Translation:
If you have some sort of intellectual argument to make that doesn't center around beating up girls (or myself)--such as an answer to anything in post 344--please feel free to come back around and make it, princess.
Posted on 10/13/2006 7:45:29 AM PDT by ConservativeStatement
My thought to blame it on jealousy and insecurity is hardly a radical idea. :-)
I would suggest that a deeper look at *why* you are bothered by the fact that he'd focus some engergy at others, as long as he had plenty of that energy for you (and then some). In fact he'll have more of that energy for you than you'll want to receive. Y'see, that's the thing. Men want it more often than women. So either the man does without, or he goes it alone.
I've been faithfully married for over 20 years, for what it's worth. If it bothers his woman, a man should not do it. I agree with that.
But simply looking and imagining should *not* be considered threatening, or cheating. That is what a man does when his wife isn't in the mood that night.
In my opinion, of course.
Uhm,
Ah,
My attitude towards porn doesn't come from lack of exposure, experience or hearing the 'this is the way men think' lecture.
Quite the opposite. My exposure started way sooner than it should, and now, I feel tremendous pity for the starlets....cuz there but for the grace of god....
The lesson that was drilled into me wasn't healthy and it was destructive. So yeah, maybe some men are 'wired' that way....
I just see molested little girls with destroyed sense of worth and so much self hatred they're committing spiritual suicide...on camera.
And yeah, part of what was drilled into me was that the 'girls that make men horny are the only ones with value'.
So again,
Looking hurts....Not so much from insecurity, but knowing that things are being triggered that are ugly and attention is again being given away for sex.
"I'm a man, and I can tell you that the married guys I know who are into porn ALL have "problematic" relationships with their wives.
None of them seem truly happily married. Now, whether porn is the cause or a symptom is beyond my ability to know."
Married couples (friends of ours) who we know watch porn together seem to have the most problems in their marriage.
Porn is a fantasy - it isn't real. Expecting the images to translate to real-life sex is always going to be disappointing. Especially for the women because they will never look like those women (even those women don't look like that in real life)
so...people can either learn to love and appreciate the here and now with their real life lover...or they can ruin it by escaping into la la fantasy land.
Amen sister.
You know...corporations spend billions on advertising because they know what everyone know....images do affect people and their behavior. If they didn't, they would spend that money on something else.
And yet we're expected to believe images through porn don't affect people's behavior?
Tell that to the sexually abused, rape victims, and kidnapping/murder victims who suffer at the hands of porn addicts.
Porn rots the mind and the soul.
Now, if that were true, I'd be really angry, but since it isn't...
Normally I would ignore such a silly ad hominem attack, but I include it here so that you can consider why you went to ad hominem, after you read the rest of this post.
You see, I'm wondering if you're trying to fool me, or just yourself. Observe:
Never, not once, did I say making a habit out of viewing porn is a good thing.
In post 62: "I'm a woman, and I believe a little porn is fine for men. I see NOTHING wrong with it. Women want men to be like them...but men are visually stimulized, as well you know, so why would I deny my husband something that makes him happy once in awhile???? I also believe Prostitution should be legalized."
In post 312: "If a woman believes the image of a naked women is a threat to her marriage, than she has no marriage, and absolutely no self-image." (If opposing something your hubby does means you have no marriage and no self-image, how could you NOT be portraying it as a good?)
So, you make me out to be a porn addict, because you've got nothin', not even honesty.
Your question was fair, and so was your response. Good on you.
See posts 570 and 586. You are not going to believe this...
Though it's not a country song and is written from a male perspective, I was reminded of this one. The line "'Cause I can hang up as fast as you can call" is just classic.
Next Time, This Time
by Jim Croce
If you get to feelin' all alone
When your good time friends
have all got up and gone
Don't come knockin' around my door
Because I've heard your lines before
'Cause there ain't gone be a next time, this time
'Cause woman startin' right now
I'm gonna forget your name and your pretty face girl
And write you off as a bad mistake
You know that some women they are lovers
And some just got no sense
But a woman like you oughta be ashamed
Of the things that you do to men
And If you get to feelin' all alone
When you find that you can't make it on your own
Don't come knockin' around my door
You see I've seen your act before
And there ain't gonna be a next time, this time
'Cause woman startin' right now
I'm gonna forget your name and your pretty face girl
And write you off as a bad mistake
You know that some women they are lovers
And some just got no sense
But a woman like you oughta be ashamed
Of the things that you do to men
And If you get to feel' you where wrong
don't go wastin' your good money in the phone
'Cause I can hang up as fast as you can call
And that ain't all
'Cause there ain't gonna be a next time, this time
'Cause woman startin' right now
I'm gonna forget your name and your pretty face girl
And write you off as a complete disgrace
You know that some women they are liars
And some just got no sense
But a woman like you oughta be ashamed
Of the things that you do to men
Yeah a woman like you oughta be ashamed
Of the things that you do to men
I don't know where you're from, but I said looking at a picture of a naked woman. Please show me where I said "HABITUALLY" looking at pictures. Anything done to excess is not good. But that's not what I was talking about in the posts YOU interjected yourself into. If it makes you feel good and morally superior to me, fine....I DON'T CARE..just don't twist my words.
Is there a Mrs. Silverback?
Translation:
If you have some sort of intellectual argument to make that doesn't center around beating up girls (or myself)--such as an answer to anything in post 344--please feel free to come back around and make it, princess.
Well, in that genre,
is anything better than
Brel's "The Bachelor's Dance?"
---------------------------------------------------------
The girl that I will marry
Will have a heart so wise
That in the hollow of her eye's
My heart will want to tarry
The girl who will be mine
Will have skin so soft and tender
And when it comes December
Her skin will be my wine
And me I'll love her so
And she, she will love me
And our hearts burning slow
For at least a century
Through the window of life
We will go as girl and boy
To become man and wife
To become one with joy
No, it isn't you
The girl that I will marry
No, it isn't you
The girl who'll marry me
The girl that I will love
Will have a house of grace
All painted white, and there my soul
Will find its hiding place
The girl that I will love
Will do her vigil keeping
And late at night she'll tell me of
The children that are sleeping
And me, I'll love her so
And she, she will love me
We'll make a present of our love
To us and destiny
And we will take the sun
To dress our love in gold
For soon our youth is gone
For soon we must grow old
No, it isn't you
The girl that I will love
No, it isn't you
The girl that will love me
The girl that I will marry
Will age with happiness
For she will have a fireplace
And all my tenderness
The girl that I will marry
Will age without a fear
And like the wine grow mellower
With every passing year
And me, I'll love her so
And she, she will love me
And we will write a song
For all the joys that used to be
And when we leave this earth
Our eyes still filled with love
We'll send a flower down to hell
And up to heaven above
Ah, won't she come to me
The girl that I will marry
Who will she be
The girl who'll marry me
Must be P-O-R-N !
I never asked you for your opinion, You posted to me and I replied.
I find it amusing that you consider yourself some sort of moral authority and make it a point to lecture others and act like some judgmental lord of opinion on morality subjects.
Well........Carry on! But bear in mind that every time you post another opinion to me, I will reply! That is the fair thing to do!
You are next up...........batterbatterbatter!
Let's say Big Biker Bill said riding a mororcycle without a helmet was "fine," there's nothing wrong with it, it shouldn't be denied to someone if it makes them happy, and anyone who opposed it was not a real biker and had no self-image. Then someone says to Bill, "You say riding without a helmet is good," and his response is, "Well, I never said it's OK to do that habitually. Don't twist my words. I think we're having this conversation because you're an unsafe rider, and you protest too much. You probably ride drunk."
Big Biker Bill sounds like he's trying to weasel out of something, doesn't he? I guess it depends on what the definition of "helmet" is.
As for your question about my wife, if you'll review my posts to you about this issue you will notice that NEVER did I discuss what you do or don't do with your husband, or mention him. Though you brought it up, I would not do so, and in our discussions about life and death issues I have studiously avoided bringing in any family situations you have dealt with in the past. I will continue to hold to that standard, and I expect you to do the same. I will not be discussing any details of my sex life on this forum, so don't bother asking.
Now, I would never assume that you are porn obsessed because you discussed the subject (I'm able to argue my point without ascribing hidden motives to my opponent, a radical concept) but just so you know how hypocritical you sound, let's look at some stats: I've posted in this thread 19 times before now and you've posted 17 times. Also, note that several of each of our posts are not related to pornography (Sean Hannity's marital status, Jim Croce lyrics, the status of your ass, etc.) but it looks like you posted roughly the same number of comments about this issue as I did. While I have discussed logical fallacies, you have exhibited an expert level of knowledge about what porn is used where and by who.
Guess what that says about you? Absolutely nothing, just like it says nothing about me. That said, perhaps you should ask yourself the same question you legitimately asked Jane Austen earlier in the thread: "More accusations? Can't handle reality?"
As for "lecturing" on moral subjects, post 344 is my "moral lecture" on this topic, and you have not responded to a single point in it. Why? Probably because I discuss intellectual concerns, and that doesn't lend itself to your sophomore-in-a-womens'-studies-program view that someone could only disagree with you if they're a sexually repressed hypocrite.
Oh wait, does me telling you that it's not OK to beat people up constitute a "moral lecture?" So sorry, didn't mean to deliver a sermon on the topic.
If my posts are "moral lectures" then aren't your posts "secularist lectures," or more to the point, a secularist shouting someone down by saying they have no right to speak and deserve to be beaten for it?
I'll gladly give you the last word. I'm sure it will be the last word, because if you were going to respond to the specific intellectual criticisms of your position, you would have done so by now. The white flag is already up.
Dang, that song is the textbook definition of letting her down easy! "Baby, I like you but I'm looking for something beyond awesome, and we ain't got it." Anyone who'd be mad after that would have to be pretty mean.
In your world, it's difficult to tell but I would say yes.
You see, morality is often situational.
To you, the situation is someone who defended porn, so you see it as your moral duty to lecture me on my defects. You make judgment because the situation calls for it. Yet being non judgmental is a moral trait....NO?
To me, if someone insults, defames and uses words as a weapon, a Good punch in the nose works wonders. That is how I learned, BTW.
From some of the accusations and comments on this thread, I would say a few nose punchings are in order.
Now...as to all your accusatory nonsense about things said that were neither said nor inferred, those are what we call straw-men!
They are creations of a mind that cannot otherwise defend what it has put forth as a argument. So the mind protects it's self by creating assaults and conflicts that do not exist. This totally screws any logical responses to the original point, and usually results in nothing but anger and resentment.
Getting back to the subject of this thread, which I believe was a divorce, I would say that it has strayed far off topic, and I have just explained why.
Nobody said you were a porn addict....Are you?
I watch it occasionally, but I am pretty selective of the kind, as I like a movie with a plot.
What kind do you like? You know, they have something for every sort of person or personality.
Now getting back again to the subject of this thread, a divorce and what appears to be a nasty one. It seems to me that this woman is going through post partem depression and is doing a lot of stupid things that she will likely regret.
That's my opinion. But if you want to talk about porn, I am prepared to do so.
If my posts are "moral lectures" then aren't your posts "secularist lectures," or more to the point, a secularist shouting someone down by saying they have no right to speak and deserve to be beaten for it?
Ahhhhh....Now we get to the topic that has infuriated you and drawn you to my posts, like a drunken fool who sits next to a guy at a bar and irritates the hell out of him until he gets shoved off the stool.
No, I am not a religious bible thumper. I am not addicted to any dogmas of any kind. My thinking is free of filters and I get to the point without worry of offending. But I do not try to offend. The offense taken was not real and was a creation that made it possible to offend me. A common tactic here.
You want to continue to take me on, then fine. As I said, I will respond.
You can't possibly imagine how distorted your thinking is. If you did, you would stop.
But you can't can you! I have made your day! The entire reason for your existence is to oppose secular thinkers. must be a miserable life, because history shows that every time you folks have bitten off more than you can chew, you have left utter destruction in your wake and accomplished nothing of note. You are responsible, or will be responsible for the Republican loss of power in the House, and the transfer of authority to Pelosi and her ilk. Your moral compass has once again overloaded your logic and you have destroyed your future in the name of perceived wrong. yes, I said perceived, and not real.
You have driven away the swing voters from the party and have guaranteed the transfer of power to the enemy with all this single issue morality nonsense. There is a excellent reason why religion and politics were to be kept apart. This is why we have a secular government. But you cannot accept it.
So, since you told me what you think about me, I just told you what I think about you. So now, what do you want to play. More idiotic accusations for me to defend.,...LOL! It is not worth my time to defend against lies and distortions.....misperceptions and invective.
Carry on.....I am getting more amused.
One you failed to practice from your first post to SQ in the thread. If this is not evidence of you being judgmental (and other things you've whined about, such as being "caustic"), what would be?
Then there's this:
You are responsible, or will be responsible for the Republican loss of power in the House, and the transfer of authority to Pelosi and her ilk.
Here's an op-ed I wrote on that issue. I'm citing my op-ed because I couldn't find the original Brooks article here on FR, but give it a read. Sure seems like the GOP isn't depending on God, guns and gays, don't it?
Now it's the students turn: Can you cite any data that shows swing voters ditching the GOP in order to vote for Dems, because the GOP takes the moral positions it does? C'mon, you can do it!
However, if you can't do it, I promise with all my heart to let you have the last word, even if you accuse me of duct taping you to a chair and making you Veggie Tales all weekend.
One you failed to practice from your first post to SQ in the thread. If this is not evidence of you being judgmental (and other things you've whined about, such as being "caustic"), what would be?
I was describing the comments, and not making a judgment about the person. Obviously, you chose to make the interpretation you made to create the strawman for your specious argument that I was making personal attacks. It is textbook stuff.. The comments were totally out of line.
Can you cite any data that shows swing voters ditching the GOP in order to vote for Dems, because the GOP takes the moral positions it does? C'mon, you can do it!
They don't switch, they stay home for the most part, with a sense of disgust. They did so in past elections and will do so again. It;s how we lose elections and the only reason we do....Turn-out. The GOP is not actually taking the position, it is the segment of the base that forces the issue on them. The individual congress critter caves and the rest is history.
Clinton was elected because of disgust on the fiscal side of the Conservative base, and Dole lost because of disgust on the social side. They stay home......Some change their affiliation to independent, but few if any vote democrat. They can't do that.
The most recent gaff was attaching the Internet gambling ban to the Port security Bill. You have no idea what that is going to do to turnout. I say that because the party has not yet acknowledged it as a mistake. This lies with Frist and he's going to pay for it, but he can't see it coming yet. He will, I assure you.
He will indeed.........
I'm afraid that the desire to placate some special issue folks has once again split the base and alienated another segment. You don't win elections this way, and I don't think there is enough time to patch it up.
The turnout is going to be low, and the results will depend on which parties turnout is lower.
It will be interesting to see the finger pointing after it is over. It is going to be a real squeaker, and it did not have to be this way. polls show the Rats have it right now. We will see in four weeks.
Frankly, I can only be disappointed so many times before I may stay home as well....I still have not yet decided on that. Been voting straight tickets since Nixon. This will certainly change now, as a message needs sending. I don't want to kill the party to do it however. I'll decide on election day.
I stayed with this exchange because I wanted to give you a piece of my mind, as we say in the South.
I view most people as animals in pants, and when a person or group cannot admit that they are and continue to believe they are somehow all seeing, knowing and special, it really irks me.
I came to the thread when I saw Hildy [obligatory ping] under attack again. I think she is good folk, and as honest as they come. But she really catches the flack here, especially from fundamentalist Christians who are also just higher animals in pants. Few admit it. Those few I consider rational and I'm able to communicate with on a deeper level and without animosity on the most sensitive topics..
Enjoy your day........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
