12 votes

"Why Pornography is Bad for You"

And people think God is being mean when he makes rules regarding sexual pleasure.


http://youtu.be/kGGxXHBVDYU

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

That took guts to post, 1controversialchick!

and makes a valid point. Didn't hear much Bible-thumping, just a testimonial of what powerful addictions can do. Because sex is a 'natural' attraction, the addiction is also harder to fight, just as food related ones are.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

No Bible quotes/references at all, just an honest view told well

Food addictions often lead to excessive girth, but not always. Binging and purging, and anorexia are food addictions in the negative, so their damage is less noticeable at first, until serious health declines make them obvious.

Because porn stimulates a natural appetite, the hook is set in hidden ways, until something like his dysfunctional health gives a sign that all's not well. Our minds are capable of envisioning vast concepts and beautiful imagery that ennobles our soul's growth, and betters those we love. The self-absorption of porn, like patterns of food over(and under)-consumption, harms the abuser primarily, but others secondarily, also.

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

One guy once told me masterbation...

Was wrong since you are killing sperms... My response to him was.."I must be a serial killer"

:)

yeah

and I know a girl that devoured whole civilizations

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Lol

.

lol

I like that turn of phrase.

Really?!

All but one dies, each time and egg is inseminated! So, that is a strange thing to say!

Lmao

Lmao

Moderation Is The Key

I think a more accurate title would be - Porn CAN Be Bad For You.

The reason I say this is because a lot of what he was talking about can apply to actual sex. Sex Addicts probably also become desensitized and have to resort to more and more extreme behavior to get their "reward".

Oh, and God doesn't mention porn LOL

Moral people who don't want

Moral people who don't want to deal with any form of human relationship spank it, and to do that mostly requires porn. The immoral example of the above are the ones going out "getting laid" and spreading diseases.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

You seem to be running the

You seem to be running the wrong way out of the gate.

That's my impression anyway. I'm not even referring to "spank it".
It's everything written before that.

"Moral people who don't want to deal with any form of human relationship"

That is inconceivable to me. How could anyone who doesn't want to deal with any form of human relationship, be moral?

What about not having friends

What about not having friends and other relationships is immoral? There's a difference between treating people like crap and winding up being a lonely, and having no friends by just nicely keeping to one's self.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

"Lonely" implies unhappiness,

"Lonely" implies unhappiness, a state of immorality.

"Just... keeping to one's self" is not being nice to one's self, same as above.

From glimpsing other comments, I get the impression you attempt a Christian perspective.

The "Golden Rule" is secular translation and falls short of God's most rudimentary moral instruction for humans.

"Do unto others..." allows for neglect. Neglect is immoral. It also allows for masochism. Masochism is immoral. It also promotes homicide in the depths of suicidal tendency.

"Love God..." and "Love thy neighbor as thyself" aren't riddled with shortcoming.

Love is an action. Love is not just a thought or feeling. It is caring. To care for a houseplant is to water it, prune it, and place it in good light. It's not so much the thinkin' about it. To love my mother is to call and chat with her, to visit her and eat her cooking. It's not sitting on a couch or barstool thinking about how much I 'love' her.

The Golden Rule is more of a filter or guideline and falls to mostly being used in certain situations to help us avoid being immoral. It also unfortunately widens the abyss of our rationalizing notions regarding that which we consider amoral.

God's rule teaches us to be moral.

It is not possible to "have no friends" and be moral, unless of course you are in the process of making them.

How exactly is being unhappy

How exactly is being unhappy immoral? If I am unhappy, but people make me more unhappy, then would being less unhappy not be the moral thing to do?

Yes, keeping to one's self is being good to one's self, and good to others. I'm such a piece of shit, but no one can meet my standards, so I don't even let others involve themselves with me and try to meet my standards, to which they will fail, and people wind up hurt.

I do do unto others. Not being in relationships is not neglect. Letting someone get robbed when you could have done something is neglect. If I bring nothing but pain and anguish, it's actively being benevolent that I don't expose them to me.

I don't know the concept of love. I don't give a shit, and don't want to know it. I was born without the capability to love. To burn, plain and simple.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

"then would being less

"then would being less unhappy not be the moral thing to do?"

You have fallen into a semantic trap. Your logic has lost sight of the big picture.

"Unhappy" and "more unhappy" are both immoral. Here's the shocker: so is "less unhappy". :D

How many times have you heard Ron Paul say that a cut in the rate of increase in spending, is not a cut in spending? Neither is a freeze in spending.

Same principle.

Speaking of logic, there are two questions in your first paragraph. The second one renders the first useless as it presumes unhappiness and immorality to be at least directly proportional. So one or the other can't be serious.

"Yes, keeping to one's self is being good to one's self, and good to others."

You lack discrimination between the concepts of "good" and "nothing".

"I'm such a piece of shit"

No you're not. You are simply [temporarily] insane. The path back to sanity is less difficult and shorter than you think.

"and people wind up hurt."

You are clearly the one wound up hurt. I'm not actually disagreeing with you there. You are a "people". You are living in reverse. Experiencing pride in reverse. Pride in reverse is still pride. Your monstrous ego has you convinced that you have the power to reek universal havoc and crush other people's lives. Pretty grandiose. Maybe people aren't as concerned as you think, with meeting your standards, not as concerned as you are anyway.

"I do do unto others."

Perhaps you didn't catch the point of my last comment. The Golden Rule falls short of being moral guidance. When you treat or see yourself as "a piece of shit", that's how you will treat or see others.

"Not being in relationships is not neglect."

It IS neglect. Your primary subject of your neglect is yourself. Relationships with other humans is right there on the list of basic human needs next to oxygen, food, and shelter.

Beyond yourself, are you an orphan? Do you have any family, old friends? They WILL think of you once in a while. What are they to think? How do you think they will feel when they think of you? Do you want them too feel bad? Don't neglect them. Get in touch with them and let them know that you're okay and doing fine, so that they won't feel bad when they think of you.

If you are not okay or not doing fine, get humble and get in touch with those people anyway. You will be surprised [if you remain humble].

You seem to only make sense of either end of the scale - that you can overwhelmingly affect people, or that you can live with little or no effect to them. Reality tends to fall in between.

I'm familiar. I used to engage only two modes. I'd either be struggling for the top of the heap, or hiding beneath it. Sucked!

Truth is, you can't avoid relationships any more than you can avoid eating or pooping. Perhaps you are on a hunger strike. Good analogy don't you think? I'm not one to over-use the word "denial", but you are in denial if you don't think you have a relationship with me at this very moment. You have a relationship with the cashier at your grocery store too. You can certainly minimize such relationships and walk through life as a tourist, but you can't hide beneath the pile forever. Sooner or later you'll get bored and want to go bowling. Humans can only bowl a handful of games alone before calling for competition or at least someone with which to share a pitcher. ;)

"Letting someone get robbed when you could have done something is neglect."

Have you been robbed?

"If I bring nothing but pain and anguish, it's actively being benevolent that I don't expose them to me."

Beyond ego and grandiosity, again you have rationalized your way into misuse of terms. That is not benevolence [active OR passive], not to anyone else and certainly not to yourself.

"I don't know the concept of love."

Clearly you are jonesin'!

"I was born without the capability to love."

Your self diagnosis as psychopath doesn't fit the profile you've expressed on this page as your bitterness and narcissism are clearly both emotional and borne of fear. Also a psychopath would not bother elaborating the insane rationalization of concern for protecting others. Perhaps in the depth of your self analysis you worry that you may be a psychopath. Psychopaths don't worry as such. You are not cold from the inside. You are clearly frozen from the outside.

I can faintly hear a warm heart beating. It's soft and sweet. Open your ears...

http://youtu.be/8iL6dlZA0ac ... no man is an island

It's not freaking semantics.

It's not freaking semantics. Existence makes me unhappy. I didn't ask to exist. It's therefore not my fault that I'm unhappy. I was created this way.

You can't be serious. It's not immoral to be unhappy. I'm not affecting anyone, and if you come back and say that God's unhappy when I'm unhappy, well, that's just his choice to feel that way, yes?

Yes, I am a piece of shit. Don't argue. You don't know me. I'm not insane. I'm just a piece of shit that should have never been created. I want to contribute nothing to the world, and I don't want anything from it.

I'm wound up hurt? Nope, I'm fine. I stay alone to not get hurt.

Just because I'm a piece of shit doesn't mean I treat others like shit. Again, you don't know me, so you have no idea what you're talking about here.

How do you figure a basic human need is relationships with other people? There is proof of that nowhere. Just because you and others are so emotionally needy doesn't mean that everyone else needs to follow your ways, or they're automatically insane (your words) and neglecting themselves. Shelter is not a necessity, it's a comfort above clothing, an actual need, but still not in most climates.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Clothing is shelter.

"Existence makes me unhappy. I didn't ask to exist. It's therefore not my fault that I'm unhappy. I was created this way."

I didn't ask to exist either, so we have that in common.

Have you NEVER been happy? If you've ever been happy in your life, even for a minute, then your theory that existence makes you unhappy is out the window.

"It's not immoral to be unhappy."

Then what the hell is "immoral"! To be moral is to be in good spirit. It's that simple. Let's fix something right here and now. In your sentence "It's" is ambiguous and literally refers to nothing. The clue to keeping the terms clear is to keep the string intact by having moral or immoral refer to a person. What we're actually dealing with here is, "I'm not immoral to be unhappy." That is correctly worded but still the claim of an insane mind. Immoral can refer to a person or an action. "I engaged in an immoral act." How do we know it to be immoral? "I know it was an immoral act, because it led to the consequence of my being unhappy." If you get that, you are way ahead of BILL3. :D

"I'm not affecting anyone"

You are someone. You are affecting yourself. Clearly! What you also might not see is that you ARE affecting everyone you meet. You affect me. You affect the cashier at the grocery. You affect your landlord.

"God's unhappy when I'm unhappy, well, that's just his choice to feel that way, yes?"

Yes, I agree,

and elaborating that same principle of autonomy reminds us that it's just your choice to feel as unhappy as you do.

Making the plea for you to please God, never crossed my mind.

"You don't know me."

What? Do you mean completely? I don't even know my own siblings completely. In some ways I know more about you right now that I know about my own brother in California. You've well introduced yourself quite starkly in this post. I know more about you than anyone else on this page. You haven't yet even asked yourself why you've poked your head in here and posted all this stuff about yourself. I have though, and I'll tell you. You've posted comments here in attempts to become happier. That's the same ultimate reason everyone else is here posting. We are all HARD-WIRED to pursue happiness. We are unceasing in that regard. The concepts of moral and immoral cease to be useful beyond the context of such premise.

"Don't argue."

I'll argue all I damned well please. However, I haven't yet written one sentence of argument on this page. I may be a fool, but I'm not foolish enough to argue with a person currently insane. I'm not arguing, I'm simply telling you how it is. Period.

I've spent my own exhaustive time and energy in life thinking myself a piece of shit and being unhappy. These days I do stuff that makes me happy. Writing makes me happy. Right now I feel compelled to thank you for presenting me with this opportunity to be a happier person. You've been of service to me. I bet you didn't even know that yet. What YOU do with it is your own business. What I do makes me happy or unhappy. What you do makes you happy or unhappy.

"I want to contribute nothing to the world, and I don't want anything from it."

If I've ever heard a commitment to unhappiness, that's it.

"Nope, I'm fine. I stay alone to not get hurt."

Fine and unhappy? Pick one.

A sane mind can discriminate between fine and unhappy.

You're making progress. You previously said you stay alone to not hurt others. ;)

"How do you figure a basic human need is relationships with other people? There is proof of that nowhere."

Why are you here posting comments? :D

It's actually more basic than thinking of it in terms of need, or even thinking of it at all. I addressed that in previous comment. You have relationships, you always have had them, and you always will. You are simply attempting to minimize them. Hunger strikes don't last forever. With much discipline one might even measurably succeed in breathing a bit less.

"Just because you and others are so emotionally needy"

You are so out of it, you don't even see that YOU are the one desperately hungry and needy.

One thing I don't yet know about you is whether or not you are envious of people who are happy, or if you are in denial of it. Have you ever said this to someone who walked in the room smiling or laughing, "What are you so fucking happy about?" I have. I've done that. It's been a while.

I was insane when I said that kind of thing. I still get insane every day, but I've leaned how to not get stuck there endlessly anymore like I used to...

http://youtu.be/wPW7T_tu3PM

I'm sure I acted happy when I

I'm sure I acted happy when I was a baby, but that's not actually happiness, in the true sense of existence. It's just reacting to stimuli, like adults doing funny things.

Affecting one's self is a logical fallacy. If you think that I don't have the right to be unhappy, because it hurts myself, then you throw all free will out the window and open the door for allowing government or society to step in and lock up people for doing drugs, or not taking vaccines and other harmful medicine.

A person can be fine being unhappy. Being content does not equate to happiness.

Nope, I'm not needy. Society is needy, and I'm the opposite of how society acts. I'm not envious of happy people. Happy people disgust me. I'm mainly just evil. Born to burn.

Fuck Staind.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Am I right? :D ...If I'm not, we're both wrong. ;)

This string began with your using the word "Moral".

"Affecting one's self is a logical fallacy."

I screamed at my mother yesterday. Today I feel like shit.

I got blackout drunk last night. This morning I feel like shit.

I hit my child. I'm a piece of shit.

I ran my car into the ditch. I felt like shit for the entire walk home.

I forgot to eat breakfast. This afternoon I seem somewhat dysfunctional.

I cut my finger. I am in pain.

I failed to pay rent. My landlord's an asshole.

I've been unhappy for so long, I've forgotten what "happy" even means.

The nearest thing to "happy" I can muster is in brief moments of "fun" I experience in the form of comic "relief" from my unhappiness in playing the role of an immovably dour curmudgeon.

I am utterly convinced my rationalizations are ultimately logical, and I have lost sight of the greater context.

I think I'm one of the select few that actually sees the greater context. Whoopee, life sucks and then we die.

"If you think that I don't have the right to be unhappy..."

Moral is entirely about being happy. In such context the term "right" exclusively refers to that which is tied to a person's state of happiness or actions that bring that about.

One person says, "Two plus two equals four."

Another person says, "Two plus two equals twenty two."

Who is right in moral terms?

Whoever is smiling!

Both "I am right to be unhappy" and "I have a right to be unhappy" are logical fallacies. They equally misuse the term "right" and present a semantic escape hatch from facing that which is moral.

Escape! Hide! Procrastinate! Avoid! Parallel life is my real life!

"I need a little vacation first to muster the strength to deal with that crap. That crap overwhelms me. I need to recreate myself somehow before doing that crap. I'm totally stuck outside of the notion that doing that crap might recreate me."

Today I am overwhelmed when I think of how overwhelming tomorrow will be. As a matter of fact even yesterday overwhelms me when I think about it. Either way I need some relief right now. Let's see, what means do I have at my disposal? Whatever it is, it's gonna be "right" right now!

"Being content does not equate to happiness."

Ya got that right, brother!

"Nope, I'm not needy. Society is needy, and I'm the opposite of how society acts."

"Society" is an illusion of your mind. "Society" is not even a stable illusion. Your concept of "society" changes at your whim. As such, it's hardly a useful tool of measurement in self-analysis.

"Fuck Staind."

Whoa! That actually associates this string with the OP. :D

Fuck and love can be seen as the same action with differing attitudes. Perhaps the day you love Staind will be the day you will know yourself to be moral. Until then, yes, fuck Staind! Do it, do it, do it! Listen to it! Flip Staind the bird! Vomit on the speakers! Purge! Curse them at the top of your lungs! But keep fucking them! As you listen!

This is you [and me too :D]...

http://youtu.be/VufilzHKTqk ... Fucking hilarious! [I'm serious]
.
.
.

This is therapy...

http://youtu.be/WQPfQvLIseA ... OMG! I just ejaculated! :D

I refuse to read your

I refuse to read your rambling. It's incoherent. Fuck and love are not interchangeable. Fuck is negative. Blech to the music.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Interesting...

My point was that they are not interchangeable. :D

Wow, look at the downvotes,

Wow, look at the downvotes, yet no replies...

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

you got a reply!

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?
http://youtu.be/yNF09pUPypw

It's not a reply. It's a

It's not a reply. It's a picture. Very mature... Name calling via picture instead of actually making a point to refute mine.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

I think they're all too busy

I think they're all too busy face-palming.

Face-palming what? You all

Face-palming what? You all talk about this non-aggression policy, but don't recognize that going around fucking people, spreading diseases, is totally against that, even if the sex is consensual. When is disease ever spread when it's known about, or cared about? If you don't know you have the disease, and spread it, it's your fault. If you know you have the disease, and have sex anyway and spread it, that's even worse. IF everyone was responsible, STDs would die off, but reality is trending away from that, and numbers are growing.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

I'm just joking around. It's

I'm just joking around. It's how I react to tension, which I can feel when reading your words. I don't think I'm the only one who is reminded of "that preacher guy on your college campus shouting 'sinners' and 'fornicators' at everyone."

I agree with you in that spreading diseases is bad. I'm not sure what percentage of sexually active people are diseased and what percentage are spreading their diseases, but I'm under the impression that it is not quite the epidemic you perceive it to be. I would be willing to bet that a majority of intimacies happen without spreading disease. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Lack of balance in your life is bad for you. Porn is porn.

Take inventory of what you do.

Too much of something and not enough of everything else will throw your life out of whack.

Porn is not bad for you, too much porn is bad for you.

Too much DP is bad for you too!

Moderation in everything.
(or is that everything in moderation?)

"Too much DP is bad for you too!"?????

Since the subject IS porn, you should be aware that IN porn DP has an entirely different meaning than Daily Paul. And too much is probably bad for you.

Not that I know any of this first hand of course.....

Didn't know about the porn dp thing

and don't want to know ;-)