Porn Pastor

[lewisnotmiller]

People wear bad fashion (clashing colors, maybe eye-rolly stereotypes or slogans, etc.) that would annoy me more than acknowledging they have a body.

I'm literally right here, and still you take these shots at me.



In seriousness, I had to respond to that cat butt coverer. Some people are pretty far gone, aren't they? I'm imagining they won't last long in a zombie apocalypse. Neither will their cats, incidentally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm literally right here, and still you take these shots at me.



In seriousness, I had to respond to that cat butt coverer. Some people are pretty far gone, aren't they? I'm imagining they won't last long in a zombie apocalypse. Neither will their cats, incidentally.

It could be worse. When I first saw that my thought was "WTF!! Is that a cat butt plug?"

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But in terms of being upset about it, this I don’t get either. It’s just a body. I don’t care if it’s a body that’s attractive to the looker or not attractive to the looker, it is literally just a body. What’s the problem? People wear bad fashion (clashing colors, maybe eye-rolly stereotypes or slogans, etc.) that would annoy me more than acknowledging they have a body.

It's just about decency in a public space and respecting others. What I was talking about, I saw it at work, at a supermarket. There's children, families, elderly people, etc. there. This is a recent thing, too. People did not used to go grocery shopping while basically dressed like hookers, having their parts showing and wearing fetish stuff.

And that cat thing is just disturbing and gross.

 

[Meow Mix]

It's just about decency in a public space and respecting others. What I was talking about, I saw it at work, at a supermarket. There's children, families, elderly people, etc. there. This is a recent thing, too. People did not used to go grocery shopping while basically dressed like hookers, having their parts showing and wearing fetish stuff.

And that cat thing is just disturbing and gross.

What is fetish stuff that people are wearing to the supermarket?

Are you considering yoga pants, no bra dressing like a hooker?

I mean I get around, I don’t really see anyone dressed “like hookers” except extremely rarely; and I can’t say I’ve ever seen people in public wearing “fetish gear” and I actually go to Pride.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What is fetish stuff that people are wearing to the supermarket?

Are you considering yoga pants, no bra dressing like a hooker?

I mean I get around, I don’t really see anyone dressed “like hookers” except extremely rarely; and I can’t say I’ve ever seen people in public wearing “fetish gear” and I actually go to Pride.

I don't know what else to call grown men wearing dog collars, and short skirts, stockings and shoes meant for young girls. It has to be some sort of fetish thing or just they're just being freakshows.

Abyway, I'm tired of talking about this. Not everything needs to be discussed to death.

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't know what else to call grown men wearing dog collars, and short skirts, stockings and shoes meant for young girls. It has to be some sort of fetish thing or just they're just being freakshows.

Abyway, I'm tired of talking about this. Not everything needs to be discussed to death.

I have no idea where you live (and you needn't say), but I run with all kinds of subcultures, occasionally go to gay bars, etc., and I don't see the stuff you describe there. Maybe some of this stuff is local culture based. Who knows.

In any case I know you want to be done with the conversation, so my last piece is basically going to still be "so what." They can wear what they want and you can not like it I guess. I've got limits of what I'm comfortable with too, but if I look at somebody and don't like what they're wearing because it's tacky, I mind my business. If I look at somebody and they're in activewear (yoga pants, bike shorts, whatever) I especially mind my business because this isn't sexual, this is a person going about their life.

 

[Rival]

This is obviously just my opinion, but is there any chance you're mixing what you think is morally right with anecdotal impact, and coming up with an answer that confirms your pre-existing bias? That sounds a bit wordy, but I'm not trying to be a smart-butt.

I'm quite tired but I'll attempt to answer you here. Sorry my answer will be briefer than I would have liked.

Yes and no. It's based on my experience and the experience of cultures the world over. We have long realised as a species that the things that really, innately satisfy us are few and hard to achieve. I'm trying to say that sleeping around without any emotional attachment whatever leads to no lasting happiness and is a fruitless endeavour that tends to lead to broken, used and ill people. It's the opposite of what I'd call the life affirming route of finding a long-term partner with whom to raise a family and live a settled, deeply satisfying life. Instead, culture now only wants quick, fading satisfactions. This is not really news, I guess. I don't want to see folks as medicated and as depressed as this generation has become. We're recording more mental illness and dissatisfaction than ever before. I see around me, as other many wiser folks have, that the fleeting life is not the fulfilled life. It is not the life that leads to wholesome outcomes. We have now decided that this is somehow alright, and have instead kicked virtue out and allowed rampant individualism in.

I just think it breaks folks and leaves us with lots of unhappy, ill people.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm quite tired but I'll attempt to answer you here. Sorry my answer will be briefer than I would have liked.

Yes and no. It's based on my experience and the experience of cultures the world over. We have long realised as a species that the things that really, innately satisfy us are few and hard to achieve. I'm trying to say that sleeping around without any emotional attachment whatever leads to no lasting happiness and is a fruitless endeavour that tends to lead to broken, used and ill people. It's the opposite of what I'd call the life affirming route of finding a long-term partner with whom to raise a family and live a settled, deeply satisfying life. Instead, culture now only wants quick, fading satisfactions. This is not really news, I guess. I don't want to see folks as medicated and as depressed as this generation has become. We're recording more mental illness and dissatisfaction than ever before. I see around me, as other many wiser folks have, that the fleeting life is not the fulfilled life. It is not the life that leads to wholesome outcomes. We have now decided that this is somehow alright, and have instead kicked virtue out and allowed rampant individualism in.

I just think it breaks folks and leaves us with lots of unhappy, ill people.

I know you’re tired, so obviously I won’t be offended by a lack of response or a response on a better day (I hope you feel better!).

But I don’t think the nuclear family model made people happy either. There’s a reason divorce rates are high: when people feel like they have to latch on to one person, it doesn’t always work out. You just end up with people in miserable situations.

If we’re concerned about people seeking short term solutions, that is the problem: not premarital sex.

It is perfectly possible for people to have premarital sex with the understanding that it’s exactly that: perhaps marriage is for later.

Adults can make these kinds of decisions. Not every decision has to be some long term decision, but we ought to be in a healthy place when we make them, of course.

What I’m saying is that if someone has an unhealthy mentality, it won’t matter whether they’re having premarital sex or marrying. It’s not the sex that’s the problem, it’s the person’s mental state. Vilifying people for making decisions like taking that person home from the bar or whatever doesn’t speak to the actual issue.

In fact I’d argue that the conservative method of repressing or shaming people is worse. Not everyone fits in the same box and pretending like they do is harmful.

The better solution is not engaging in premarital sex if you don’t want to, and leaving people that do alone. If they are doing things from an unhealthy mindset (such as addiction, or depression) then we should be arguing for better mental healthcare, not repressing people that can live their lives in ways they see fit.

 

[Meow Mix]

The conservative view of shaming and repressing people reminds me of stuff from very early grade school, where a class might have had something they could do (I’m trying to think of an example), but some kid couldn’t handle the responsibility so then nobody got to do the thing: everyone got punished because of one kid basically.

It’s the same mindset.

Because some people are mentally unwell, the conservative repressive mindset is to assume nobody has the responsibility, and to “punish” everyone.

e.g., because some people are addicted to sex and make unhealthy sexual decisions, the represser thinks nobody should be able to do it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I mean I get around, I don’t really see anyone dressed “like hookers” except extremely rarely; and I can’t say I’ve ever seen people in public wearing “fetish gear” and I actually go to Pride.

I only see them dressed lime that when they are actual hookers or at one of a few clubs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But I don’t think the nuclear family model made people happy either. There’s a reason divorce rates are high: when people feel like they have to latch on to one person, it doesn’t always work out. You just end up with people in miserable situations.

I blame the nuclear family model for many problems because it's one of the least pro-family models our species has practiced. Typically we have aunts and uncles, cousins and grandparents at least nearby and in close proximity. The nuclear family is mom and dad with the expectation of the kids leaving and mom and dad being alone. It's so restrictive we can't even take time off from work if someone like an uncle dies. That's just wrong.

 

[Meow Mix]

I only see them dressed lime that when they are actual hookers or at one of a few clubs.

I live in a major city too, it's not like I live in a low population area. I see the urban and subarban areas. If there are people walking around constantly in fetish stuff it's not in my city. Might be a local culture thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The conservative view of shaming and repressing people reminds me of stuff from very early grade school, where a class might have had something they could do (I’m trying to think of an example), but some kid couldn’t handle the responsibility so then nobody got to do the thing: everyone got punished because of one kid basically.

It’s the same mindset.

Because some people are mentally unwell, the conservative repressive mindset is to assume nobody has the responsibility, and to “punish” everyone.

e.g., because some people are addicted to sex and make unhealthy sexual decisions, the represser thinks nobody should be able to do it.

One thing that got me to vote for gay marriage when it came on the ballot on my state before the US Supreme Court case was the mental inconsistency of those opposing gays. The same people that opposed marriage equality also complained about the perceived promiscuity of gay men. Single straight men are far more promiscuous than married straight men. If one does not allow a group to marry then promiscuity is going to be higher. As so often is the case with those oppressing others the anti-gay crowd wanted it both ways.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I live in a major city too, it's not like I live in a low population area. I see the urban and subarban areas. If there are people walking around constantly in fetish stuff it's not in my city. Might be a local culture thing.

Could be. He is in the MidWest, so it would be odd, but I've drove rideshare for awhile now in Bakersfield, Fresno, and some in LA. Bako is the smallest of those, but its the 6th largest in California and it has two colleges.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm quite tired but I'll attempt to answer you here. Sorry my answer will be briefer than I would have liked.

No dramas. And no need to answer this post unless you're getting anything out of this conversation. I've been stuck in threads before where I felt obligated to keep answering posts but was completely over the topic at hand. If that's the case here, feel free to ghost it, at least from my perspective.

Yes and no. It's based on my experience and the experience of cultures the world over.

Your experience is surely something you can talk about. Cultures the world over is a different matter. Not that you can't have a strong opinion on that...but so can I. And I certainly do. So I wouldn't be willing to accept that on face value.

We have long realised as a species that the things that really, innately satisfy us are few and hard to achieve.

Agreed.

I'm trying to say that sleeping around without any emotional attachment whatever leads to no lasting happiness and is a fruitless endeavour that tends to lead to broken, used and ill people.

I don't see it. Unfortunately, though, I might have to give some background here. I have never had sex outside of a relationship (despite plenty of opportunity, weirdly...). And the first woman I slept with is my wife (though it was pre-marriage by many years). So whilst I'm not religious in any sense of the word, I personally decided I didn't want sex outside of emotional attachment. I was obviously a young man at the time I made that choice, along with a bunch of others you'd broadly describe as 'traditional' and most likely 'positive', such as avoiding illegal drugs.

But not all of the people I grew up with made the same decisions. In fact, they almost universally didn't. And how they've come out of that period of their life is largely happy and well-adjusted. I like to think I pick my friends pretty well based on their core values, how they treat people, etc. Turns out (in my experience) it's entirely possible to treat people well, respect yourself AND have sex outside of marriage. Equally, it's possible to be married and do all sorts of mucked up stuff.

So, from my perspective, I'd agree that sleeping around doesn't lead to lasting happiness...as you yourself said, such things are rare and hard to achieve. But neither does it lead to 'broken, used and ill people'...except for where people are lll-used, or treat themselves and others in negative ways.

It's the opposite of what I'd call the life affirming route of finding a long-term partner with whom to raise a family and live a settled, deeply satisfying life.

That strikes me as way too Pleasantvilley, though. That's simply not how life works. Think of all the married couples you know. Do you really think they all lead 'settled, deeply satisfying lives'? I know singles who are. Married couples who are. Singles who are not. Married couples who are not.

Instead, culture now only wants quick, fading satisfactions. This is not really news, I guess. I don't want to see folks as medicated and as depressed as this generation has become.

Nor I. I spend a lot of time bemoaning the lack of resilience in our youth, and the need of adults to become 'friends' to their kids. These are shortcut options caused by a lack of willingness to think long term, and invest in it, imho.

We're recording more mental illness and dissatisfaction than ever before. I see around me, as other many wiser folks have, that the fleeting life is not the fulfilled life. It is not the life that leads to wholesome outcomes. We have now decided that this is somehow alright, and have instead kicked virtue out and allowed rampant individualism in.

Well...I find the current political and social situation bemusing precisely because it seems to be individualism gone mad, and a lack of understanding and investment in community.

I just think it breaks folks and leaves us with lots of unhappy, ill people.

Lots of things break folks. Strict religious rules would most certainly break some people. Forcing gay women into straight marriages breaks people. Forcing women to give up careers to raise children can break people. I'm not providing the following as any sort of 'evidence' of anything, but there are a LOT of anecdotal stories from women who lived back in the 'good old traditional days' who now feel comfortable voicing that they didn't find them too good. But they...much like some of the traditional breadwinner males, I suspect...pushed their happiness under a veneer more commonly than we do now.

What do you mean, the good old days?

If we look at the topic of unplanned pregnancies specifically, how do you judge the tension point between traditional values, and the impact of higher education on unplanned pregnancies?

Whilst there is commonly an assumption about traditional values driving loving, nuclear families, this is pretty hard to actually support. But what is a very simple and clear retardant of unplanned pregnancies is female education.

Unintended Pregnancy in the United States

Women without a high school degree had the highest unintended pregnancy rate among those of any educational level in 2011 (73 per 1,000), and rates were lower with each level of educational attainment.

There are also differences in rates of outcomes of unintended pregnancies across population groups. In 2011, women with incomes below 100% of poverty had an unplanned birth rate nearly seven times that of women at or above 200% of poverty.

As I mentioned earlier with examples of Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands, the clearest path to lowering rates of unplanned pregnancy appears to be female empowerment and education. You look at the same issue and think you can lower rates with...abstinence? Apart from the inherent idealism in that, I just don't see it. It doesn't gel with my life experience at all, despite me personally making something akin to that choice for myself. If it did gel, I'd teach my girls to do what I did. But I won't be. I'll be teaching them a whole lot of things about personal responsibility, and understanding the consequences of actions.

 

[DNB]

Nope.

..and, Lucifer is synonymous with satan? Ok, i'm entirely confused. Either way, you seem very reasonable at times, as much as anyone else, so I hope that you don't let a few bad apples spoil the entire bunch for you, or cause you to act impetuously or in spite?
Best of luck SW, I still think that you're playing with fire.
Thanks!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

..and, Lucifer is synonymous with satan? Ok, i'm entirely confused. Either way, you seem very reasonable at times, as much as anyone else, so I hope that you don't let a few bad apples spoil the entire bunch for you, or cause you to act impetuously or in spite?
Best of luck SW, I still think that you're playing with fire.
Thanks!

Definitely not being impetuous. I've moved on, grown, and now I find that my views and beliefs are very strongly aligned with and congruent with the Temple of Satan.
And it's nice. I've had deep yearnings tje past several months for more, more open to "whatever" than I've ever been. And it was Satan who called.

 

[DNB]

Definitely not being impetuous. I've moved on, grown, and now I find that my views and beliefs are very strongly aligned with and congruent with the Temple of Satan.
And it's nice. I've had deep yearnings tje past several months for more, more open to "whatever" than I've ever been. And it was Satan who called.

But SW, you just said that he doesn't exist - how in the world are you reconciling your current devotion with a figment of your imagination?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But SW, you just said that he doesn't exist - how in the world are you reconciling your current devotion with a figment of your imagination?

It's metaphor, an ideal, a philosophy.

 

[DNB]

It's metaphor, an ideal, a philosophy.

Oh, ...you do speak a peculiar language, you know?
Listen SW, I'm going to get in trouble with the mods again, but must you delve into what is commonly understood a such a sinister realm, in order to achieve what you're trying to achieve?
I'm not trying to convert you but appeal to reason, you know very well that Christ did not endorse whatever your former Church claims that he did, at least not to the same intensity or over-arching manner.

Forgiveness is the grace of God, a free gift - how in the world can this exclusively be construed as a threat of hell-fire? The warnings are only for those who act with defiance and contempt towards the mercy of salvation, not for those who fall short from perfection, otherwise it's not grace or mercy.
Don't let a bunch of overly austere and incompetent exegetes put a bad taste in your mouth or chains onto you, of something that is entirely emancipating and that is meant to evoke relief and gratitude, not trepidation or resentment.