Catholic men who struggle(d) with porn

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by kelvinf

You can wish to see it like that. But St. Paul was very clear. Such an unmarried or widow would end up with someone's daughter or son respectively. Whether we like it or not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't believe St. Paul -- was referring to Porn induced lust.



[

[kelvinf]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't believe St. Paul -- was referring to Porn induced lust.

[

So what kind of lust was he referring to? BTW, what are the different kinds of lust since you call one "Porn induced lust"? How do you call the other ones?

What falls under "temptations of concupiscence"?

What does "to be aflame with passion" (RSV-CE) mean? Or what constitutes "to be aflame with passion"?

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by kelvinf

So what kind of lust was he referring to? BTW, what are the different kinds of lust since you call one "Porn induced lust"? How do you call the other ones?

What falls under "temptations of concupiscence"?

What does "to be aflame with passion" (RSV-CE) mean? Or what constitutes "to be aflame with passion"?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marriage is a Sacrament --husband and wife come together because of mutual love. True love for a spouse does not include seeking the marital act-- because the man became aroused via porn.

[severus68]

Originally Posted by Debora123

I love how some men are taking this thread about porn use and trying to turn it into a thread about modesty of dress at Church (or just modesty of dress in daily living).

This reeks horribly of not wanting to take responsibility for your own sins of porn use and passing the blame onto someone else (who probably has NOTHING to do with porn). A strong man would stand up and take full responsibility upon himself and himself alone... rather than trying to blame the weaker gender.

It's like going off and bullying people and then blaming it on the existence of violence in the media. Absolutely ridiculous.

We all make mistakes. Jesus asks that we at least OWN UP TO THEM so that we can be truly forgiven.

So right.

[severus68]

Originally Posted by Gordon Sims

I have to agree with this completely. I gave some personal background, not as an excuse but to simply show how easy it was for me to fall into a problem. I've often wondered if the same thing would have happened if there hadn't been such an ample opportunity or seeming acceptance of it. At the same time, though, the first time I ever saw hardcore pornography, I absolutely knew it was wrong, and was so bothered by it that I almost threw up. It was entirely my choice, though, to watch it again. When my wife first told me she didn't like it and felt humiliated by me watching it, it was still my choice to watch it again. Every time I looked at it, the only common denominator was me, so that's the only person I could ever blame.

The notion that the women who take part in it (curiously, no blame was put on the men) are in any way to blame for someone's addiction to it is absolutely ludicrous. I've read stories and personal testimonies of women who were drugged, raped and otherwise forced to participate. Are they still to blame? (I'd guess, to some, the answer would be yes since apparently women who wear shorts to Mass are somehow also to blame.)

I think anyone who throws the blame in so many widely dispersed directions will never be able to get their problem under control. There's too many others "to blame," and that will always make it easier to have a relapse since it's never going to be their own fault.

Good post.

[severus68]

Originally Posted by Gordon Sims

In each of these examples you've pointed out that the man chooses to take notice of the the display, magazine cover or women at the beach. He's choosing to not only view them, but to do so in a sexual manner (particularly the case of the beach which takes a much more willful act than the other two). That's entirely the man's fault. If I go to Victoria's Secret with my wife, I see comfortable undergarments and sleepwear. If I go to the grocery store I simply don't look at the magazines in the checkout aisle. If I go to the beach, I see people enjoying the beach. I choose not to view the sexual content, or choose not to view the people in normal, everyday conditions in a sexual manner.

You are not the only one. The sad thing is there are some women who actually buy into such warped thinking.

[severus68]

Originally Posted by silicasandra

I would say neither. She is trying to wish you peace, not make you look down her shirt (unless, of course, you think she is trying to attract your attention on purpose - in which case, yes, she would be acting immodestly.) But you are still responsible for not looking no matter what her intent is.

I was smiling when reading your post.

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by severus68

You are not the only one. The sad thing is there are some women who actually buy into such warped thinking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This.

[severus68]

[

QUOTE=Walking_Home;8367936]---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marriage is a Sacrament --husband and wife come together because of mutual love. True love for a spouse does not include seeking the marital act-- because the man became aroused via porn.

[/quote]


True and not demanding it from your wife "as if you do not agree, I will need the use of porn and it will be your fault".

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by severus68

True and not demanding it from your wife "as if you do not agree, I will need the use of porn and it will be your fault".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ditto.

[Catholic90]

Originally Posted by Gordon Sims

In each of these examples you've pointed out that the man chooses to take notice of the the display, magazine cover or women at the beach. He's choosing to not only view them, but to do so in a sexual manner (particularly the case of the beach which takes a much more willful act than the other two). That's entirely the man's fault. If I go to Victoria's Secret with my wife, I see comfortable undergarments and sleepwear. If I go to the grocery store I simply don't look at the magazines in the checkout aisle. If I go to the beach, I see people enjoying the beach. I choose not to view the sexual content, or choose not to view the people in normal, everyday conditions in a sexual manner.

Other than that, I'm hoping I'm not the only one who sees just how misogynistic some of these posts are.

Excellent Post.

Originally Posted by silicasandra

I would say neither. She is trying to wish you peace, not make you look down her shirt (unless, of course, you think she is trying to attract your attention on purpose - in which case, yes, she would be acting immodestly.) But you are still responsible for not looking no matter what her intent is.

Excellent! IE. Men share responsibility here. So what if she was exposed? Don't look! Avert your eyes. You can do it!

[Catholic90]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home

Quote:
Originally Posted by severus68

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home

Marriage is a Sacrament --husband and wife come together because of mutual love. True love for a spouse does not include seeking the marital act-- because the man became aroused via porn.

True and not demanding it from your wife "as if you do not agree, I will need the use of porn and it will be your fault".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ditto.

Ditto again.

[L piperatus]

Originally Posted by silicasandra

<snip> no matter what other people do, everyone is responsible for their own moral behavior regardless of the moral behavior of others.

<snip>

I don't like these magazines either, but for slightly different reasons than you. I think they teach women that the only way they can relate to a man is if they are sexually objectified, and that sexual objectification gives them "power." I am not sure if this is still the case, but at one time at least Maxim and Cosmopolitan were owned by the same corporation, and incredibly, the messages they sent to men and the messages they sent to women fit together quite nicely! Men: turn your woman into a sex object so you don't have to listen to her concerns about other things! Women: Become a sex object because it's the only way he'll stay with you! And occasionally he'll remember to throw away the milk carton instead of putting it back in the refrigerator empty!

Terrible messages are being sent to men and women. But these messages NEVER excuse our behavior, nor do they diminish our responsibility to be charitable to a person even when they've "bought in" to these messages.

(bolded emphasis mine in the quote above)

Yes, we have a duty to always act properly, in accord with the moral teachings of our Catholic Church, no matter what other people choose to do around us. For a man, in this context it typically means averting his eyes whenever he sees women dressed inappropriately, not looking at pornographic material, and not visiting strip-tease clubs, even if "everybody else is doing it". For a woman, it typically means always dressing in a manner consistent with her dignity and not scandalizing others, i.e. not putting her body on display by dressing immodestly and not baring herself for everybody to see her nakedness.

I will also say, if you are a woman dating a man, and he has a porn problem, or even just a problem of "wandering eyes" and ogling the women around him, don't marry him. This man has a difficult-to-treat addiction problem at best, and will not respect you at worst. You will be better off staying single than marrying him. Also, if you are a single man, don't touch with a 10-feet pole a woman who dresses immodestly or shows other signs of vanity. Vanity is also an addiction leading to turmoil in marriage, and you will save yourself a big headache by passing up such a woman for a potential spouse.

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by severus68

Good post.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes it is -- very good post.

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by L piperatus

(bolded emphasis mine in the quote above)

Yes, we have a duty to always act properly, in accord with the moral teachings of our Catholic Church, no matter what other people choose to do around us. For a man, in this context it typically means averting his eyes whenever he sees women dressed inappropriately,

.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a man who claims to practice "custody of the eyes" -- you seem to be doing quite a lot of looking. Not only are you looking -- you are doing it long enough to take "notice and describe" what you've spent time looking at.

Originally Posted by L piperatus

I avoid anything like Cosmo, Glamour, Sports Illustrated swimsuit, and similar magazines aimed at either female or male audiences, like the plague. When I sit down at a hair dresser's saloon waiting, I will find instead some magazine dealing with travel, technology, parenting, etc.

Now, there are images in any magazines that are too suggestive, and frankly inappropriate. I will give one example. As I was browsing a professional magazine aimed for medical and life science researchers, there was this ad for a lab goggle, featuring a lady dressed in a lab coat that showed too much cleavage (she apparently wasn't wearing anything under that labcoat), and too much of her thighs (short labcoat, again, no dress or pants where the labcoat ended). Given how people dress today on the streets, given how much cleavage and other "goodies" some women show, the image of this ad wasn't out of line with contemporary culture. Yet it was an unsettling image, and I would argue that today's whole culture is out of line with sound morality. I could give other examples, but I hope this one will suffice to illustrate that inappropriate images pervade our culture, and not only those gossip magazines.

Next, I'm driving to my workplace. Right by the side of the road there's a huge poster (maybe some 50 x 20 feet) featuring a lady with a tiny bikini on, an advertisement for laser hair removal. I guess secular culture finds such stuff appropriate, but I don't want to see it. I avert my eyes.

Next, let's look at the TV channels. When I want news, I will mostly watch Fox, because it's the least obnoxious of the choices available to me. But with their morning show, I will not look at the screen and often flip the channel within a minute or less. I can't take Gretchen Carlson and the other ladies, sitting there with their tiny dresses, their thighs exposed, cleavages exposed, while the male anchors wear jackets and ties that cover their bodies and do not show all this skin. I have the same problem with the evening shows. Various ladies, most of them parading with these deep cut dresses and tank tops, showing cleavage. It's a big parade of skin, and I'm not going to watch it. I only wonder how do they set the air conditioner at the Fox studios. Do they crank it up, because male anchors and guests always wear jackets with ties, or do they set it to have tropical temperatures inside, because so many female anchors and guests are wearing tiny dresses and tank tops? One notable exception is Greta van Susteren, and I really do appreciate the good example she sets by her dress. I think she is a true professional and she does the right thing, while folks like Gretchen Carlson and the other lady on the morning show (I don't remember her name), always sitting there with those short dresses exposing their thighs, do a great disservice to viewers everywhere.

But I have a good remote control and I don't hesitate to use it. I flip the channel and there goes their viewer rating. I may not make a large difference, as a single viewer, but I make sure they have one less viewer when they dress in a way I don't like. Also, here's a split second memory from MSNBC the other night: I tuned in, and Rachel Maddow was wearing a costume, with a blouse cut so deep that I was afraid I was going to see everything down to her belly button. But the experience, thankfully, lasted for probably less than one second (because I flipped the channel real quick, LOL!!!). One less viewer for Rachel Maddow, on MSNBC's way out of business!

Next, I flip the channel to see a beautiful scenery in the Moab desert of Utah. I have something for the American Southwest, I'm so in love with it that I could watch nature films about it all day long. However, my viewing pleasure is soon ruined by some lady wearing this tank top that's so deep cut it looks like her breasts are going to fall out any moment now. It's some sort of survivor show, featuring a man and a woman lost in the harsh and remote desert of Moab. The man wears a t-shirt of the usual type, protecting his shoulders from the harsh sun during the day, and conserving body heat in the night when temperatures plummet close to freezing point. The woman, on the other hand, wears this tank top and just never quits whining!!!! .