Prohibitionist Christians (Hotel Porn)
Posted: August 22nd, 2006 | Author: Sam | Filed under: Blog Posts, Religion |(I’ve already written about this. Just so you know.)
(Some) Christians are absolutely desperate to protect you from…well, yourself. Their newest push is a ban on hotel pornography, remember how you enjoyed watching Young Lasses On Whore Island? You didn’t. And how you enjoyed masturbating? You didn’t. And that orgasm you had? You didn’t enjoy that either.
Or maybe you did enjoy it, but your right to do so isn’t worth anything compared to the need of (Some) Christians to be protected from that which might potentially hurt them. See, it isn’t enough for those Christians to simply not order the pornography. Its very existence is threatening, and so it must be immediately eliminated. Even if somebody else enjoyed it. Even if it isn’t illegal. Even if nobody is harmed by its existence.
That last point is very confusing for prohibitionists, for whom availability translates to certain abuse. The thinking goes that those with access to pornography - even if that access comes (*wink*) only through a hotel chain that they stay at twice a year on vacation - will almost certainly abuse it. For the record, abusing pornography is far different from jerking off to it every once in a while. (Another subtlety which confuses prohibitionists.)
One day, (Some) Christians will spend the time necessary to clean up their own houses. Until that time, your pleasures, carnal or otherwise, are threatened by people who don’t give a hoot about your rights or freedoms. They’re only concerned with their own need to cleanse the Earth of that which offends them.
Again, not to be that guy, but you need to close the italics tag.
Sam,
At the risk of further fueling your annoyance at (Some) Christians, or possibly expanding the group included by your “Some,” I must say that this reminds me of a particularly heated discussion I find myself in from time to time. The issue is to what extent is lustfulness in male church-goers the responsibility of the female church-goers. The argument from one side is that men are visually stimulated and that when a woman wears certain clothing, seeing her dressed like that can cause him to lust (or “stumble” to use the churchy term). Therefore, women should dress modestly. Then the whole thing goes into what exactly is meant by modest and exactly how modest do the women need to be. Are we talking about no cleavage? Or is this a shoulder/collarbone issue too? While we’re at it, elbows can be a big turn on.. Hmmm…
To my mind it sounds like the beginning of the train of thought that eventually leads to burqas and things like “she got raped because she wore that skirt.” If some guy has less than holy thoughts looking at my rear in some flattering jeans, isn’t that his problem? There are some verses in the Bible about not causing others to “stumble,” but these are instructing the church leaders NOT to impose religious rules on visitors or people who are new to the group or church. And in Matthew 5, Jesus puts the burden on the person who lusts, not the object of that lust.
So basically, I agree with you on this one and I think the Bible supports your point too. If these Christians who are pushing for a ban on pornography access in hotels can’t resist the temptation, the biblical thing for them to do is gouge out their own eyes, or cut off their hands, whichever is more applicable. So there ya go.