PS56 wrote:First, it was suggested earlier that the use of porn is always selfish, and the underlying reason that was advanced in support of this proposition was that husbands should be spending their time learning how to please their wives, and failing to do so and instead pursuing porn was selfish. My point, in response to that proposition was that, if a wife refuses to have sex with her husband, and the husband turns to porn for release, it's not really fair to suggest that he is being selfish and that he should be learning to please his wife. That is not really a practical option. Does that mean his use of porn is justifiable (to God) and not sinful? NO! NO! NO! And I have never said otherwise. But it is useful, I think, to know WHY people sin in this area, because, among other things, it can help prevent the sin and help others recover. In addition, I think this is a scenario in which one could argue that the use of porn is not entirely selfish, notwithstanding that it is sinful.
That is more clear. Thank you. I was not the one who suggested that a refused husband should be spending time learning how to please his wife. To be relevant to this particular segment of the conversation, there were three women whose husbands were choosing porn over willing wives. That is the reason it was called selfish (by all three of us) and lazy (by me). The response (not by you) was that women were emotional and it was too hard.<-------That, right there, is insulting. I think I can speak for the three of us (the refused wives) and say that we feel most men are not such simpletons and we have more respect than to think most men would not be able to connect on more than a purely physical level.
PS56 wrote:*Note: This doesn't mean that any husbands (or most husbands) who are using porn are doing so because of refusal.
PS56 wrote:Second, after the discussion evolved somewhat, someone made the point that porn is never educational. I suggested a hypothetical situation in which it might be educational, just trying to raise the issue for discussion. This second point is entirely different from the refusal point discussed above. Is it a sin to look at porn for an entirely educational purpose, notwithstanding that there might be other resources that supposedly are not pornographic? That's a tougher issue for me and I'm not sure how I come down on it yet. I think it's a tougher question because it depends on what resources one would consider to be pornographic, what resources one would consider to be non-pornographic, and the heart of the person seeking education. And, as I said above, if the issue is whether porn can be educational in certain instances, the fact that there may be "better" resources, non-pornographic resources, or less pornographic resources, is a separate issue to some extent than whether the use of a pornographic resource is "educational" (and not "selfish").
I think it might be helpful to describe pornography as "recreational sexually explicit material." That would be a good working definition for what I think the three (refused wives) of us mean. Again, speaking for the three of us, we are referring to photographic images with exaggerated, um, body parts and, um, numbers of people, and, um maybe violence or force, and really silly names. There is no question that this material would not be educational in any sense. I think it would be safe to say that the three of us have experienced harm from this sort of thing.
There is educational material available that might use artistic renderings--wooden abstract figures or line drawings--that are truly focused on teaching or demonstrating technique. I consider that to be educational, and some people might have a problem even with that. In that case, it might be better to use a professional sex therapist or something without illustration in a controlled setting.
I hope this is helpful. My gosh, this is exhausting.
Yes, it is. And it is worthwhile to have understanding, and resolution (I hope).
I see you have posted again. I'm going to go ahead and submit and read what you have added.