Comments on: Can Porn be Really More Dangerous Than War? For Who?

By: Jared Spurbeck

Jared Spurbeck — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:39:10 +0000

Actually Jesus didn’t say staring at women you’re not married is immoral. Staring at women with lust is immoral. That seems to include your wife if she’s a woman

He said “That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Adultery, sir, by definition, is extramarital intercourse.

Whether it’ll make people miserable or not, I am sure individuals can decide what’s best for them self. Who are we to decide what’s best for others anyway?

The thesis of Wendy Shalit’s A Return to Modesty, linked to above, is that people (especially girls) are miserable these days because they’ve been left to decide for themselves. She cites many examples of girls who’d been given no guidance at all, and compromised personal boundaries that they hadn’t known even existed. And she describes how helpless it feels to live in a world where not only is rape taken for granted, but most girls end up giving in to their boyfriends anyway because they have no excuses left for saying “no” anymore.

Everyone’s free to make choices, sir, yes. But nowadays we have millions of “liberated women” who are absolutely miserable, because everything in the world is urging them to make one, specific choice; from their peers, to their boyfriend, to the magazines at the checkout stands. And they might feel very uncomfortable about it, but they feel like they have no socially acceptable grounds for refusing that choice anymore. Because these days, saying “no” to your boyfriend is a personal insult, and not a request that he back up his infatuation for you with commitment.

By: webmaster

webmaster — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:08:49 +0000

Actually Jesus didn’t say staring at women you’re not married is immoral. Staring at women with lust is immoral. That seems to include your wife if she’s a woman

Whether it’ll make people miserable or not, I am sure individuals can decide what’s best for them self. Who are we to decide what’s best for others anyway?

By: Jared Spurbeck

Jared Spurbeck — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:18:10 +0000

When all sex is completely free, consensual, and unregulated, those who cannot attract sex partners will be out competed from the gene pool. The most attractive males will mate with all the females and the prettiest females will get the richest smartest males super alpha males leaving the rest extinct producing. Well, that certainly sounds like something we should all aspire to. ^.^; Perhaps when Jesus told the multitude that to stare at a woman you're not married to is immoral, it was because he knew that promiscuous behavior not only makes people miserable, but also decreases their survivability as a species.

By: Khaled Khalil

Khaled Khalil — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:55:34 +0000

lock the comment if you want just comment from your side, but that is not respectful to ban comment you don’t agree with

By: Khaled Khalil

Khaled Khalil — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 02:23:36 +0000

i still can’t find any relation, but really all peace activists i know concider themeselves as conservators only for this point of view, i don’t know (exactly) what you meant about “righteous”, but much of them are religeous (some of them are activists in this way too).
when it comes to authorities, they always have to say that they do the right, depending what is the right in their people’s eyes, but i guess there isn’t much difference between the definition of “right” in ancient rome and usa and israel, in any case their authorities will confirm that they do the “right”