What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
172 Comments
- cogitocogito, on 10/12/2007, -13/+149They're waiting for the second coming...
- mozzep, on 10/12/2007, -13/+84Trust me dude, a drug high is way different from any kind of "high" you can get from masturbation. Have you ever done drugs? I know you've masturated. The two aren't even comparable.
You shouldn't conjecture things such as drugs and masturbation releasing the same chemicals.
Most important, how in the world is being addicted to porn and masturbation a "major" problem. I mean, it's not even a slight problem, though I could see how a SLIGHT problem might be argued. Honestly, a major problem is when you start ***** up your life. I could see how drugs might ***** up one's life, but not masturbation. I'm not going to skip class or work to masturbate. After I masturbate my brain isn't ***** up so that I can't concentrate. Masturbation is a "major" problem. Give me a break. Maybe you should give examples of how it's a major problem. "Oh Tom was driving when he decided to masturbate, hit a kid and killed him?"
By the way, I'm masturbating right now. - Sturmwind72, on 10/12/2007, -19/+90Obviously this poll is a fabrication put forth by the secular, liberal media. Or maybe it's the Zionists teamed up with the Illumuniti & Tri-Lateral Commission. At least that's what my faith-healer said at my last Revival after he spoke in tongues.
- lava, on 10/12/2007, -9/+69I want to meet these women who are addicted to porn.
- smurfmaster, on 10/12/2007, -9/+56"60% of the women who answered the survey admitted to having significant struggles with lust; 40% admitted to being involved in sexual sin in the past year; and 20% of the church-going female participants struggle with looking at pornography on an ongoing basis."
They probably believe that any woman who *ever* feels lust is evil and any man or woman who ever took a glimpse at a naked body are "addicted to pornography". So I wouldn't trust these numbers. Those people would actually be normal and feel ok with themselves if they weren't Evangelicals and fed ***** by church leaders. - Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+47Something tells me this poll uses the word "addicted" a little too loosely... especially if it considers porn a "cancerous infection"... So, I'm willing to bet that the 50% of men and 20% of women in question are... normal. And the others are either repressed and sheltered... or lying.
- dgendreau, on 10/12/2007, -7/+36Sounds like eplawless got an "abstinence only" sex education.
- dvpdziyn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29No, actually, it is a major problem. I am what most of you would call a devout Christian (or some would prefer 'mindless retard'). I subscribe to a fairly popular evangelical Christian magazine called Christianity Today (that almost sounds silly to tell you all). That magazine has done a number of articles about how common online porn and other sexually aberrant behaviors are, particularly among clergy. We would all assume that priests are most susceptible to sexual sin because they can't be married, but that's overly simplistic.
It's much more complicated. The modern westernized Christian believes s/he is to be strong, self-reliant, and righteous, all of his/her own accord (before I go on, let me clarify that this is a perverse form of Christianity). This means that all sinfulness must be hidden. Thus, we have the hypocrites that have turned off so many people, including probably many of you. They are clean-shaven, with well-landscaped lawns, good jobs, the high-achieving kids, a minivan and a luxury sedan. They give money to poor people, they vote, they are against abortion, etcetera.
But the pressure is too much. They cannot sin publicly, for everyone else to see, so they sin privately. I can watch porn in the quiet darkness of my den. I can have an intimate online conversation without saying a word out loud. I can do all kinds of stuff in the dark that none of my Christian friends would ever see. To paraphrase a wise man, if you knew me as God knows me, you wouldn't listen to a word I've said.
This is why porn can and will be popular among evangelicals, but especially among people for whom personal righteousness is important, from whatever religion. Just let me be clear that someone who believes they can sin and have no one know about it, is only deceiving themselves and perverting their faith. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33This just in: 100% of males like porn.
- Sturmwind72, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31I think this is another example of how religious fundamentalism causes more pain and psychological damage than good. Sex is natural and necessary for the survival of our species. There is nothing wrong (in theory) with the naked body. Humans have natural (sometimes primitive) urges. Supressing those urges and labelling them as evil has to cause some sort of psychological trauma. Perhaps this is part of the scam.
The trauma may force that person to rely even more heavily on their "support structure" the very group responsible for the trauma in the first place. It's almost like a battered wife that returns to her husband. - igyigyigy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32@pogo:
"Dat's de joke".
[/macbain] - tidu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25The exact numbers (50%, 20%) makes me feel like they polled 10 people from each sex...
- apzdsx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23"... boobies never hurt anyone."
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:uTHRhuvUBX0J:entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/wwn/20020116/101119320009.html+man+killed+boobs&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a - JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23I think that this stems from the same reason I think that preists molest children:
When you oppress certain behaviours, other behaviours emerge.
You can't change human nature. - postapoc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21People in glass houses shouldn't masterbate.
- ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19@mozzep... Now try masturbating and taking drugs at the same time. You're in for a ride.
- Nightfall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Breaking those numbers down for women.
60% find it hard to deal with their own desire to have sex.
40% have sex
20% watch pr0n on a regular basis.
Really, are any of these things bad? Sex is a natural thing. The problem is the church chastises it and makes it seem like a bad thing. It just is crazy. - azzageddi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Define "addiction." In this article, it seems to be very subjective: if you feel you are addicted, then you're addicted. That means two people could look at the same amount of porn every week, and one of them (the guilt-ridden Evangelical) thinks he's addicted, while the other (somebody who thinks of porn as a healthy form of entertainment) doesn't. This isn't how a psychiatrist would define it.
When you're told over and over that what you're doing is sinful, you're more likely to feel guilty about it. I feel sorry for folks like that: looking at boobies never hurt anyone. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
So, I'm going to put my throwing stones back in their case. - azzageddi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Kids are also easier targets--easier to manipulate and easier to keep quiet through shame.
God, after writing that I want to take a shower. [shudder] - azzageddi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15I stand corrected.
- zediker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16@Tyran:
they are dugg down because they are not valid points. Anyone who actualy got a proper sex education, can see the ***** from those who got the abstinance only/evangelical/moronic sex educations.
You may think that there is nothing wrong with sex education in america today, but it is still a big issue. Teens are being fed lies about what truely works and doesnt work when it pertains to sex. So much so, that the people who are against the whole teenager sexuality issue are causing all the problems from passing on this bad information.
If people were properly educated, there would be no issue with teen sexuality. Because teens are going to have sex no matter what, so you might as well teach them how to do it right, and be responsible about it.
I dont know about you, but I dont think we are going to win a battle against 3.5 billion years of evolution. When it comes right down to it, instinct always wins in the end. - azzageddi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13The generalization is on the part of the article's author, who probably doesn't consider non-Evangelicals to be real Christians.
- mozzep, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000256.htm
"There."
Please read that.
Thanks. - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"By the way, I'm masturbating right now."
I have to say, you're an excellent one-handed typist. But shouldn't you be looking at porn, or something? - goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Maybe they digg you down because they disagree with you. Maybe they digg you up when they disagree with you, but think you made a good point. Maybe they disagree with you, but they digg you up because your joke made them laugh. Maybe they agree with you, but digg you down because your comment is poorly written. Maybe they digg you up because they're your tennis partner. Maybe your comment is worthy of a Pulitzer Prize, but they digg you down because they think you sound like a dick. The point is that people digg up/digg down comments for different reasons, and you can't please all of the diggers all of the time.
Personally, I'm happy there is no discussion board Nazi to try to enforce some crap rules. Instead, go to the drop-down menu at the top of the comments and select "sort by date (show all)", and you'll be able to see everything. You can also choose the setting you prefer in your user settings. - buryme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Wow, an internet poll taken by random site visitors. Can't get much more scientific than that!
- thatsiebguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Humans and Dolphins pleasure one another for recreation. Does that mean Dolphins are evil too?
Bible thumpers like nothing more than to claim they are special because they repress every natural human urge. But at the same time, gain pleasure out of belittling/guilt tripping others for enjoying their natural urges. Amazing how some guy comes up with new religious beliefs and they call him a wack and say his trying to start a cult. But Christianity as a whole is one big organized cult, yet no one realizes it. Televangelists are damned by the Bible, yet people tune in everyday to get their Jesus on.. They all masturbate then damn one another for doing so. Nuthin but a bunch of wack job sex crazed cultists addicted to the Jesus juice. Religion will be the death of us all. - kubudubudubuntu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11aren't we all =)
- CaptainChad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Second Glance: http://www.2ndglance.org/
I know Clay, and he is legitimate. Although I agree that perhaps he's using the word "addicted" in a loose manner. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12The only problem with what you say is that it assumes that all points are equally valid. That is not the case.
There is no scientific evidence that masturbation grows hair on one's palms.
There is no scientific evidence that masturbation is addictive.
There is quite a bit of scientific evidence that masturbation is normal.
There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is a choice.
There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
There is scientific evidence that the brains of homosexuals are slightly different from those of heterosexuals.
The difference between valid statements and invalid statements is that valid statements have some scientific proof behind them. - gpd209, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Regarding the potential harm of being addicted to porn... I'm not endorsing the findings of this article, but I can easily imagine situations in which addiction to porn does become a real problem. For example, if it starts to drain your pocketbook, you've probably got a problem. If the fantasy-world of porn begins to interfere with the real-world sex life you share with your partner, then you've got a problem. Or if it begins to seriously consume time better spent with your spouse, children, family, whatever. I'm not trying to be a prude here--but we shouldn't entirely dismiss the point that porn can be problematic for people.
- Leo55, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8THANK GOD!
- voisine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I think they define "addicted" as "when I try to stop, I find that I can't". Pretty reasonable definition.
- NoAccounting4me, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@wdavisut: "If you don't think that porn is a stepping stone to rape you are greatly mistaken."
Of course! Because a fictional depiction of a consensual act, created by consenting parties for erotic purposes is CLEARLY a stepping stone to a non-consensual act of sexualized violence as a form of dominance & control! It's so obvious!
Most adults learn, as part of childhood development, the ability to distinguish between fantasy (fiction) and reality. We watch "Superman" without thinking people can fly, we enjoy "Boston Legal" without thinking that legal trials actually work that way, and we enjoy pornography without thinking that the next meeting a co-worker of the opposite sex schedules in a private conference room will involve fellatio. Any adult unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, or unable to correctly identify fantasy, should not be allowed near any form of fictional entertainment, be it pornography, mythology, or theater.
If you'd actually studied the psychology of rape, or cared about the subject as anything but a vector for rhetoric and scare-tactics, you'd know that most rape isn't driven by sexual impulses, but violence and power-imbalances. It's about inflicting pain and humiliation, about subjugation and abuse. But don't let facts stand in your way...
"...but have any of you ever considered the effect that porn is having on your life? Do you really believe that viewing porn has no effect on your relationships with the opposite sex? That it won't effect your marriage?"
If this is your idea of a cogent argument, step to the end of the line. Replace the word "porn" in your questions with "NFL Football", "reading science fiction", or "watching Survivor on TV". Notice anything? The questions are, and remain, empty rhetoric. You are intimating that porn has negative effects on these things, but not actually making any claims. Empty rhetoric, back of the line. Come back when you understand the process of stating claims that support a conclusion.
"Is porn okay under all situations? Do you have children? At what age do you teach them to view porn? If they come upon it and participate in it at 5-9-13 do encourage them to keep viewing it?"
More empty rhetoric. Is Porn OK for all situations? What about sex between a husband & wife? Is that OK under all situations? What about flossing your teeth? OK under all situations? What about water-skiing? Horror movies? Tickle fights?
I have never heard of anyone needing to be "taught" to view pornography, any more than I have ever heard of anyone needing to be taught to watch television or movies.
However, your questions relating to children address a more significant issue: at what age do you teach children about sex and sexuality? Of course, that issue has already been well discussed by all sorts of people from fields ranging from child development & psychology to evangelicals. Some folks will hold that it is inappropriate to teach children about sex or sexuality at all, and promote only abstinence until after marriage, while others believe that education at an early age, repeated with age-appropriate messages throughout development, is a healthy course of action. Pornography is not a driver behind these issues, though, as children are exposed to less explicit, but equally suggestive messages in the media on a daily basis. So we'll add "red herring" to your list of rhetorical abuses.
"If you honestly believe that this can be a healthy part of your life and marriage I say to you good luck. Call me on your 50 wedding anniversary and I'll personally congratulate you."
Sarcasm and empty, hollow rhetoric. If I told you my parents (married over 50 years) had pornography in their home, would you offer your congratulations? If I told you when cleaning out my grandparents' home after their death, married 70 years, that I found pornography, would you offer your "personal congratulations"?
Again, you're just disguising a claim ("porn means you won't stay married") in the form of an unprovable (in the time frame of this discussion) challenge.
"If you think that marriage is foolish and the purpose of life is to gratify every desire or craving that comes to your mind, then prepare for a life filled with sorrow and loneliness and lows so deep that you'll question why you even live."
More rhetoric, this time in the form of a straw-man. No one here has said ANYTHING about marriage except YOU. No one here has said the purpose of life is gratify EVERY desire, except YOU.
It's easy to win an argument if you get to make both sides. Back of the line.
"The true aim of Christ's Gospel isn't to make people look more righteous than their neighbors. The true aim of it is to give it's followers a happier and more joyful way to live. Their are a lot of hypocrites who claim to be Christians, and I'm sure they've offended many of you, but they do not correctly portray what Christ intended his gospel to be."
And thus far, neither have you. You haven't suggested a "happier and more joyful way to live"; instead you've insinuated that people who AREN'T living a 'Christian' life have dis-functional marriages, flawed relationships with the opposite sex, and possibly endangering their children. Only instead of making that claim explicitly, you've hidden behind leading questions and unprovable claims.
"Look through the cloud of what proclaimed Christians appear to be and evaluate the teaching, whether or not it is good."
I am. And I'm telling you to go to the back of the life, learn the difference between 'argument' and 'rhetoric', and come back when you're ready to put forward a cogent series of claims and conclusions, rather than straw men and tacit claims. You haven't offered any "teaching" here, just baseless rhetoric that has been viewed as the cheapest form of discourse since the time of the Greeks.
"Porn isn't good for the human soul. It might gratify your desires now, but it will undoubtedly limit your ability to have strong, meaningful and lasting relationships with the opposite sex."
NOW you've made a claim, with the second half of your second sentence. Unfortunately, you've offered NO support to those claims, NO arguments to back up those claims. I can just as easily substitute the word "science fiction literature" or "NFL football" for "porn" in your argument without affecting the substance of your claims.
Real arguments (conclusions that logically derive from true claims) lead to quality discussions and greater understanding. Empty rhetoric (unprovable claims, unsupported conclusions or conclusions that don't follow from the claims, appeals to emotion, straw men, red herrings) don't allow for discussion, and don't further anyone's understanding.
Everyone is welcome to participate, but if you want to play, you play by the rules. But if all you want to do is shout at everyone else with your fingers in your ears, go home. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I guess that's the point of Digg: the majority is digging the opinions they agree with and burying those they don't...
- wirah, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13It's human nature! Who cares who'se addicted to what and what religion they are.
Religion is a sack of fairytales for fools anyway. The bible is just something to read on your death bed to make the finality of death not seem so bad. Lets go live in the clouds in heaven with this God character! How stupid can people be.
Porn time - gcube9x, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Little boys also won't have babies, and they don't have broken hymens to show that they were molested.
- fishbert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"... 20% of the church-going female participants struggle with looking at pornography ..."
The other 80% ***** love it! =) - gibblets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6
Perhaps I should prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Since when does Evangelical = All Christians?
- Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I came from the Northeast and lived 10 years in the deep south, and later moved back to the Northeast. While in GA, I had attended a large Baptist church and in New England a Presbyterian church.
My personal experience has been that the more "fundamentalist" (to borrow a popular media term) the area, the more prevalent things like strip clubs and adult video stores (with exceptions of course, but more so than in the Northeast). A lot of church messages in the Baptist church dealt with sex and sexual impropriety, and the church I attended down south had lots more out-of-wedlock pregnancies, affairs, and divorce. Even with my friends down there, I recognized that sex-as-a-struggle was very real to them whereas I've no comparable experience in New England.
What I've never really understood is the discongruity. Was the church's focus on sex down south a product of the environment, or the environment a product of the church's influence -- or was it the two feeding off each other? Don't get me wrong, there were lots of really fine upstanding folks down there, but my impression was definitely that the folks up north tended to be far less focused on sex and typically quite conservative without being to forceful, whereas in the south, the talk was conservative but the action much less so -- and they felt bad about it. It was very strange.
So, when you read something about folks "struggling" with lust down south, that's absolutely how it appeared to me. Perhaps colder weather makes you less randy. - jackkerouac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Not true. I was looking at boobies once and they poked me in the eye. That hurt.
- wdavisut, on 10/12/2007, -14/+18The common argument to the defense of porn is that it doesn't matter, it's natural, why avoid it, we're all attracted to it. You can view porn and still be a decent person, but have any of you ever considered the effect that porn is having on your life? Do you really believe that viewing porn has no effect on your relationships with the opposite sex? That it won't effect your marriage? Is porn okay under all situations? Do you have children? At what age do you teach them to view porn? If they come upon it and participate in it at 5-9-13 do encourage them to keep viewing it?
If you honestly believe that this can be a healthy part of your life and marriage I say to you good luck. Call me on your 50 wedding anniversary and I'll personally congratulate you. If you think that marriage is foolish and the purpose of life is to gratify every desire or craving that comes to your mind, then prepare for a life filled with sorrow and loneliness and lows so deep that you'll question why you even live.
The true aim of Christ's Gospel isn't to make people look more righteous than their neighbors. The true aim of it is to give it's followers a happier and more joyful way to live. Their are a lot of hypocrites who claim to be Christians, and I'm sure they've offended many of you, but they do not correctly portray what Christ intended his gospel to be. Look through the cloud of what proclaimed Christians appear to be and evaluate the teaching, whether or not it is good.
Porn isn't good for the human soul. It might gratify your desires now, but it will undoubtedly limit your ability to have strong, meaningful and lasting relationships with the opposite sex. - dellis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@boilerblues
Your first comment: "Prove that. Scientifically, prove that God does not exist."
Prove God does exist, scientifically. uh oh. same problem as proving he/she/it does not exist.
Second comment: Deity does not equal religion. FSM is to pastafarianism as God is to christianity.
6000 years of Christianity? How old is Jesus?
The Egyptian, Greek, Roman, etc. mythologies/religions lasted thousands of years. Does that make them more or less valid? Or can you scientifically prove that Zeus doesn't exist ?
- carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4and it was good
- rnokkin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7He said "Poll" hee hee hee hee hee hee
- gpd209, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4From wdavisut: "... The true aim of [the Gospel] is to give it's followers a happier and more joyful way to live..."
On a nitpicky note, the Gospel is fundamentally about restoring humanity to relationship with God. Scripture promises joy as one fruit of that relationship, but I don't think happiness is one of the Gospel's aims. This distinction may be subtle, but important. - bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16I didn't get to that part, I was bitten by one of the snakes and fell unconcious. Luckily I came out of it, but the others weren't so lucky.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 173 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is