"Pornography Offends the Holy Ghost"

[Saint Frankenstein]

Please excuse my ignorance, but I take it that you were born with two X chromosomes, but identify as a man, am I right? I am in no way judging here.

Assigned female at birth, yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Assigned female at birth, yes.

I grew up in an earlier generation. So I am going to have some deep set biases. I try to avoid those, but they are going to raise their ugly head now and then. You may need to bear with me from time to time.

 

[idea]

Is the fact that porn is profitable make it worse?

.

Not all who enter that industry enter it voluntarily.

 

[Skwim]

Not all who enter that industry enter it voluntarily.

Not all who enter into marriage do it voluntarily either.

.​

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Don't miss out on the joy of being loved by someone.

"Love" and "sex" are two different things. I can have one without the other.

The joy of your first child and parenthood.

That won't cause me joy. My family tree should be stripped of any future growth. Being childless is a gift to humanity and the future.

Besides, I don't want to be around kids for an extended period of time. I can tolerate them for maybe less than an hour and then the parents need to take them back.

You are not the problem, porn is the problem

And I, a person who dislikes porn, would admit it serves a purpose and only certain elements are truly the problem.

but how can anyone compare a sexual relation with virtual images and virtual partners, to sexual relations with a real partner? What's next, "hologram love", "cyber love" , or "AI love". Even paid-for love is better than imaginary love. Don

The sex bot industry is THRIVING, considering the stuff I end up seeing on my FB page, especially in Japan. Some sex bots aren't even being USED for sex, but "relationships". People claim they can't get the real thing from "real" people, so they go the bot route. I've been around people. I can see where they're coming from.

This thread makes me think of this song:

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Normally I wouldn't stick my nose in here, but I just came across your strange remark here. Are you really under the impression, that the loss of semen has a significant effect on the amount of one's enzymes, proteins, glucosides, lecithin, calcium, phosphorus, biological salts, testosterone? One that requires a person to pay special attention their diet?---Of course one should always maintain a healthy diet whether they masturbate or not. Trouble is, you neglected to include the whole of the statement from which you lifted your information:

"Masturbation may be the cause for exacerbation of your costichonndritis. [Inflammation of the junctions where the upper ribs join with the cartilage that holds them to the breastbone, or sternum.] Sperm contains DNA, which is carrier of the heredity genetic code, and RNA which contains enzymes, proteins, glucosides, lecithin, calcium, phosphorus, biological salts, testosterone, etc. When ejaculation is carried out, a very small percentage of this components (enzymes, proteins, glucosides, lecithin, calcium, phosphorus, biological salts, testosterone) are eliminated from the body. so when calcium is extracted it can cause fatigue and pain in the bones."
source
​

Nothing at all about any special deleterious effect masturbation has on one's nutrients, the loss being trivial, and only telling in a very special case. (Interestingly enough, costichonndritis is more common among women.)

I think the comparison should be obvious; the later normally being far more desirable.

.

If your only purpose is to misrepresent, belittle, trivialize, or distort everything I say, maybe its best that you don't stick your nose in. My statement was very clear, "There are NO HARMFUL PHYSICAL EFFECTS from masturbation, as long as you maintain a healthy diet TO REPLACE THE LOSS OF NUTRIENTS DURING EJACULATION. Can this be any clearer? The more you masturbate, the more fluids(nutrients) you lose, the more you need to replace them. How is this even an argument? "Pay special attention to their diet..", "whether they masturbate or not..", or have "special deleterious effect, are all misrepresentation's to give my words and my point a different connotation. Obviously, the continued loss of nutrients has an accumulative effect over time, since the amount of ejaculum is so small. As long as these nutrients are replaced, THERE ARE NO HARMFUL PHYSICAL EFFECTS FROM MASTURBATION". It was an off-the-cuff remark. I could have said, "...as long as you look after your health" But, I'm sure someone would find some fault in that as well.

Are you under the impression that the accumulative loss of nutrients from continued masturbation, and other physical actions associated with continued masturbation, are just trivial and insignificant? Are you under the impression that any loss of bodily nutrients, is also insignificant? You are right however, it is obvious. Don

 

[Subduction Zone]

If your only purpose is to misrepresent, belittle, trivialize, or distort everything I say, maybe its best that you don't stick your nose in. My statement was very clear, "There are NO HARMFUL PHYSICAL EFFECTS from masturbation, as long as you maintain a healthy diet TO REPLACE THE LOSS OF NUTRIENTS DURING EJACULATION. Can this be any clearer? The more you masturbate, the more fluids(nutrients) you lose, the more you need to replace them. How is this even an argument? "Pay special attention to their diet..", "whether they masturbate or not..", or have "special deleterious effect, are all misrepresentation's to give my words and my point a different connotation. Obviously, the continued loss of nutrients has an accumulative effect over time, since the amount of ejaculum is so small. As long as these nutrients are replaced, THERE ARE NO HARMFUL PHYSICAL EFFECTS FROM MASTURBATION". It was an off-the-cuff remark. I could have said, "...as long as you look after your health" But, I'm sure someone would find some fault in that as well.

Are you under the impression that the accumulative loss of nutrients from continued masturbation, and other physical actions associated with continued masturbation, are just trivial and insignificant? Are you under the impression that any loss of bodily nutrients, is also insignificant? You are right however, it is obvious. Don

Seriously how what volume of Precious Bodily Fluids do you think that you can lose in a day?

 

[Skwim]

If your only purpose is to misrepresent, belittle, trivialize, or distort everything I say, maybe its best that you don't stick your nose in. My statement was very clear, "There are NO HARMFUL PHYSICAL EFFECTS from masturbation, as long as you maintain a healthy diet TO REPLACE THE LOSS OF NUTRIENTS DURING EJACULATION. Can this be any clearer? The more you masturbate, the more fluids(nutrients) you lose, the more you need to replace them. How is this even an argument? "Pay special attention to their diet..", "whether they masturbate or not..", or have "special deleterious effect, are all misrepresentation's to give my words and my point a different connotation. Obviously, the continued loss of nutrients has an accumulative effect over time, since the amount of ejaculum is so small. As long as these nutrients are replaced, THERE ARE NO HARMFUL PHYSICAL EFFECTS FROM MASTURBATION". It was an off-the-cuff remark. I could have said, "...as long as you look after your health" But, I'm sure someone would find some fault in that as well.

Are you under the impression that the accumulative loss of nutrients from continued masturbation, and other physical actions associated with continued masturbation, are just trivial and insignificant? Are you under the impression that any loss of bodily nutrients, is also insignificant? You are right however, it is obvious. Don

Hey, all I did was ask a couple of questions.

1)Are you really under the impression, that the loss of semen has a significant effect on the amount of one's enzymes, proteins, glucosides, lecithin, calcium, phosphorus, biological salts, testosterone?

2) One that requires a person to pay special attention their diet?
​

Because from the way you expressed yourself it appeared you did, so I simply pointed out where you would be mistaken. A mistake that has the potential to misguide others if left uncorrected.

NOW, if, in fact, you are not under the impression, that the loss of semen has a significant effect on the amount of one's enzymes, proteins, glucosides, lecithin, calcium, phosphorus, biological salts, testosterone. OR one that requires a person to pay special attention their diet, then fine. All you would need to have said was

"I am not under the impression, that the loss of semen has a significant effect on the amount of one's enzymes, proteins, glucosides, lecithin, calcium, phosphorus, biological salts, testosterone. or one that requires a person to pay special attention their diet,"
​

Case closed. No harm, no foul.

.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Is the fact that porn is profitable make it worse?

.

Probably not, but we should recognise the major motive for producing such stuff, and as I mentioned earlier, the whole initiating factor for images to become more explicit - in magazines during the 1970s - appears to derive from wanting a commercial edge over rivals rather than anything else. And I think that few would doubt the fact that the race to the bottom has not occurred, that is, that pornography has become much more explicit in almost every way with the arrival of the internet.

 

[Skwim]

Probably not, but we should recognise the major motive for producing such stuff, and as I mentioned earlier, the whole initiating factor for images to become more explicit - in magazines during the 1970s - appears to derive from wanting a commercial edge over rivals rather than anything else.

The "commercial edge" being an increase in one's revenue. Money being the bottom line in magazines during the 1970s.

And I think that few would doubt the fact that the race to the bottom has not occurred, that is, that pornography has become much more explicit in almost every way with the arrival of the internet.

Never having seen porno magazines from the 70s I'll take your word for it. However, what I do know is that there's a tremendous amount of non-commercial, amateur porn put on the internet, and for no remuneration! People are evidently getting a kick out of posting their sexual adventures for the public. Go figure.

.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The "commercial edge" being an increase in one's revenue. Money being the bottom line in magazines during the 1970s.


Never having seen porno magazines from the 70s I'll take your word for it. However, what I do know is that there's a tremendous amount of non-commercial, amateur porn put on the internet, and for no remuneration! People are evidently getting a kick out of posting their sexual adventures for the public. Go figure.

.

Ah, the selfie generation.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You accuse me of avoiding commitment and then you bring up that stupid pseudo-scientific crap about losing nutrients when you ejaculate (which is bull**** and I'm a trans man, anyway, so I don't have semen to ejaculate to begin with)? *clicks ignore*

In your particular case, the amount of ejaculum is not an issue. For the rest of us, it can be. Trans genders represent less than 0.4% of the world's population. So is what I'm saying bull**** because of its relevancy to a tiny percent of the population? There was a case where a man learned that he had incurable brain cancer. He was told that he would be dead in six months. He went home and used a gun to his head. Not only did he live, but all traces of cancer were remove by the blast. Should surgeons now incorporate using a gun as a legitimate surgical procedure? My comments relate to the other 99% of the population. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but the rules are not always the exceptions. Don

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Hey, all I did was ask a couple of questions.

1)Are you really under the impression, that the loss of semen has a significant effect on the amount of one's enzymes, proteins, glucosides, lecithin, calcium, phosphorus, biological salts, testosterone?

2) One that requires a person to pay special attention their diet?
​

Because from the way you expressed yourself it appeared you did, so I simply pointed out where you would be mistaken. A mistake that has the potential to misguide others if left uncorrected.

NOW, if, in fact, you are not under the impression, that the loss of semen has a significant effect on the amount of one's enzymes, proteins, glucosides, lecithin, calcium, phosphorus, biological salts, testosterone. OR one that requires a person to pay special attention their diet, then fine. All you would need to have said was

"I am not under the impression, that the loss of semen has a significant effect on the amount of one's enzymes, proteins, glucosides, lecithin, calcium, phosphorus, biological salts, testosterone. or one that requires a person to pay special attention their diet,"
​

Case closed. No harm, no foul.

.

I will admit that I made the faulty assumption that no one would think that the loss of less than a teaspoon of ejaculum, would have any physical effect on the body at all. Clearly someone did. My bad. The second faulty assumption I made, was that anyone would know that I was talking about the cumulative amounts of ejaculum. not the single amount. Again my bad. It is amazing how even when I preference my remarks with "THERE IS NO HARMFUL PHYSICAL EFFECTS FROM MASTURBATION", how easily it was completely ignored.

This is not a matter of clarity or comprehension, it is a deliberate and willful misrepresentation of my statement. I made no statements about any dangers associated with the continued loss of body nutrients. Only that nutrients are lost, and should be replaced though a heathy diet. Had I talked about the symptoms or diseases associated with the loss of essential nutrients, there might then be some justification. But I didn't.Therefore, you are just arguing with your own straw man and asking me to reframe my statements to accommodate. Also, make sure you are correct, or that I am incorrect, before you take the moral high ground and jump to the conclusion that I may be potentially misleading others. I really take the time to do my homework before I post anything. I want to offer more than just an opinion, or to demonstrate how well I can misrepresent, or dismiss what others are saying. Try to read what I say, and not what you want me to say, in the future. Don

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Not all who enter that industry enter it voluntarily.

Name an industry this ISN'T true for?

 

[Skwim]

I will admit that I made the faulty assumption that no one would think that the loss of less than a teaspoon of ejaculum, would have any physical effect on the body at all. Clearly someone did. My bad. The second faulty assumption I made, was that anyone would know that I was talking about the cumulative amounts of ejaculum. not the single amount. Again my bad. It is amazing how even when I preference my remarks with "THERE IS NO HARMFUL PHYSICAL EFFECTS FROM MASTURBATION", how easily it was completely ignored.

OMG, you can't even quote yourself properly. . . . or maybe you purposely chose not to. You didn't say,

"There are no harmful physical effects from masturbation,"​

You said:

"There are no harmful physical effects from masturbation, as long as you maintain a healthy diet to replace the nutrients lost during ejaculation( enzymes, proteins, glucosides, lecithin, calcium, phosphorus, biological salts, testosterone).
​

Your qualifying statement, "as long as . . . . " being the issue I addressed.

I made no statements about any dangers associated with the continued loss of body nutrients.

No you didn't. You made a statement about the possible dangers of masturbation. Your statement was about the "harmful physical effects," of losing nutrients during ejaculation if a healthy diet isn't maintained, which, if it was true, would amount to a danger, even if you don't think it would.

Also, make sure you are correct, or that I am incorrect, before you take the moral high ground and jump to the conclusion that I may be potentially misleading others.

Believe me, it takes no moral high ground to recognize a potentially harmful mistake and try to correct it. I would hope even those of a low moral fiber would be generous enough to do the same.

I really take the time to do my homework before I post anything. I want to offer more than just an opinion, or to demonstrate how well I can misrepresent, or dismiss what others are saying.

Then perhaps you should have your posts proofread.

Try to read what I say, and not what you want me to say, in the future. Don

Believe me, I sincerely want you to say what you mean, and when it's incorrect at least own up to it rather than go on and on as you have here.

Remember, All I did was ask two (2) questions, and pointed out where you were mistaken.


In any case, I'm through with this minor kerfuffle. Have the last word if it makes you happy, and have a good evening.

.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

"Love" and "sex" are two different things. I can have one without the other.


That won't cause me joy. My family tree should be stripped of any future growth. Being childless is a gift to humanity and the future.

Besides, I don't want to be around kids for an extended period of time. I can tolerate them for maybe less than an hour and then the parents need to take them back.


And I, a person who dislikes porn, would admit it serves a purpose and only certain elements are truly the problem.


The sex bot industry is THRIVING, considering the stuff I end up seeing on my FB page, especially in Japan. Some sex bots aren't even being USED for sex, but "relationships". People claim they can't get the real thing from "real" people, so they go the bot route. I've been around people. I can see where they're coming from.

This thread makes me think of this song:

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned. But, I'd like to think that sex is still the most natural and the most powerful expression of the love between two people. To reach total abandonment, total innocence, total release, total harmony, total pleasure, and be totally free of guilt, is an experience that only happens between two people that truly love each other. To totally entwine yourself in the essence of each other's thoughts and being, is the goal of all real relationships. The French call this "La Petite Mort", or "the little death". For those of us that have not experienced this level of intimacy, sex can only be driven by hormones. It is the orgasm that becomes love, not the partner. You become only a performer, just like those in the sex and porn industries. Once you have experienced this level of intimacy, you will never want sex without love.

From sharing the pain of your first childbirth, to looking into the eyes of the most helpless of all creatures, is an experience that is better than sex. Nothing artificial can match this moment in a relationship. In this new Large Data Age, morality and social standards seem to be adjusted to accommodate commercial standards.

I believe that all of internet porn is a problem. The different types(genres) are the results of the problem. They are not the problem themselves. It doesn't matter whether you smoke low-tar, low nicotine, or menthols, all cigarettes are bad for you. Don

 

[Truly Enlightened]

OMG, you can't even quote yourself properly. . . . or maybe you purposely chose not to. You didn't say,

"There are no harmful physical effects from masturbation,"​

You said:

"There are no harmful physical effects from masturbation, as long as you maintain a healthy diet to replace the nutrients lost during ejaculation( enzymes, proteins, glucosides, lecithin, calcium, phosphorus, biological salts, testosterone).
​

Your qualifying statement, "as long as . . . . " being the issue I addressed.

No you didn't. You made a statement about the possible dangers of masturbation. Your statement was about the "harmful physical effects," of losing nutrients during ejaculation if a healthy diet isn't maintained, which, if it was true, would amount to a danger, even if you don't think it would.


Believe me, it takes no moral high ground to recognize a potentially harmful mistake and try to correct it. I would hope even those of a low moral fiber would be generous enough to do the same.


Then perhaps you should have your posts proofread.


Believe me, I sincerely want you to say what you mean, and when it's incorrect at least own up to it rather than go on and on as you have here.

Remember, All I did was ask two (2) questions, and pointed out where you were mistaken.


In any case, I'm through with this minor kerfuffle. Have the last word if it makes you happy, and have a good evening.

.

My post was not about the harmful physical effects of masturbation. I preferenced(a liking for) my FULL STATEMENT with "There are no harmful physical effects from masturbation....", something that you failed to highlight. Maybe you can tell me what are some of the physical dangers I mentioned resulting from masturbation? Maybe you can tell me what are the harmful physical effects of losing nutrients from the body as a result of masturbation? Do you agree that the body's nutrients can be replaced through a healthy diet? Was I mistaken when I stated that the loss of nutrients should be replaced, or that there is no physical harm from masturbation? Since the opposite would be insane, where I'm I going wrong? I did not mean that every time you get off, that you were harming your body physically. I only meant the cumulative effect of every time you get off, if you don't replace your nutrients. But on a western diet, this would be very difficult to avoid, unless you eat, think, sleep, and breath porn or masturbation. This all seems like a no-brainer to me. Even unworthy of someone with a low moral fiber.

Not the most graceful of swan songs. But no, this does not make me happy, but good evening to you as well. Don

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Seriously how what volume of Precious Bodily Fluids do you think that you can lose in a day?

Average ejaculum is 3.7ml. 3 times a day is 11.1 ml(less than a tablespoon). That's 333 ml a month. That's 4.3 litres(1.3 Gallons) a year. This does not include the water and essential nutrients lost in sweat. It's amazing just as in life, how little things can add up. Fortunately, because our western culture, and supplement availability, it is difficult for us to succumb to this level of malnutrition. But porn is global and accessible everywhere. And, in many poor and 3rd world countries, nutrition is a real issue.

Just a few fun facts(maybe not facts) Sexual Facts . Don

 

[idea]

Not all who enter that industry enter it voluntarily.

Name an industry this ISN'T true for?

It just happens to be a sore spot for me, as quite a few in my family have been victims of this industry.

Just a few comments:

• Porn seems to be an escape mechanism, an alternative to genuine human relationships.
• It is more addictive than drugs, many start out with what is "harmless" and are led into darker and darker pieces of it by the end.
• It breeds violence, sex trafficking, degradation - back to the first point, the alternative to genuine human relationships leads not just to isolation, but to actual violence and abuse.

Here is a website - non-religious, non-political, peer-reviewed research based website:

Home - Fight the New Drug

After some very painful experiences (involving innocent children - VERY young innocent children) ... which led me to be in contact with others - too many others - with similar stories - our family is a proponent of "real love".

I do not care what religious or political viewpoints you hold - humans are social animals. Put someone in solitary confinement, and they will eventually go insane and kill themselves.

Real, genuine relationships are healthy... that virtual/fake/pretend stuff? it is not healthy.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Not all who enter that industry enter it voluntarily.


It just happens to be a sore spot for me, as quite a few in my family have been victims of this industry.

Just a few comments:

• Porn seems to be an escape mechanism, an alternative to genuine human relationships.
• It is more addictive than drugs, many start out with what is "harmless" and are led into darker and darker pieces of it by the end.
• It breeds violence, sex trafficking, degradation - back to the first point, the alternative to genuine human relationships leads not just to isolation, but to actual violence and abuse.

Here is a website - non-religious, non-political, peer-reviewed research based website:

Home - Fight the New Drug

After some very painful experiences (involving innocent children - VERY young innocent children) ... which led me to be in contact with others - too many others - with similar stories - our family is a proponent of "real love".

I do not care what religious or political viewpoints you hold - humans are social animals. Put someone in solitary confinement, and they will eventually go insane and kill themselves.

Real, genuine relationships are healthy... that virtual/fake/pretend stuff? it is not healthy.

You are of course correct. We are indeed social creatures, as well as being tribal. Cruel experiments done on new born chimps, depriving them of any contact with other chimps, bore this idea out. The results were disturbing to say the least. After a time some of the young chimps did kill themselves or went mad. A very sorry day for science, especially when the evidence was intuitive and obvious all along. Why do you think prisoners are not allowed to watch porn? Other than being cruel and unusual punishment. No matter who we are, our image of self is validated by how others see us, or respond to us. If you are lucky enough to find a partner who compliments that image of self, then the battle over personal insecurities is won. Don