So, What IS "Pornography", Anyhow?

This question has been the bane of many court arguments.  Having assisted to put this site together, the issue has arisen as to "what" is indecent.  Contrary to some of the "prudes" who visit the site just to denounce the content because there is nudity displayed, I wanted to address the concept of "PORNOGRAPHY" and insist that while many of the images here contain nudity & are considered by some to be "erotic", -- it is a firm belief that there is no "PORNOGRAPHY" on this site (other than those examples that illustrate it for the purpose of denouncing it).  News-Flash: Adult imagery is not necessarily "pornographic". G0YS argue that most is NOT!

 Prudery Warning: This site contains explicit images & language (in order to illustrate adult subject matter)!

The Bible & Pornography:

I find it ironic that the Bible, if judged by many of the Laws still on the books in certain locales -- WOULD be deemed PORNOGRAPHIC.  It is "pregnant" with allegorical references to sex (As this scathing parody makes clear).  If one was to look merely at the surface of some of the text, it would be easy to say: "Ban THAT"!  My, what a ruckus that would create!  Well, as some of you readers may have noticed by now ... this site is not one to simply look at the "surface" of a thing & make an arbitrary judgment.  If nudity or the description of sexual acts was by nature "PORN", then books like the Bible would be self-condemned.  Some look at the principles the Scripture itself gives a tip-off as to what "PORN" really is:

Is NUDITY, "PORN"?

Nudity in itself cannot be "PORN".  Why?  Because it is universally understood that the most beautiful images of people are often nudes.  For those of you in relationships, -- do you see your naked "other" as "pornographic", or perhaps so beautiful that you desire to be at one with?  However, there is no doubt that NUDITY is often connected with PORN.  Let's examine that dynamic: How much "nudity" constitutes "EROTIC" ... and does being "EROTIC" transmute into "PORNOGRAPHY"?

Paul -- & his Exposition on Porn: 

The Apostle Paul wrote most of the New Testament letters to the churches.  If you look at his background, -- not only was the man a brilliant Lawyer, but he was also the least likely to have written what he wrote prior to his supernatural conversion to Yeshua as Messiah.  Paul understood that the nature of "Sin" itself had to do with the way in which a person saw the world.  Therefore, he made it clear that "sin" is partly abstract -- based on the dictates of an individuals conscience toward an act.  He wrote: "So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God." - Rom 4:12

"Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." - Rom 4:13

"Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall." - Rom 4:19

"So whatever you believe about these things, keep between yourself & God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves." - Rom 4:22

A little background: The "MEAT" Paul is talking about is that which has been sold from a pagan market -- usually dedicated to some idol/demon-god before being sold.  [For those of you who think this lesson is out of touch for today, I suggest you consider the CORPORATE LOGO on the food you buy at the supermarket and the fact the packaging has a '666' in the bar code (as does the URL of any web page {gasp!} when spoken in Hebrew) ... but I digress.] 

Paul was discussing "disputable matters".  His message was that a person acted on their conscience based on what they believed.  His lesson was that men with strong faith could often do things with clear consciences, that men with weak faith could not.  It was not the nature of the "thing" that made the difference but the perception of the individual about the thing.  Under Jewish Law, it was unlawful to eat meat that had been sacrificed to an idol.  Paul's teaching explains that in Christ, we have been freed from such extensions to the Law of Moses (not by magic ... but by a lawful mechanism).  He continued by saying that some people did not understand that mechanism and because they were unenlightened as to the "WHY", their faith was weak and they tended to use the Law of Moses (with it's variety of restrictions) as a moral compass.   Paul went on to explain that an idol was nothing (carved wood, etc), and that it had no power so men who understood that principle were at liberty to eat the "meat" because they understood the "WHY" (Say "The WHY").  He also made it clear that those who understood their liberty in these matters not use the act as a means to cause another person to violate their own conscience.  I.E: Just because a person understand the mechanism where they can eat such un-kosher food, they should not use this knowledge to coerce someone who does NOT KNOW the WHY into eating the same, because the one who eats in doubt, violates his own conscience & to him, it is sin.  This is absolutely logical because the focus is not on the "disputable act", but in the intent of the heart.  Remember the (2) principles of Christianity:
1) Love God
2) Love People
(...end of rules).  See, sin is tied to the acts of a weak conscience because a man who will violate his own conscience is capable of anything evil ... IF the act is not based on an understanding of "WHY".        

The same principle is true today...which is part of the reason that genuine Christianity is timeless.  In this case, we're confronted with images (is it PORN?).  Paul noticed an astonishing dynamic.  He observed: "For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.  I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death."

Paul's observation in red near the end of the passage explains why prudery will never work; & the demands of the "Moral Majority" will never be satisfied.  It reminds me of an observation my grandmother made.  She recalled that when she was a young girl that a woman's dress went from wrist to ankle and that showing an ankle was "erotic".  By contrast, she observed that today, women could walk around in a bikini & it wasn't considered to be a big deal.  And today, what is considered "erotic"?  Why, if the bikini shows a "nipple".  From erotic "ankles" reduced to "nipples"?  What's going on?  The above principle! Paul observes that it's only when the law makes a thing unavailable that the principle of "coveting" steps in.  He's drawing his analogy from the Genesis account about the only forbidden tree and how the commandment (given to preserve life) not to eat from it, was used by this "principle of sin" to create coveting for it! 

See, clothing that forbids visual access will create coveting for the very thing forbidden!  This is why people who live in repressive cultures (like many religious fundamentalists) consider erotica to be as simple as a woman showing a wrist (& to combat the 'lust' they insist their women be heavily veiled -- which according to Paul, ironically, makes the problem worse)!  Meanwhile in Scandinavia, it's not unusual for women to go topless & people who grow up in such a society barely notice!  It may seem ironic ... but the solution to prudery, is in casual nudity!  Repressive religion simply can't grasp this principle which is why Paul calls it "hidden wisdom".

So then, in light of this understanding, the concept of "erotic" is completely amorphous.  However, the principle of "coveting" is what I believe to be a foundation for what is truly "Pornography".  If a fundamental moral principle is to: Love People, then PORN must violate that principle in order to be sin.  This is where a 2-fold dynamic occurs:

• The first part of the dynamic involves an IMAGE -- whether one in real life or simply in print, the format does not matter.  Now the image may be neutral -- as in the example of a beautiful person taking a shower.  Or, it may be engineered to produce a sensation of erotica or appeal to a FETISH <hmmmmm>.

• The Second Part of the Porn Equation involves the image VIEWER.  As a man who is not attracted to women, no amount of "naked lady" pictures will garner my attention beyond an attention to detail, lighting & mood-effects.  I may say, "Yes ... She's a very attractive lady .... yawn.".  However, I can definitely appreciate the look of a dude who's been at the gym.  However, I've been around enough nude-dudes so that male nudity does not cause me to lose my head, yell obscenities or trip over my own feet.  So the viewer, obviously is a major component of how the image "works". 

My observation is that truly "pornographic imagery" dehumanizes it's subjects.  As soon as you reach this conclusion, then the principle becomes much more prevalent & often completely unrecognized by those who presume themselves to be the "police" of morality.  Consider this image (left):

Notice how the focus is not on the person, but on "ASS shots"?  The humanity of the models in the video means virtually nothing to the minds who assembled that site.  They are there for one reason: Because they will accept payment in return for their violated image being captured on video.    Payment for their images being "violated"...  Isn't payment for "no-strings" sex usually associated with prostitution?  Hmmmm... but YOU decide...

Here's something not as obvious (right):

Seems harmless enough?  But, let's consider the primary question (which is NOT 'Nudity'): Do these models become dehumanized in order to showcase a fetish?  That's a little bit more difficult to answer.  Some images may be "neutral", while others my be staged to illustrate some sort of "fetish oriented abuse".  Once you understand that "PORN" isn't as much an issue of nudity as it is turning the person into an object merely to showcase fetish (whether it is nude feet or a nude penis) -- PORNOGRAPHY suggests a fetish attachment, & the person -- an expendable sexual object.  It says: "Thanks for getting me off.  Now go away...that is until I need my next sexual release". 

Diapers are disposable; -- People are not -- ever.  And this is why the message of "pornography" is an evil thing.  Pornography sees people as expendable "commodities" to be used, violated, abused & effectively - discarded.  The "predisposition to abuse", is often solely in the mind of an individual; - And, since "intent" is often within the mind of a person, you can never be sure how a person "sees" an image, - which is why any imposed censorship should always give benefit of the doubt.  However, "benefit of the doubt" is often not the case; -- and a dangerous legal precedent is being set.  I recently visited a website that was an archive of old pictures.  Where some of the pictures had been displayed, there were empty frames containing a link to the webmaster's comments.  The pictures that had been removed were very early 20th century, and had been images of infants being given baths -- usually in a sink or a big pot of some kind (many people have seen such pictures).  Because the images contained pictures of adult arms (doing the bathing) in the same frame as a naked baby, the images are classified under US Federal Law as "Child Pornography".  Imagine that.  So, if your family photo album has similar pictures, you may want to encrypt them before you find yourself accused with possession of "Kiddie Porn" & the news media declares your villainy without the slightest understanding of CONTEXT.  You see: The inmates have indeed taken over the asylum. And lawmakers are often merely greedy lawyers looking to create an endless stream of desperate clients.

However, images that are "designed" in order to give a certain impression or hint at abusing others -- are usually simple to discern --to know the "intent" of the producer.  For example: A video depicting people being beaten & hurt so that somebody can have their way sexually with them -- for the mere sake of producing such a video, seems to me to be clearly pornographic. But, images documenting a crime in progress are clearly protected speech -but are nevertheless, potentially pornographic. A prime example would be the images released from Abu Ghurayb prison in Iraq. These images depict inmates being subjected to cruel & unusual treatment involving sexual harassment, & lewd acts (amazingly the ButtPhuckTyranny & the US Government seem to be strange bedfellows here).  Shown in the images above are what some female guards do to intimidate male Iraqi prisoners.  Golly, this makes you wonder what the male guards do to intimidate the female Iraqi prisoners? This is clearly sexual assault & battery (that would normally get the perpetrators 2-5 years in prison themselves for EACH count), - & brought to you by the same government who wants to amend the US Constitution to define what a "marriage" is.  I'm sure knowing marriage is in such "capable" hands makes you feel better about the issue already.  The US Government seems to insist they did not know this kind of treatment was occurring.  If you believe that, I have some time-shares in Guantanamo Bay I'd like to sell you. 

The gross-irony with these images is that the press pixilated out the private-parts of the people in the pictures.  It seems fairly obvious to me that what makes these images "obscene", is not the "private-parts" of the prisoners being abused -- but the fact that the images depict the abuse itself! This really makes a stunning point because there are people who are so sociopathic -that they are not offended by "the big picture" showcased by these images, but they would be "offended" if private-parts weren't pixilated out (...if that doesn't describe vain-religion in a nutshell)! 
That is a prime example of what Jesus called "Straining out a gnat to swallow a camel"!

This is a clear example of how messed-up society is regarding such matters.  The same group of social imbeciles would be the 1st ones to insist that an image of the crucifixion of Christ have his genitals pixilated out if the artwork was actually true to the practice of crucifixion!  To me, the pornographic nature of such an image isn't that the person is naked -- but that a human being is nailed to a piece of wood.  I think the expletive is in order: "Wake the Fuck Up"! I'll take this moment to illustrate the hypocrisy of "Pro-Gay" groups that denounce this website because we showcase nudity here - sometimes couples engaged in intimacy. Those groups say that this makes g0ys "bad". Meanwhile these same "pro-gay" groups say NOTHING against the act of AnalSex that causes physical injury EVERY TIME IT IS PRACTICED and SPREADS DISEASE +5000% BETTER THAN EVEN ORAL CONTACT! YOU decide who is the hypocrite ... who is defending truly pornographic acts!

So: When considering the simple issue of "porn", presentation context bears great weight, -- as does the mental state of the viewer. 

Does anyone remember the first underwear catalogs that were printed with photos of underwear-clad models in them?  It was almost before my day ... but I've read enough postings online to realize that the example is a great illustration of my point.  It's obvious that more than one "future sex offender" probably got his jollies as a teen by looking at the pictures in that catalog.  However, it is an established belief that it is a MINDSET within certain persons that dehumanizes the model -- as an object for sexual pleasure.  Unfortunately, as the Butt-Fuck-Tyranny has proven over and over, -- a statute cannot be made to force people to love one another; - So, I believe that this issue will always be among us & certain men will always find a way to violate the spirit of the law while adhering to the letter.  Which brings me back to what Paul wrote: "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves."

So then, 'Rabid Fundamentalism & Conservatism" each want to "ban all 'dirty pictures' in the name of morality", -- despite the fact that history has proven that the more reserved a society is, the less it takes to classify a picture as 'dirty' & plunge such a society into all manner of coveting!   In other words, "Erotica gets it's cues from prudery's assertion that certain things are erotic".  

Grasping this concept, it becomes obvious that the images on this site provided as artistic content are not intended as "pornographic" -- despite nudity & semi- risqué depictions of human sexuality (I.E: The background images on several pages).  Other images, while available in the public domain such as the "ASS TRAFFIC" image shown above -- are most likely pornographic, -- but used as examples on this site to depict them as such & illustrate the distinction.  This is perhaps a textbook example of the 1st Amendment Protections in the US Constitution in practical use to help get across a message.

So, the gigantic LIE being pushed accuses all erotic imagery to be pornographic; - When the actual component of "porn" is an undertone of cheapening human dignity & promoting some form of abuse correlated to the notion that such abuse is part of acceptable sex. "PORN" regularly showcases dangerous acts & abuse as acceptable. TH!S is what makes it PORN! It's not the sex. It's the ABUSE! And keep in mind: Sex that spreads disease is ABUSE! Sexual positions that readily cause injury are ABUSE!  SO, media that does not promote such perils of abuse - are probably NOT technically porn!

Understanding that gigantic distinction immediately reveals the next set of LIES. Many religions (especially false versions of Christianity), don't draw that distinction about demeaning & abusive imagery making the erotic into the pornographic. Instead, these "cults" promote the notion that all erotic imagery is "PORN" and that observing any erotic imagery for personal gratification is a "sin". They promote this gigantic lie to get desperate people under their control so that with further lies they can bilk these desperate people out of their money by making them think that their own natural sexuality is inherently "sinful". So, let's destroy such lies with an example:

ADULT THEMED MEDIA ISN'T NECESSARILY "PORN":

Imagine a very beautiful couple decides to capture the sexual component of their honey-moon on video. The video is produced by unmanned camera automation with full nudity - from the sharing of a long sensual bath with lots of soap, suds, slow full-frontal naked-caressing & sensual kissing all over the body. The scene moves to the bed & finishes up with slow, gentle penetrative penile-vaginal sex that clearly displays the look of love & sexual release on each of their faces - especially as the man finally reaches ejaculatory inevitability, arches his back & in rapture experiences a very intense, extended, satiating ejaculation - as they mutually climax & then relax (still cuddling in each other's embrace as the video fades out). 

Question: Is the video highly erotic? Yes.
Question: Is the video "pornographic"? No.

Additional question for those still questioning:
Fact: Even if there had been no video made, the couple are each witnesses to the event.
So, in the mind of each: Were they engaged in witnessing a pornographic event as they enjoyed their sexual intimacy? No.
Question: If somebody compared this couple's love-making to porn; - would the couple likely be offended by the inference? Yes.
Question: If this couple watches the video they made sometime in the future, -are they then watching PORN? No.

If you answered "Yes" to the previous question then: How was the actual act itself NOT porn?
If you concluded that the act itself WAS porn, then how are any such acts NOT porn?
If you concluded that the act itself was NOT porn then how can a video recording of the act - be porn?

The final logical conclusion is that: ADULT THEMED MEDIA ISN'T NECESSARILY "PORN"

A COMPULSION TO OBSERVE ADULT THEMED MEDIA ISN'T NECESSARILY "PORN ADDICTION"

Consider closely the progression: For THOUSANDS of years, pederasty had been the model for male/male sexual integration into adulthood. Everybody knew that guys generally liked guys & eventually guys would likely settle down with women (polygamy being the socially accepted norm in most cultures for millennia) & yet maintain physical intimacy with their best friends too. This was the shape of the relationship between David & Jonathan in the Tenak/Bible (See 2nd Sam 1:26). For THOUSANDS of years, this had been the model. About 800 AD, a gigantic cult out of Rome that falsely called itself "Christian" (Yes - falsely. Even the Bible itself warned about the coming gigantic false religious fraud & described what it would do). Catholicism checked all the "we art hell spawn" boxes & clearly identified what it was by WHAT IT DID (as opposed to what it claimed). And I don't care who this assessment offends. Anyone offended is simply admitting that they have not read the New Testament closely to see the gigantic "Catholic" fraud for themselves. But I digress some.
So, by the 1950's - the colossal lies spouted by Catholicism & her progeny of protestant whores got a voice via the radio & TV media explosion; - & suddenly David & Jonathan's history was carefully ignored & thousands of years of pederasty were forgotten -all the while Priest Child Diddler & Pastor Pediaspoiler replaced the commandments of God with their own traditions of lies (Exactly as the Scripture warned would happen! See Isa 29:13)!

So, with false religion pushing acceptable sexual expression into the shadows while social forces made the impossible demand that people put off sexual activity for a decade or so after sexual maturity; - This systemic oppression created a population that was increasingly single with perpetual blue-balls & as a result satisfying sexual NEEDS (YES - FUCKING NEEDS) with their dominant hand & the newly marketed "P0RN" imagery - depicting odd sexual acts framed in all sorts of non-committal contexts. Porn's goal is to keep people single & dependent on Porn to meet sexual needs. As covered elsewhere - Porn has a very UNnatural set of messages it teaches, & people who use porn as a guide to sexual intimacy are setting themselves up for a lifetime of relationship failure & sexually transmitted diseases when activity paraded in porn becomes practiced in the population. Porn scripts are liars & MISeducators. They teach the lesson of using others without emotional connection nor long-term affection. It's gotten so bad that if a cook-book was written by the makers of porn, the 1st ingredient listed in most recipes would be: "1 steaming pile of sewage". I am not exaggerating! Consider carefully the brief description above in purple text. NOT PORN.

For thousands of years of recorded history people were getting "married" in their TEENS as a rule of thumb. For both genders it was generally between 14-16 years of age which means that for thousands of years - teenage sex was the socially expected/accepted norm -expressed in the form of marriage or less formal pairings (I.E: Concubines/paramours). And then the 20th century happened and by the 1950's - this pattern was gradually broken. However, basic human biology was not invited to the meeting & teens continued to have sex outside of a social framework that welcomed it & began to condemn it as "immoral behavior" as it was no longer conducted within clearly recognized covenant-based framework. At the same time, same-sex intimacy (which had always been the implied component that put the "Best" in the term "Best Friends" was being assaulted by the likes of the "Church Lady" & all her busy-bodied do-gooders as they took to the new radio & TV media platforms. And what they promoted were a series of lies based on rivers of misinformation & a misuse of traditional Bible verses  - taken out of context & eventually mistranslated to support the negative biases being broadcast by self-aggrandized "holiness consultants". Ironically, the Bible itself contained warnings about these types of coming abuses & those who would promote them! in other words: the Devil himself (who loves to misquote God's words to destroy people) - was active misquoting God's words & destroying people thru his minions - masquerading a ministers of righteousness!

As stated earlier: Since the beginning of recorded history, teenage-sex was the NORM. Idiots & liars have asserted that this is because life spans were generally shorter up until the 20th century. This sort of "explanation" simply is putting the cart before the horse. People tend to pair bond in their teens because their genitals work & hormone levels are at their highest. Trying to push back the biological clock is the goal of fools & my, how fools do abound! These fools have even done studies about the number of times per hour that teens think about having sex. 5 times you say? Sounds a little bit low. Having been a teenager, - I recall the experience. However, I can tell you with certainty that teens who are having regular sex think about it somewhat less. Lots of guys become sexually active at 12-13 years old. Very often, the 1st experiences with sex happens between guys at this age in the form of private, mutual masturbation sessions. People joke about the so-called "circle jerks" where a group of guys will jack off - usually with adult imagery in the center of the "circle". You need to ask just how high male sex drive is if teen guys are willing to jack off in front of their peers in order to get some satiation. And these same teenage guys are, for the most part, absolutely looking for any opportunity to nail teenage gals. And thanks to a mindset established in the early 20th century - these teens weren't considering getting married (because society didn't encourage that at these ages any more). So, these teens were looking to satisfy the DEMANDS of biology & that's all - because the "tone of the day" told them to "wait" until "graduation" ... often from "college".  Well, before the whole world became paranoid about "fags" seeking asses to invade, the fact was that guys - lots of guys, had a small number of male friends that they were bonded to well enough emotionally to whom they enjoyed male/male (non-penetrative) sex regularly. Studies done regarding the time period before the 1970's indicated that lots of teenage guys were engaged in this type of socialization with a "best" friend or two. This makes perfect sense because all mammalian life starts out inutero as FEmale which means that men know what makes men physically attractive as men.  Teens that matured early w. stronger testosterone traits got hit on by other guys quite often. And prior to the mid 1950's, - this behavior was extremely commonplace and prevented lots of teenage pregnancy because men were getting sexual relief with each other and because anal-sex was not practiced in these "best-friendships", the contact was astonishingly safe. However, in the 1950's, mass media began to be used by societies stupidly naive "do-gooders" to create PSAs (Public Service Announcements) about a seemingly "new threat" called the "HomoSexual". These creepy PSAs introduced the notion that men having sexual contact with other men was "abnormal, deviant, (& eventually - criminal)". And suddenly, huge numbers of sexually active teens (& discrete adults) found themselves being labeled as pariahs by the TV & radio.

Self Gratification - Correct/ed Conclusions:
"No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide an escape, so that you can stand up under it." - I Cor 10:13

The Torah does NOT list sexual Self-Gratification (masturbation) as a SIN. Read that until it sinks in. Contact with semen is dealt with by bathing and washing items that came into contact with it. "When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean until evening." - Lev 15:16... (& for those into the SYMBOLISM within the Torah; - This is also 1 reason why Baptism is connected to the infilling of the (רוח הקודש) in the B'rit cHadashah [I.E: Acts 2:38-39]!) He who has an ear to hear...

So, here is the reality: Sex w. a woman outside of covenant is the "Temptation that is common to man". The repercussions can be severe - especially if the woman being looked upon is betrothed,  a prostitute or in covenant with a man (married). Scripturally, adultery is a capital crime and the punishment is death for both parties. There are good reasons for this law. The "escape" Paul is talking about in such a scenario is masturbation.  It's not the temptation. It's the escape from it! Are we learning yet?

Religious charlatans have been telling people that self-gratification is a "sin". The message is spoken as: "All sex outside of marriage is a sin.", or words to that effect. What these ministers of hell are essentially doing is blocking a fire exit in the name of God. This is what Yeshua (Jesus) meant when he said that the false religious teachers "Entangled heavy burdens upon the backs of men & were unwilling to lift a finger to move them"!

Years ago after the youth of a church I had been attending had attended Christian summer camp; - I heard a "Christian motivational youth speaker" named Dick Pinnet recount how he told the teenage male youth group that the soap at the camp had been tagged with ultraviolet dye so that they could tell who had been engaging in the "sin of masturbation". I'm not making this sh!t up. Dick was however,  - because no such UV dye was being used. He simply wanted them to contemplate their sin (& contemplate the ordeal of having their genitals scanned with a UV light).  False Christianity is full of those "DICKS"!  Calling something that is NOT a SIN to be a SIN (doing so in the name of God) is the act Satan was involved in the moment he shows up in the Scripture! "God has said that you cannot eat from ANY of the trees in the garden?"! "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their actions." - Saul/Paul 2Cor 11:13-15

Jesus isolated the difference between adult thinking & porn. That's right! "But I say to you that everyone who so much as looks at a woman with evil desire for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." - Yeshua Mt 5:28 AmpC
I chose this translation because it distinguishes "evil desire" as opposed to simply using the term "desire". Why? Because according to Torah, ADULTERY is defined as Breaking the bond of an exclusive marital covenant. Being Jews, the disciples of Yeshua (Jesus) all knew this. When he uses the term "adultery", his specific context is regarding a MARRIED WOMAN. This is an IMPORTANT POINT! People who don't already know the Torah might come to the conclusion that Yeshua is talking about ANY woman. He's not. He's specifically discussing any Married/Betrothed WOMAN. He's saying if you lust after another man's wife/betrothed then you have the heart of an adulterer. Let's get specific about the LUSTING: Willfully imagining the act of sexual intercourse with a woman who is in a marital covenant is the mindset of an adulterer. In other words - not respecting a PREEXISTING COVENANT shows who you are on the inside. So, what about lusting after a woman who is single? Well, the joke is that such things may lead to marriage. This is true if a man is not seeking a whore. So, let's condense the scenario down to a man who is single or is experiencing something interrupting regular sex.  Self gratification takes the edge off so that he does not take action that leads to hardship or worse. And what he is thinking about WHILE self-gratifying MATTERS. When Scripture talks about a man enjoying the "wife of his youth", the principle is 2 fold. It means being faithful within existing covenant/s & using the memory to think back to an earlier time before beauty faded; - OR think on the lawful erotic imagery to had while masturbating in your youth. Don't stick women in that imagination-stream that would cause problems if the act was suddenly real! Because if you prime the mind for an unlawful encounter - then if circumstances arrive giving the opportunity - the mind is already primed to go there (because it has already been there).

Although it's NOT technically possible for (2) men who interact sexually to commit adultery, - there are a few principles that are important. Some men may enter exclusive covenants with others. Don't be the one who breaks such an agreement. Many men don't realize that being married does not constrain them to monogamy because historically, men have never been monogamous but have entered into as many beneficial covenants as possible - especially with other men. This dichotomy exists between genders because it is unlawful to require man to raise another man's child/ren. If women were polygamous - the question would repeatedly be "Who's child is this?".

The fact is that if you are in a situation where you do not have a sexual partner then you are going to be endlessly reminded from within of the NEED to have sexual release - regardless. That need will not go away. Did I mention that it won't go away? It may get less as you age but it will not go away. How you address it is what matters. And if you use IMAGERY to address it in order to get some climactic relief - then choose imagery that doesn't showcase other people in the light of abuse nor degradation. There is a lot of erotic art that is NOT PORN. Part of your journey may be to readjust your conscience in order to stop it from FALSELY condemning you. And realizing that not all adult content is PORN is a huge step. Society is sloppy with language & regularly calls ALL adult imagery "porn". It isn't. So many people have NEVER considered that imagery or stories that showcase sex in the context of committed love is NOT pornography! It is ADULT. It is NOT necessarily, "PORN".

Oral Report...

TID-BITS:

Q: How did reverend Pat Robertson propose marriage?
A: "You're going to have a WHAT!"
That's right: Patty & Mrs. Patty were horny unweds going at it without protection.  Marriage seemed the way to deal with the "9-month crisis".  It makes you think though ... that despite all their talk about "celibacy", -- they proved what a couple of hypocrites they were.  Consider: If Patty's compass had pointed toward boys instead of girls ... he'd been (In redneck parlance) a "Gawd Damned Practicing Homo!"; -- Another group Pat insists do something that he himself couldn't: Be celibate.

Q: What part of the population that amounts to almost 51% -did the late Dr. Jerry Falwell think needs "Minority" protection?
A: Women!
"I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One's misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status. Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc. are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status." - Jerry Falwell, USA Today I'm surprised that Falmell didn't include the Chinese as well. He was another example proving that a Doctorate in theology is essentially meaningless. He loved flexing it by quoting from poorly translated Bibles. Occasionally, he'd quote a verse in context. "As a gold ring is the snout of a pig; - So is a proverb in the mouth of a fool." - Solomon

Q: What Doctor Laura Slushslinger said about GLIB people:    vs.
A: What she probably intended to say: