Christian Naturism vs. Pornography Poll

Pornography destroys lots of marriages, and harms lof people in terrible ways. How can nudists pretend it doesn't matter?<P>Only Native Residents may post here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

How has your practice of viewing pornography for sexual gratification changed since you were exposed to Christian naturism?

I regularly viewed porn prior to my exposure to Christian naturism and I still do. (No change)
0
No votes
I regularly viewed porn prior to my exposure to Christian naturism but now I rarely do. (Decreased)
6
24%
I regularly viewed porn prior to my exposure to Christian naturism but now I never do. (Decreased)
4
16%
I rarely viewed porn prior to my exposure to Christian naturism but now I regularly do. (Increased)
0
No votes
I rarely viewed porn prior to my exposure to Christian naturism and I still do. (No change)
2
8%
I rarely viewed porn prior to my exposure to Christian naturism but now I never do. (Decreased)
12
48%
I never viewed porn prior to my exposure to Christian naturism but now I regularly do. (Increased)
0
No votes
I never viewed porn prior to my exposure to Christian naturism but now I rarely do. (Increased)
0
No votes
I never viewed porn prior to my exposure to Christian naturism and I still don't. (No change)
1
4%
 
Total votes : 25

Postby jochanaan » Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:55 am

nudjohn asked me to post this wise message, since he isn't yet a Platinum Member:

nudjohn wrote:To look on a woman to lust (whether clothed or nude) is sin.
To covet what belongs to another is sin.
just cause they naked, even in print, is in itself, not sin.

I would add that I have recently concluded it may be theoretically possible to look at images of lovemaking without lust, that is, without any intent to do sex with anyone contrary to God's law; it is certainly possible to read about the act of sex without lust. Of course, we should probably make sure we're doing so from pure motives. :)
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Postby LivingFree » Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:21 pm

Joch, I'm still processing your last comment. There is some emotional stuff to get through before I can comment intelligently.

Don, I think you might have missed my main point in the two Examples. I was trying to assume that the marital relationship was relatively healthy in other ways. It's just that the couple is at opposite ends of the pole in terms of libido, or their comfort with open couple nakedness. In cases like that, must one suppress his/her desire in order to appease the other? Or must the other "pretend," in order to satisfy the first? What if they cannot meet somewhere in the middle? What if there is a personality quirk that doesn't allow one to find ways to at least partially satisfy their partner's needs? In cases like that, is soft pron (or DOMAI, or whatever) an admissible alternative?
LivingFree
 

Postby natman » Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:28 am

I am not sure if I consider DOMAI "soft porn". The women featured there appear simply posed in various settings, despite the fact that many are soft-filtered, highlighted and possibly airbrushed. However, there does not appear to be any intent toward sexual arousal (porn). Unfortunately, the vast majority of their models are all "perfect" bodied women. (I personally prefer to see a mix of body types, genders and ages in natural lighting, positions and surroundings.)

Counter that with magazines such as Playboy where the women are also soft-filtered, highlighted and definitely airbrushed or digitally altered, but the poses are purposely more sexually suggestive. This is what I would consider to be "soft porn". They don't even have to be totally nude to fall into this category. I have seen some beer commercials that I felt were just as suggestive.

Magazines, videos or websites that display men and women in the act of sex or in positions that scream, "COME HAVE SEX WITH ME... NOW!!!" are what I would consider hard porn.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7301
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Postby LivingFree » Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:29 pm

In my statement,
In cases like that, is soft pron (or DOMAI, or whatever) an admissible alternative?
the "or . . . or" was intended to set off DOMAI, etc., as apart from our usual definition of soft porn.
LivingFree
 

Postby jochanaan » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:48 am

LivingFree wrote:...I was trying to assume that the marital relationship was relatively healthy in other ways. It's just that the couple is at opposite ends of the pole in terms of libido, or their comfort with open couple nakedness...

In many cases this may be a rash assumption. I don't know if any research has been done about this, but in my case, a seeming lack of libido from one partner foreshadowed the equally serious difficulties that destroyed the marriage. (Or it should have, if I had been willing to see it. :cry: ) If there are problems in the marriage bed, the marriage almost by definition is not healthy.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Postby LivingFree » Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:00 pm

jochanaan wrote: If there are problems in the marriage bed, the marriage almost by definition is not healthy.


Well, let's take the argument from a different pov. I know a couple who were both professors in a midwestern university, were platonic friends for a long while, and finally married in midlife. They were not interested in a family, nor were they really interested in sex. But they did have a good, fulfilled marriage for many years. In a case like that, the "marriage bed" was not important to either of them, so it worked. But it would not have worked as well if they had discovered, too late, that there were indeed vast discrepancies in their sexual drives. I guess bottom line is, if the physiology doesn't motivate you to perform, does that make things unhealthy? How does a couple with a libido at 2 and 8 on a 10 point scale put it together to satisfy both? It would seem there are limits to what each can give.
LivingFree
 

Postby Jon-Marc » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:55 pm

If a marriage is based on satisfying each other sexually, that would explain why so many marriages fail.
The Righteousness of Christ--the ONLY clothing I need.
User avatar
Jon-Marc
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2668
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Jacumba, CA

Postby boondon » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:14 am

Well, LF, I would agree with you that a relationship can be quite healthy among the two professors that you cited because they have approximately the same level of interest in sexual matters. The earlier examples that you cited, though, are quite unequal. Now I'm no marriage counselor by any means, but my suggestion that each partner work on meeting the needs of the other seems to make sense to me rather than necessarily resorting to the use of pornography to satisfy their own need. That would result in the building up of the relationship, a definite positive result. For a moment I will not comment on the pornography. Wouldn't you agree that in order to build a deeper relationship that both parties need to make adjustments, become better friends, and do things for the other person that meet their needs? There is usually some compromise that occurs in some areas of each relationship and some places where it does not happen. OK, so now maybe in the area of nudity/sex, we end up with the couple that is still 2 and 8. Maybe all they can really do is to edge a little towards 3 and 7. At least that adds up to 10! :lol: But seriously, they are worlds apart, so what is that partner to do whose interests are much more intense in need than the other? Do you resort to pornography to satisfy those needs? I think that is where one needs to take a long hard look at what pornography is and what does it do for you. I know from what I've read and my own experience that it allows for a certain emotional detachment from the pictures as you do not want to develop a relationship to a picture, but a picture substitutes for people and there I would say that is simply put the reason why it is not healthy for the user. It does nothing to enhance a relationship with a real person who is your mate. Not only that, I think it only muddies the waters of the nudity/sex issue. If the user is using it for stimulation of one sort or another than isn't this going against what we've been insisting all along that nudity isn't equal to sex? So this brings me back to the questions of what about scripture that tells us to think on the things that are pure, noble,etc. in Phil.:4? Or how about doing all things for the glory of God in Col.:3? Again my question that I pose is just what kind of pornography glorifies God? I asked this before in the form of what pleases God? I guess we really have to be certain in our own hearts before God as to what pleases Him. Or ask yourself the question "What would Jesus tell me to do?" or better yet, "What would I do with Jesus standing right here watching me?" Would you go ahead and open up you? book to that favorite picture and, well, you know the rest......?
I honesty don't know what I would tell someone who is in that difficult position. Like I say, I'm not a marriage counselor, but I would think that the best option is to continue to work on the relationship. Only positive will result for the relationship and the partner may respond with things that you might not ever predict. We know that nagging will never work, but untiring selflessness will produce reults. We just don't know how long or what will come about. Missionaries have waited for years for their fisrt converts. Abraham had to wait for 16 years I think before Isaac came along. Trouble with porn is that it is so instantly gratifying, but then it is gone.....
Don
God has created you naked and called you "Very Good!"
User avatar
boondon
Native Resident
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Western NY

Postby jochanaan » Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:43 pm

Jon-Marc wrote:If a marriage is based on satisfying each other sexually, that would explain why so many marriages fail.

Hmmm...I've been thinking about that comment, and although sexual satisfaction is not the be-all and end-all of a good marriage, it seems to me it's far more important than many Christians make it out to be. I stand by my assertion that problems in the bedroom often--not always, but often--reflect other problems that the couple may not let themselves see.

In your case, for instance, your first wife's "high libido" was probably a symptom of a character flaw: she may have wanted power over men and found she could get it through her sexuality. In other cases, early damage to one's psyche, coming from abuse (sexual, physical, or verbal/emotional), results in libido being apparently absent or sometimes, paradoxically, extremely high. These things make it much more difficult for a marriage to succeed even when both partners are actively trying to make it do so.

Naturism, though, offers a possible remedy: acceptance of the basic fact that we are male and female, with all the body parts, functions, and drives that includes, and that this is a good and natural thing. For although we strongly affirm that "nudity is not sex," we do tend to accept our sexual nature more readily than most non-naturists, and so put it into its proper place, neither as an all-consuming passion nor an evil to be shunned, just part of the way God made us. So, by LF's and Don's scale, we naturists are more likely to be 5 than 2 or 8. 8)
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Postby LivingFree » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:39 pm

Don,

May I clarify again that I have not been talking about hard core porn? Neither have I been talking about using soft porn to replace sexual gratification. But for one thing, like in my case, where my wife for many years refused to be naked in my presence, except in the shower, looking at Playboy, DOMAI, and then more recently naturist images (which are much more pleasant, anyway) have been a "savior" for me. A caveat on that is that early conversations on NC, in addition to the photo albums, helped me relax a lot about the nakedness issue, and now she is more relaxed about being naked a few more minutes each evening, while moving from the bathroom to the bedroom. Well, Rome was not built in day!
LivingFree
 

Postby jochanaan » Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:52 am

LivingFree wrote:Don,

May I clarify again that I have not been talking about hard core porn? Neither have I been talking about using soft porn to replace sexual gratification. But for one thing, like in my case, where my wife for many years refused to be naked in my presence, except in the shower, looking at Playboy, DOMAI, and then more recently naturist images (which are much more pleasant, anyway) have been a "savior" for me. A caveat on that is that early conversations on NC, in addition to the photo albums, helped me relax a lot about the nakedness issue, and now she is more relaxed about being naked a few more minutes each evening, while moving from the bathroom to the bedroom. Well, Rome was not built in day!

So your interest was not in sexual gratification, but in the beauty of the feminine human form. Believe me, I know what you mean! Even though, for a time, my ex-wife was comfortable being naked around me (although not when her kids were around! :? ), I still hungered for the sight of natural nudity, especially feminine nudity. I wonder how many boys and men have this hunger and never acknowledge it, or feel it's so wrong they try to repress it, or confuse it with sexual desire? :cry:
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Postby boondon » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:16 am

LF said: "looking at Playboy, DOMAI, and then more recently naturist images (which are much more pleasant, anyway) have been a "savior" for me."

I know you haven't been talking about hard core porn. I still ask the questions about how pure is porn(soft-types, that is) and how does it bring glory to God. But now you have said it very nicely in your above post that you got to the point of appreciating the naturist images which as we all know depict life normally but without any sexuality. I am assuming, also, that we can be naked to the glory of God! We are however sexual creatures to varying degrees and as Christians we don't talk a lot about it. But here I am going to make a rash statement: Your path through life is not so unlike mine as you might think! You were married a while ago to a wife who did not like being naked very much. I was unmarried for a long time. You've looked at photos of various types and I looked at various types of stuff (a bit nastier I confess!). I got married later in life 11 years ago. We both started in on the naturist path about the same time a few years ago and now both of us can enjoy looking at naturist photos and enjoy them for what they are worth. Your wife is starting to flex some and my wife has joined me several times at nudist venues. So now we are both enjoying the benefits of naturism! Are our problems over? Probably not. One credo of AA is to acknowledge the saying, "Never say 'Never!'" We could fall again. Our fight with the flesh is never through. That's the reason I keep asking about what brings God glory and what doesn't. What's pure and what isn't. The better choices are to work on the relationship with the mate rather than ourselves. That seems to be the message that Jesus was sending to us as He talked about taking up the Cross and following Him. You've worked on your marriage relationship in such a way to make improvements enough to where your wife is able to relax for a few minutes now where she couldn't before. Once in a while I can share some naked time with my wife outside our home. My next dream? Maybe we could buy a trailer to stay much of the summer or weekends at the camp....
But back to the purity thing: My adventure through pornography to naturism reminds me of a scripture. I John 3:2b-3 says"...But we know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. Everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as he is pure." I think that the use of naturism, its images and the like are a pure thing as our motives are pure as well.
I don't know if I'm answering the questions very well or not, but I guess you'll let me know, my friend!
Don :-)
God has created you naked and called you "Very Good!"
User avatar
boondon
Native Resident
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Western NY

Postby LivingFree » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:45 pm

I'm about running out of gas on this discussion, but let me make one more comment.

boondon wrote:That's the reason I keep asking about what brings God glory and what doesn't.

I sometimes get the feeling your questioning leads down the trail of behaviors, i.e., looking at "porn," or not looking. What I've been trying to say is that the essential relationship between the partners is what matters, aside from what they look at, or do. IOW, if one spouse is adamantly opposed to nakedness, it is wrong for the other to force it. If one spouse says, "Here's a Playboy subscription; I'm just not into a lot of sex," well, there may indeed be deeper problems, but if the couple can agree of how they manage things, I think God is pleased with their honest, genuine efforts to accommodate each other's eccentricities. (I realize I'm making a rather wild and edgy statement here, but I'm doing it on purpose in order to make my point. God's will isn't as narrow as some of us make it out to be. It may, in fact, be quite different from anything we have ever imagined. Don't think for a moment I'm trying to justify inappropriate behavior; I'm just trying to push the envelope.)
LivingFree
 

Postby boondon » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:24 am

I think I understand better where you are coming from. God does not necessarily operate the heavy hammer of discipline every time we might mis-step! He does have a loving, understanding nature that is probably a bit more "permissive" in the so-called grey areas of our lives than we might think. I think one of those is right here in our midst of being simply nude either by ourselves or socially. It's probably something the God hardly gives any thought to at all. After all, He made us this way and declared it all to be very good! This porno thing might be close to the same. Maybe according to the level/situation one finds oneself in, "appreciation" of soft porn might even be a non-issue to God as well.
Wouldn't you love to know exactly what God thinks on some of these things that we humans fuss about thses days? There are so many issues that didn't exist in biblical times that now we have great discusssions over them. Yet I think the principle of purity holds in all these cases- How pure is your heart as you participate in the activity? Are you free to do it? Can you glorify God through it? These are all questions that on an individual basis we must answer when we tackle the grey areas.
I certainly didn't think that you'd be the only one discussing this, LF. Maybe we have more readers of this thread than we think, but maybe I'm the only one who still might fall....:-(
Don
God has created you naked and called you "Very Good!"
User avatar
boondon
Native Resident
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Western NY

Postby jochanaan » Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:12 pm

Well, Don, this is a subject that affects us all, since so many confuse simple nudity with sexual temptation and images of simple nudity with pornography. I certainly have been following the discussion with interest.
boondon wrote:...Yet I think the principle of purity holds in all these cases- How pure is your heart as you participate in the activity? Are you free to do it? Can you glorify God through it?...

Another question we should consider is what pornography does to the participants. In the case of written pornography, the only "participant" is the writer or writers; in pornographic drawings (or paintings or sculptures, if any exist), there may or may not be models involved; but photographic images, including videos, have to have models/actors. What does it do to a model's character to be encouraged to participate in sexual acts for public consumption regardless of whether or not his/her partner of the moment is a life partner? Or, in the case of fetish porn, what does it do to a person to be subjected to, or inflict, torture and humiliation of various kinds?

Some may say, "Well, if the model enjoys it..." But I reply that enjoyment of an act doesn't make it right, and that fetishes themselves are very troubling psychologically, a matter for deep soul-healing, not to be glorified in images. Would you take pleasure in a video of a model in the last stages of anorexia nervosa or the throes of bulimia? (Some might; there are fetish shots of vomiting. :x :cry: ) Nor should we take any pleasure in images of acts that defame both God and the participants. (I have not spoken of erotic material in which the participants are married or at least life-partners; such may well glorify God and the act of sexual intercourse He created, and edify both participants and viewers.)
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

PreviousNext

Return to Isn't nudity just as bad as pornography?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron