Comments on: No sex in Slumdog

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:29:14 +0000

Maybe I’m perverted, but to me no porn is hotter or more indelible than Authorized literary texts. Reger’s Version, for example. Or a picture of the one I love, even.

Some people complain they are obsessed by porn. They may be obsessed, but the porn is not what does it.

Report comment to moderator

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:20:29 +0000

. . . images that can never be expunged from the mind, and which the devil is happy to use as trap doors to your soul.

Time for intervention. The devil doesn’t make you do it.

Report comment to moderator

By: SteveG

SteveG — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:19:47 +0000

But here’s a challenge for you, Yeah: Find the quote where I said Christians are negative about sex (which is I assume the “aspersive comment” you refer to.)

Report comment to moderator

By: SteveG

SteveG — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:18:30 +0000

Uh oh. Yeah is onto me.

Report comment to moderator

By: Yeah

Yeah — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:43:22 +0000

Impressive argue-ology: Make some aspersive comment; neglect to support it even when requested; never retract; tell requestor to let it go. Next step: visit other threads in the future and repeat the process.

Report comment to moderator

By: SteveG

SteveG — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:36:01 +0000

Who’s disagreeing with you?

It is possible to make a statement without assuming it’s disagreed with.

Report comment to moderator

By: Yeah

Yeah — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:03:45 +0000

Let it go, will ya?

Fair enough. I’m over it now, even though I dispute whether any harm is done by violating Christ’s command regarding lust. But OK, I’ll just read through your post to see what the next topic is….

Da-what???

But sexuality in general is good and healthy.

Had to get that in there, eh? Who you talkin’ to? Who’s disagreeing with you?

Report comment to moderator

By: SteveG

SteveG — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:56:49 +0000

Yeah: Also, Christians are negative about sex.

Let it go, will ya?

Here’s the thing: Most people see images of naked people now and then, and many of them even seek them out now and then, and for the most part, it causes no harm.

Every once in a while you encounter someone who is obsessed with porn or actually driven to do something harmful by some interaction between those images and an existing mental illness. But sexuality in general is good and healthy.

Report comment to moderator

By: Yeah

Yeah — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:30:45 +0000

Talk to people who spent five minutes looking at a Playboy centerfold and then went home and loved their wives and children, and tell me how destructive it is.

And in the midst of passion, the husband lovingly assures his wife, “The girl in the nudie magazine turned me on so much, I just had to come home and get me some lovin’.”

Also, Christians are negative about sex.

Report comment to moderator

By: SteveG

SteveG — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:11:49 +0000

Ree: Objectification of people isn’t always associated with lust, but I would say that lust is always associated with objectification.

Even of a spouse?

Another point that occurred to me: Sex and nudity are not always arousing nor intended to be. Is it still objectionable if the purpose is to evoke revulsion rather than attraction? One example that comes to mind is the rape scene in The Accused with Jodie Foster. It’s pretty explicit, but its purpose is to leave no ambiguity about the savagery of the crime … something that would be hard to do if it was not able to be so open in showing it.

Or in Saving Grace, less explicit because it is television, but as explicit as it can be, the purpose is to leave no question how carnal the character is and why the spiritual challenge laid out for her is such a mountain to climb.

Does context matter at all, or is it just that any nudity is always wrong? And if the latter, perhaps you should talk to Michaelangelo.

Report comment to moderator