I try not to but then he says something bizzarre, and there I go. I actually have started to pick and choose a little more. It's better than beating my head against a wall.
Craig, here's a comment I just made on my own blog in reply to yours:
Hey, Craig, I guess I didn't get your e-mail, because I still don't have a way to reply to your e-mail, and I don't know where your HFH blog is. I'm curious about this, and about the comment by my boss, and exactly who my boss is that commented, as I could be construed to have many bosses all the way up to Bill Gates!
Craig, you asked me to answer questions any place here on this blog. I think these are the questions to which you refer, let me know if I've missed something:
Do you feel that all pornography is bad? If so, why do you feel that way?
I am not a prude. I don't think that pictures of nekkid people = pornography. I don't think nudity in movies = pornography. I don't think descriptions of sexual activity are pornography necessarily.
But I do think porn exists.
What makes something pornographic (seems to me) is 1. whether or not there is any art to it and 2. whether or not it is exploitative or demeaning.
I think unartful, exploitative representations of sexuality are a bad thing.
Is (I assume) accurate description of a sexual act always pornography?
No. See above.
Do you feel that Mr X. should be banned from: this blog, the internet, writing?
If someone posted degrading, pornographic material at my blog, that post would be removed and that person would be given a chance to repent. Failing that, he would be gone.
I'm a relatively laid back kind of guy and can put up with a lot. But if someone were to presume to say, "Hey, Craig has a friend or daughter. Here's what that friend/daughter does in her bedroom..." and then proceed to describe a graphic sexual scene about this person, this complete stranger - who happens to be a wonderful, Godly person who is not even here to defend themselves - the person who does such a post is a creep, a pornographer of the worst sort and a pervert, in my book.
If I were a violent man, that fella would be in for a beating. I'd arrange his fingers so that he wouldn't be doing much more typing anymore.
It is about the most disgusting thing that I can think of someone doing in print to a complete stranger and I don't think it is a stretch at all to call it a written rape. And if that person were claiming to be a christian, I would just vomit in disgust.
If I were pastor or church member where this fella attended, I'd counsel him for repentance and, failing that, would ban him from church, following biblical instruction.
Thanks to our freedom of speech, I don't guess that sort of thing is illegal, but it sure is just about the most disgusting thing I can think of that someone could do in print.
"but it [what the person in question wrote] sure is just about the most disgusting thing I can think of that someone could do in print.
Do you disagree?"
And this wasn't a question, but I meant to ask you about it, where I said:
"But if someone were to presume to say, "Hey, Craig has a friend or daughter. Here's what that friend/daughter does in her bedroom..." and then proceed to describe a graphic sexual scene about this person, this complete stranger - who happens to be a wonderful, Godly person who is not even here to defend themselves - the person who does such a post is a creep, a pornographer of the worst sort and a pervert, in my book."
So, to be clear, your objection to pornography is aesthetic not moral.
To your first question, I cannot agree or disagree. I have not read what that person wrote. I have nothing beyond your assertions that would allow me to asses what was written. It sounds as though it was a graphic depiction of two women engaged in a sexual encounter. About as far as I would go, based on a lack of objective evidence, would be to say the following. If the description was a reasonably accurate description of what two women would do in some sort on consensual sexual encounter, then I fail to see how (by your definition) it could be objectively classified as pornography. Further, without your insight into the motives behind the writing, I would be hard pressed to accuse the writer of anything beyond bad taste. To be clear, I don't have the information to make a judgment beyond that.
As to your second "question", let me start by saying you assume too much. You assume, that something like that has never happened to me, and that I would respond in a fashion similar to you.
However, I will take a shot to humor you.
My first thought would be to separate fact from fiction. I would first ascertain if they were talking about the person I knew, or someone else with the same name. Second, I would try to find out if the story were true or not. Given the fact that (in this case anyway) we can assume that what was written was fiction, I would probably ignore it to the extent possible, as I have found that responding to this kind of thing gives the person a degree of legitimacy that they probably do not deserve. If I was unable to ignore it, I would probably be ticked for a while, and then move on. I really don't see getting that riled up over something that's not real.
As an example I'm going to copy paste from another site. This is part of a series about why homosexuality is not a sin. I have a number of bones to pick with little excerpt, but for now I'll just use it as an example of one thing.
"Try to see things from their perspective. Imagine, I mean really imagine, for yourself what it would be like to kiss someone of the same gender. How can you say you wouldn't like it if you haven't tried it? Tastes can change. I once despised asparagus, but I just didn't know what I was missing."
Now let's change a few words.
"Try to see things from their perspective. Imagine, I mean really imagine, for yourself what it would be like to receive anal sex (I chose not to use more graphic terminology) from someone of the same gender. How can you say you wouldn't like it if you haven't tried it? Tastes can change. I once despised asparagus, but I just didn't know what I was missing."
Now the first seems much more innocent, aww it's just a little kiss. It's even correct, gays do kiss. However, the second is also factually correct, gay's do in fact have anal sex, but it just sounds dirtier, doesn't it.
I believe the point that was being made is, if this activity is so wonderful and blessed by God, why does describing it get people so worked up.
In closing, while I would agree that the person in question is more than likely a creep. I would venture to say that one comment on a blog post doesn't begin to compare with things like child porn and violent porn. So no, I'm not buying the "pornographer of the worst sort" crap. Quite frankly other than the fact that the act he was describing could accurately be deemed perverted, I'm not totally sure that I would apply that adjective to him.
Now, a follow up.
By what standard to you judge these things? How can you be so dogmatic that these things are wrong? Especially given the fact that your primary objection to pornography is aesthetic.
So, to be clear, your objection to pornography is aesthetic not moral.
??
I didn't say that. I said it was wrong if it was exploitative. It's a moral matter of justice. That is, pornography is morally wrong. Exploitation is wrong. What are you trying to get at?
Craig said:
To your first question, I cannot agree or disagree.
Wow. This is what is amazing and, quite frankly, disgusting to me.
You're saying if someone described your sister, mother, daughter in a sexual act - regardless of ANY other circumstances, just that bit of information right there should suffice - you would not be outraged, revolted, disgusted?!
I don't know what to do with you fellas. Where I come from, the conservative Christian men (with whom I no doubt would disagree with on many levels) were gentlemen and honorable. It wouldn't matter if the woman in question was of ill repute. IF some pervert were to presume to describe a sexually graphic supposed encounter of their sister, daughter, mother, those gentlemen would at the very least have been morally outraged and given that pervert a piece of their mind, and at the most they would have kicked his sorry perverted butt.
Where I come from, one does not talk about women like that. I may disagree with them on many points and I may disagree with resorting to violence, but at the least, they were real men.
I'm sorry, but I am thoroughly disgusted at an unwillingness to condemn such depravity.
If the description was a reasonably accurate description of what two women would do in some sort on consensual sexual encounter, then I fail to see how (by your definition) it could be objectively classified as pornography.
Are you KIDDING? If someone were to describe YOUR MOTHER, YOUR DAUGHTER engaged in ANY kind of sexual act, you are not going to be outraged? I'm beyond talking about pornography. Pornography is kiddy stuff. I'm talking about a verbal rape of a woman.
If you truly don't get that you should be outraged - OUTRAGED! - at such an atrocity, I have had it. Where is the honor? The morality?
Your outrage is quite frankly bizarre, to the best of my knowledge, no one has done what you claim. No one has described your mother or daughter in any way. For you to condemn a fictional account of a nonexistent sexual act as verbal rape seems bizarre. The fact that you continue to dignify this with your outrage is kind of amusing. You asked me a question about how I would deal with a hypothetical fictional situation, I told you how I would, with mercy. Your response is to verbally assault me. The fact that you are unwilling to accept that there might be a way to honorably deal with the situation without name calling shows much about your personality.
The fact that you consider this beyond child/violent pornography again leads one to question your priorities.
I do find it curious that you condemn this in incredibly harsh terms, yet attack others for what they believe to be perversion.
In short, Dan, it is quite obvious that your outrage is your presumption that this fictional account was written about your friend. In your world, it would have been ok had it been written about a fictional character. Unbelievable.
Maybe, had I actually read the post in question I could possibly be a little more understanding. But it seems as though your outrage and unwillingness to let this go and move on seems a little unhealthy.
I realize this is a novel idea, but would it be alright with you if I developed my own opinions on this without being ripped on by you?
I notice you ignored the bulk of my response. We'll see.
to the best of my knowledge, no one has done what you claim. No one has described your mother or daughter in any way.
Your knowledge is wrong. Someone did attack my sister in just that manner. Now that your knowledge is more complete, you can repent and bring on the outrage, show us you are a man, and a man of God.
Otherwise, I have nothing more to say to you here.
Once again,and please take no offense, I will not become outraged just because you say I should. I have not seen whatever it is that offended you. I have no way to know if it is what you present it to be. I cannot judge based on what you have said. Obviously I'm not emotionally involved in the situation, which certainly colors my perception. However, your refusal to admit that there could be any response other than the one you have chosen blows me away. I am not you, and for you to presume to tell me how I would respond is uncalled for. I have agreed with you that the author is a creep, I completely agree that Marshall did the right thing by removing the post. I'm not defending what happened, because I don't have first hand knowledge of what happened. But the point remains that had the comment not (I assume) used your sisters name, you would not be this outraged.
This may shock you, but I feel no need to work up outrage over this just so I can fit your definition of a man or man of God. I have done enough things in my life that are detestable to God and I am not nearly as grateful for His forgiveness as I should be.
In my own life, I have taken the long hard road to forgiving people (most recently one particular person) who have hurt me. What I learned was that until I could really forgive and let go, regardless this persons response, that it ate me up inside. I was consumed with the same kind of anger I see in you, it took years and several tries before I could let go. It also required me completely disassociating myself from him. So, just maybe you can appreciate the fact that my response of forgiveness comes from several years of struggle, not from a desire to back up someone I don't even know, and frankly find to be kind of a jerk. Again, It's impossible for me to know all that happened, but at least be the man of God you claim and acknowledge that there are more ways to deal with hurt than simply outrage.
13 comments:
Who do it, man? ;)
Even I had to break my cardinal rule and comment there when he blasted me AGAIN.
That guy needs a better hobby...
Keep it up my friend!
Toby,
I try not to but then he says something bizzarre, and there I go. I actually have started to pick and choose a little more. It's better than beating my head against a wall.
Craig, here's a comment I just made on my own blog in reply to yours:
Hey, Craig, I guess I didn't get your e-mail, because I still don't have a way to reply to your e-mail, and I don't know where your HFH blog is. I'm curious about this, and about the comment by my boss, and exactly who my boss is that commented, as I could be construed to have many bosses all the way up to Bill Gates!
Debbie
Craig, you asked me to answer questions any place here on this blog. I think these are the questions to which you refer, let me know if I've missed something:
Do you feel that all pornography is bad? If so, why do you feel that way?
I am not a prude. I don't think that pictures of nekkid people = pornography. I don't think nudity in movies = pornography. I don't think descriptions of sexual activity are pornography necessarily.
But I do think porn exists.
What makes something pornographic (seems to me) is
1. whether or not there is any art to it and
2. whether or not it is exploitative or demeaning.
I think unartful, exploitative representations of sexuality are a bad thing.
Is (I assume) accurate description of a sexual act always pornography?
No. See above.
Do you feel that Mr X. should be banned from: this blog, the internet, writing?
If someone posted degrading, pornographic material at my blog, that post would be removed and that person would be given a chance to repent. Failing that, he would be gone.
I'm a relatively laid back kind of guy and can put up with a lot. But if someone were to presume to say, "Hey, Craig has a friend or daughter. Here's what that friend/daughter does in her bedroom..." and then proceed to describe a graphic sexual scene about this person, this complete stranger - who happens to be a wonderful, Godly person who is not even here to defend themselves - the person who does such a post is a creep, a pornographer of the worst sort and a pervert, in my book.
If I were a violent man, that fella would be in for a beating. I'd arrange his fingers so that he wouldn't be doing much more typing anymore.
It is about the most disgusting thing that I can think of someone doing in print to a complete stranger and I don't think it is a stretch at all to call it a written rape. And if that person were claiming to be a christian, I would just vomit in disgust.
If I were pastor or church member where this fella attended, I'd counsel him for repentance and, failing that, would ban him from church, following biblical instruction.
Thanks to our freedom of speech, I don't guess that sort of thing is illegal, but it sure is just about the most disgusting thing I can think of that someone could do in print.
Do you disagree?
Dan,
So, you really don't have a definition of pornography. But you know it when you see it.
Is pornography wrong? (morally as opposed to aesthetically)
I feel like I've answered these questions, allow me to repeat myself:
On its definition, I said:
"What makes something pornographic (seems to me) is
1. whether or not there is any art to it and
2. whether or not it is exploitative or demeaning."
Here is the dictionary definition, which I find acceptable, too.
the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
Is pornography wrong?, you ask, I said:
"I think unartful, exploitative representations of sexuality are a bad thing."
Bad. Not Good. Less than healthy. Missing the mark. Not ideal. Wrong.
Does that answer your question?
Now here are the questions I asked you:
"but it [what the person in question wrote] sure is just about the most disgusting thing I can think of that someone could do in print.
Do you disagree?"
And this wasn't a question, but I meant to ask you about it, where I said:
"But if someone were to presume to say, "Hey, Craig has a friend or daughter. Here's what that friend/daughter does in her bedroom..." and then proceed to describe a graphic sexual scene about this person, this complete stranger - who happens to be a wonderful, Godly person who is not even here to defend themselves - the person who does such a post is a creep, a pornographer of the worst sort and a pervert, in my book."
Do you agree?
Dan,
So, to be clear, your objection to pornography is aesthetic not moral.
To your first question, I cannot agree or disagree. I have not read what that person wrote. I have nothing beyond your assertions that would allow me to asses what was written. It sounds as though it was a graphic depiction of two women engaged in a sexual encounter. About as far as I would go, based on a lack of objective evidence, would be to say the following. If the description was a reasonably accurate description of what two women would do in some sort on consensual sexual encounter, then I fail to see how (by your definition) it could be objectively classified as pornography. Further, without your insight into the motives behind the writing, I would be hard pressed to accuse the writer of anything beyond bad taste. To be clear, I don't have the information to make a judgment beyond that.
As to your second "question", let me start by saying you assume too much. You assume, that something like that has never happened to me, and that I would respond in a fashion similar to you.
However, I will take a shot to humor you.
My first thought would be to separate fact from fiction. I would first ascertain if they were talking about the person I knew, or someone else with the same name. Second, I would try to find out if the story were true or not. Given the fact that (in this case anyway) we can assume that what was written was fiction, I would probably ignore it to the extent possible, as I have found that responding to this kind of thing gives the person a degree of legitimacy that they probably do not deserve. If I was unable to ignore it, I would probably be ticked for a while, and then move on. I really don't see getting that riled up over something that's not real.
As an example I'm going to copy paste from another site. This is part of a series about why homosexuality is not a sin. I have a number of bones to pick with little excerpt, but for now I'll just use it as an example of one thing.
"Try to see things from their perspective. Imagine, I mean really imagine, for yourself what it would be like to kiss someone of the same gender. How can you say you wouldn't like it if you haven't tried it? Tastes can change. I once despised asparagus, but I just didn't know what I was missing."
Now let's change a few words.
"Try to see things from their perspective. Imagine, I mean really imagine, for yourself what it would be like to receive anal sex (I chose not to use more graphic terminology) from someone of the same gender. How can you say you wouldn't like it if you haven't tried it? Tastes can change. I once despised asparagus, but I just didn't know what I was missing."
Now the first seems much more innocent, aww it's just a little kiss. It's even correct, gays do kiss. However, the second is also factually correct, gay's do in fact have anal sex, but it just sounds dirtier, doesn't it.
I believe the point that was being made is, if this activity is so wonderful and blessed by God, why does describing it get people so worked up.
In closing, while I would agree that the person in question is more than likely a creep. I would venture to say that one comment on a blog post doesn't begin to compare with things like child porn and violent porn. So no, I'm not buying the "pornographer of the worst sort" crap. Quite frankly other than the fact that the act he was describing could accurately be deemed perverted, I'm not totally sure that I would apply that adjective to him.
Now, a follow up.
By what standard to you judge these things? How can you be so dogmatic that these things are wrong? Especially given the fact that your primary objection to pornography is aesthetic.
So, to be clear, your objection to pornography is aesthetic not moral.
??
I didn't say that. I said it was wrong if it was exploitative. It's a moral matter of justice. That is, pornography is morally wrong. Exploitation is wrong. What are you trying to get at?
Craig said:
To your first question, I cannot agree or disagree.
Wow. This is what is amazing and, quite frankly, disgusting to me.
You're saying if someone described your sister, mother, daughter in a sexual act - regardless of ANY other circumstances, just that bit of information right there should suffice - you would not be outraged, revolted, disgusted?!
I don't know what to do with you fellas. Where I come from, the conservative Christian men (with whom I no doubt would disagree with on many levels) were gentlemen and honorable. It wouldn't matter if the woman in question was of ill repute. IF some pervert were to presume to describe a sexually graphic supposed encounter of their sister, daughter, mother, those gentlemen would at the very least have been morally outraged and given that pervert a piece of their mind, and at the most they would have kicked his sorry perverted butt.
Where I come from, one does not talk about women like that. I may disagree with them on many points and I may disagree with resorting to violence, but at the least, they were real men.
I'm sorry, but I am thoroughly disgusted at an unwillingness to condemn such depravity.
If the description was a reasonably accurate description of what two women would do in some sort on consensual sexual encounter, then I fail to see how (by your definition) it could be objectively classified as pornography.
Are you KIDDING? If someone were to describe YOUR MOTHER, YOUR DAUGHTER engaged in ANY kind of sexual act, you are not going to be outraged? I'm beyond talking about pornography. Pornography is kiddy stuff. I'm talking about a verbal rape of a woman.
If you truly don't get that you should be outraged - OUTRAGED! - at such an atrocity, I have had it. Where is the honor? The morality?
Good bye.
Dan,
Your outrage is quite frankly bizarre, to the best of my knowledge, no one has done what you claim. No one has described your mother or daughter in any way. For you to condemn a fictional account of a nonexistent sexual act as verbal rape seems bizarre. The fact that you continue to dignify this with your outrage is kind of amusing. You asked me a question about how I would deal with a hypothetical fictional situation, I told you how I would, with mercy. Your response is to verbally assault me. The fact that you are unwilling to accept that there might be a way to honorably deal with the situation without name calling shows much about your personality.
The fact that you consider this beyond child/violent pornography again leads one to question your priorities.
I do find it curious that you condemn this in incredibly harsh terms, yet attack others for what they believe to be perversion.
In short, Dan, it is quite obvious that your outrage is your presumption that this fictional account was written about your friend. In your world, it would have been ok had it been written about a fictional character. Unbelievable.
Maybe, had I actually read the post in question I could possibly be a little more understanding. But it seems as though your outrage and unwillingness to let this go and move on seems a little unhealthy.
I realize this is a novel idea, but would it be alright with you if I developed my own opinions on this without being ripped on by you?
I notice you ignored the bulk of my response. We'll see.
to the best of my knowledge, no one has done what you claim. No one has described your mother or daughter in any way.
Your knowledge is wrong. Someone did attack my sister in just that manner. Now that your knowledge is more complete, you can repent and bring on the outrage, show us you are a man, and a man of God.
Otherwise, I have nothing more to say to you here.
Dan,
Once again,and please take no offense, I will not become outraged just because you say I should. I have not seen whatever it is that offended you. I have no way to know if it is what you present it to be. I cannot judge based on what you have said. Obviously I'm not emotionally involved in the situation, which certainly colors my perception. However, your refusal to admit that there could be any response other than the one you have chosen blows me away. I am not you, and for you to presume to tell me how I would respond is uncalled for. I have agreed with you that the author is a creep, I completely agree that Marshall did the right thing by removing the post. I'm not defending what happened, because I don't have first hand knowledge of what happened. But the point remains that had the comment not (I assume) used your sisters name, you would not be this outraged.
This may shock you, but I feel no need to work up outrage over this just so I can fit your definition of a man or man of God. I have done enough things in my life that are detestable to God and I am not nearly as grateful for His forgiveness as I should be.
In my own life, I have taken the long hard road to forgiving people (most recently one particular person) who have hurt me. What I learned was that until I could really forgive and let go, regardless this persons response, that it ate me up inside. I was consumed with the same kind of anger I see in you, it took years and several tries before I could let go. It also required me completely disassociating myself from him. So, just maybe you can appreciate the fact that my response of forgiveness comes from several years of struggle, not from a desire to back up someone I don't even know, and frankly find to be kind of a jerk. Again, It's impossible for me to know all that happened, but at least be the man of God you claim and acknowledge that there are more ways to deal with hurt than simply outrage.
One more thing, while I have plenty to repent of and from, this conversation is not on the list.
Post a Comment