the state restriction on porn research question, too, that would be useful.

---

I am not aware of the state restriction on porn research. Please provide a link to it.

quash said:

---

The church's view of sex is the distorted one, too focused on reproduction.

---

This is false. The Church has the healthiest view of sex. She understands that it was designed to be enjoyed by married couples for both unitive and procreative properties.

It is society that has devalued and distorted the view on sex.

---

I've been asking for the link, I'm not aware of such restrictions either.

Society has it right. Nothing magical happens at a wedding to make sex better.

---

If the wife gets pregnant, the child has a mother and father to take care of him/her.
If the wife gets pregnant, she has a husband to take care of her.
If the wife gets pregnant, it provides added purpose to the husband's life.
To honor God's commandments of marital sex, provides honor to man, woman and a future child.
A society that favors marital sex over premarital sex is one that supports higher moral values.
What is magical about a wedding night is a man and a woman commit to each other to form a family.

---

I don't believe in magic. Not even the kind that thinks a wedding is some guarantor of two parents.

---

It's a contractual guarantor, not a magical one.

---

Quash was quoting "What is magical about a wedding night is a man and a woman commit to each other to form a family."

Waco1947 said:

---

Show me the data.

---

The scary effects of pornography: how the 21st century's acute addiction is rewiring our brains.
Here is a snippet from the article ...

Then there's a physiological impact. A 2015 study by researchers at the University of California found a rare positive correlation between porn watching and libido, but the consensus is on the opposite side. Last year, for instance, NHS experts noted an increase in erectile dysfunction in otherwise healthy young men, and thought excessive porn use was the most likely factor at play.

"These young men do not have organic disease [so] one of the first assessment questions I'd always ask now is about pornography and masturbatory habit, because that can be the cause of their issues about maintaining an erection with a partner," psychosexual therapist Angela Gregory told the BBC.

Waco1947 said:

---

It is a distorted view of sex but guys have been looking at Sear catalogs and National Geographic for decades.

---

Yes, but advertisers in 40's used racism in their ads and sexism in the 50's and 60's. That doesn't make it right.

Secondarily, are you really saying that looking at a Sears catalog or Nat Geo is really the same what the average 11 year old can pull up on his phone with a few clicks?

Waco1947 said:

---

Parents need to educate their kids or some 15 yr old idiot will.

---

We certainly agree on this point. Parents should educate their children about the true nature of man and woman and why God made them.

I'm 49 and still waiting for my sex talk. I learned a ton on the school bus. That didn't make it right.

Waco1947 said:

---

It is a distorted view of sex but guys have been looking at Sear catalogs and National Geographic for decades.
Parents need to educate their kids or some 15 yr old idiot will.

---

If this is what you think the level of porn is similar to, I understand why you don't realize the seriousness of the problem in the present day. We are a long, long way from those more innocent times.