tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post8621428447746425854..comments2024-03-22T17:35:52.045-04:00Comments on Extra Thoughts: This is an issue on which you shouldn't "settle"Lydia McGrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-2760834795699970442018-10-11T02:59:37.714-04:002018-10-11T02:59:37.714-04:00Socialfuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03764983581853760465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-12301191334846048272018-08-10T06:55:46.545-04:002018-08-10T06:55:46.545-04:00Very good points you wrote here..Great stuff...I t...Very good points you wrote here..Great stuff...I think you've made some truly interesting points.Keep up the good work. <a href="https://xxxoop.com/" rel="nofollow">หนังโป๊ </a><br /><br /> alizybethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17959360003397216742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-29672168380491689592018-07-24T04:11:08.757-04:002018-07-24T04:11:08.757-04:00masukihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00409434025256225814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-17491655572873599352014-11-21T18:19:30.091-05:002014-11-21T18:19:30.091-05:00Tony
Never heard of PP. It's pretty out ther...Tony<br /><br />Never heard of PP. It's pretty out there, but then there were a lot of socialists around back in the day.<br /><br />I agree that your scenario is a thoroughly good one, but in the world I know about unicorns are more likely.<br /><br />Lydia<br /><br />I have a response but, ugh, it's too long (it's not that long, really) so I'll send it in two parts.PSdannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-6052044919190524992014-11-21T08:45:33.523-05:002014-11-21T08:45:33.523-05:00"A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipli...<i>"A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace..."</i><br /><br />You gotta love Pope Francis here: "There are 2 kinds of people in the world. Those nasty analytical people who waste their energy classifying people into 2 kinds, and nice people." Evangelli Gaudium is perhaps the least coherent encyclical of the modern world - though Populorum Progressio runs a good second. <br /><br />PSdan, I don't think your contrast class really holds up. If a woman is really interested in marrying, willing, ready and desiring to marry young, and simply doesn't find the appropriate potential mate in her very early 20s, then NO, she should not marry young. She ought to wait until God puts the right man in her life, and there is no telling God when that ought to be, just as there is no telling God who is to be called to the celibate life and who is to be called to married life. <br /><br />The other thing you neglect is that cultural mores actually effect the proper, due, and godly carrying out your vocation in terms of timing in life. In ancient Jewish times, a young man of 17 or 18 was fully capable of having mastered his profession (carpentry, farming) sufficiently to be set up "on his own" to the extent that the culture provided for a young couple to be "on their own." And a young woman of 16 was, also, psychologically and emotionally ready to become married and start raising a family. So given the cultural environment, it was entirely viable for a 18 year old man to marry a 16 year old woman following God's footsteps for their vocation. But that's hardly true today: a young person coming out of high school at age 18 has had virtually no scope for learning personal life responsibility, much less learning their life's profession. And as a coordinate reality, high school graduates are not really ready psychologically to make an informed, godly choice of mate at that time, they need more emotional, psychological, and moral seasoning before they are capable of that decision-making. Given that, it well behooves a good, moral Christian woman to plan on going to college (carefully selected) before planning on marrying. And, socially speaking, if she does go to a truly good college, she has a much better chance at finding an appropriate mate and entering into a suitable courtship relationship with him during the last years of college and marrying "young" at only 22 or 23 - far earlier than the feminist preference for 32 but far later than the ancient world's 16. <br /><br />But there is no guarantee that she will meet such a person in college years nor that God wants her married in her early 20s. The appropriate interior attitude should be readiness to follow your vocation as God calls you to it, but <i>part of</i> God's process of calling is borne out within the actual cultural environment in which you life, and molded by that environment. Just as we no longer accept a practice of boys of 14 committing their life to a monastery, so also we no longer think marrying at 18 is a norm of good vocational thinking. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-49404964928832271722014-11-20T21:29:16.097-05:002014-11-20T21:29:16.097-05:00Or even in her forties. I've known many women ...Or even in her forties. I've known many women in my life who are, genuinely, "unclaimed blessings."Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-90004193154341623202014-11-20T21:27:53.969-05:002014-11-20T21:27:53.969-05:00Your "parallel" is completely silly. Not...Your "parallel" is completely silly. Not getting married is, in case you hadn't noticed, not intrinsically wrong. Using p is intrinsically wrong. End of discussion.<br /><br />Hence, your "parallel advice" to men is silly as well, and not remotely parallel. The obvious parallel (but heaven forbid we should be obvious!) is to tell men not to marry women who use p. As of course I have done. Repeatedly.<br /><br />Do I advise women to marry young? If possible, where "possible" includes finding a godly man and being able to pay the rent. Preferably a godly man who is _himself_ able to pay the rent, especially if the young wife gets pregnant. But good luck with that nowadays in the "new economy." (As you can see from that comment, I'm not entirely blaming the young men for their inability to support a wife and child.) If both have to work for a time, that may be a necessity, but a plan should be in place if Baby comes along. The most important thing, however, is making a virtuous, loving, and Christ-honoring marriage. If that becomes possible at a young age, by all means, go for it. Did I not say that I am thrilled to go to weddings? I would never tell a woman to delay marriage per se for some reason--least of all for career or anything of that kind.<br /><br />However, it may not be possible, and simply advising people to marry young in a vacuum can also be a recipe for disaster--as in, marrying the first person who comes along without using sound judgement.<br /><br />This is just one reason of many why your "parallel advice" is so absurd--apparently a result of some kind of bizarre attempt to lasso feminism into this discussion and take a swipe at women in return for what you see as a swipe "at men" (though it wasn't) in the main post. <br /><br />A man might _easily_ meet a woman in her late twenties or even thirties for whom he was God's answer to prayer, who had been looking for a man like him for a long time, who would make a wonderful wife, and who had not delayed marriage for any selfish or feminist reason. Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-25778337328264210942014-11-20T20:29:36.783-05:002014-11-20T20:29:36.783-05:00It seems that the Regnerus suggestion, odd as it m...It seems that the Regnerus suggestion, odd as it may sound to you, it pretty well aligned with Pope Francis’ many comments on “gradualism”, “mercy” and the Church as a “field hospital” – i.e. a place for people just as they are, not as we (or God) would like them to be. I think you could make more sense of the Regnerus piece with this in mind. Pope Francis discussed much of this in Evangelli Gaudiam (Joy of the Gospel) in which he warns of “spiritual worldliness” (Para. 93-97) whereby, among other things, <br />“A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying.” (94)<br />A certain pastoral flexibility may sometimes be helpful in ‘fostering sanctification’. One suspects, however, that it’s more likely that Catholics who have never paid much attention to the Catechism will go right on ignoring it. But they’ll be just a bit happier about it. Faithful and observant Catholics, on the other hand, are as bewildered by this as you were in reading Regnerus.<br />It seems your “Refuse to date” advice is based on the view that use of p is a marker for an inability or unwillingness to be wholly and completely committed to one’s spouse. This is a reasonable response. But I have to ask, would you advise these young women to marry early in life? I was trying to think of the female equivalent to p. I don’t think it’s the woman’s use of p; that is less common and probably less habitual. I don’t think it’s bodice rippers. No, I think an equivalent marker would be the desire to marry in the late 20’s or even past 30. This is following the feminist/secular script (“Getting Married Later is Great for College-Educated Women – Atlantic, March 2013). This is a not-so-obvious rejection of indissolubility and complementarity, or at least a hedging. It is also might be a marker for prior promiscuity. All of these indicate a hedging on the idea of an unreserved and complete gift of oneself. So parallel advice to a young man might be to marry young, and if they can’t then, Refuse to Date someone getting anywhere near the late 20’s.PSdannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-1516845576881575612014-11-18T21:27:04.010-05:002014-11-18T21:27:04.010-05:00Naturally, my first response to that is, "Yet...Naturally, my first response to that is, "Yet another reason not to send your child to public school." But I do have one slightly more helpful response: Smartphones can also have p-blocking software installed. Net Nanny has whole family policies, as does Covenant Eyes. <br /><br />That helps. The main problem at that point is the possibility of your child's using someone else's device, which I acknowledge is a serious problem. This is a reason to know who your child's friends are, what their family's computer policies are, and to keep an eye on that and make your rules accordingly.<br /><br />Yep, this is going to sound "control-freakish" to our secular friends committed to going with the flow, etc. When their kids end up with a hard-core p addiction at the age of thirteen, we can ask them how all that non-control theory is workin' out for them. Of course, a secularist might be schizophrenic on this issue anyway, not wanting an addicted child but at the same time taking a laissez faire approach to adult use. Dawkins forbid we should say that using p is *wrong*.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-11581335016953479592014-11-18T21:22:38.500-05:002014-11-18T21:22:38.500-05:00Unrestricted smartphone use is allowed in public m...Unrestricted smartphone use is allowed in public middle schools now. Laptops really, via BYOD policies which are sweeping the country.<br /><br />And public schools require online research for homework, now, as print books are insufficient. <br /><br />It is very hard to monitor and restrict your child's access to the internet if your child is in public schools.Tamsinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636532242553200576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-23447512758977725342014-11-18T14:30:42.392-05:002014-11-18T14:30:42.392-05:00I saw a topless pic of some actress whom I'd n...I saw a topless pic of some actress whom I'd never heard of in the margin of a news site the other day. Plenty of kids read news sites. Sometimes they are encouraged to do research for school. Many of them have smart-phones, etc. They doubtless spend a lot more time on-line than in the grocery store. It's not as though the margin of a news story is a non-public venue. Mike T. notes the same phenomenon in a comment up-thread. Evidently male-directed, clickable pictures of scantily clad (at most) women are more and more "in your face" these days. So I would say that the distinction between "on-line" and "in the grocery store" is definitely becoming less important all the time as far as what is considered legitimate and acceptable for public display. And then there are TV commercials, which I gather are often very sexy, obviously public, and not (or often not) female-directed. Plenty of people have told me that they have trouble allowing their children to watch sports games on TV for this very reason. Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-85680537539944137552014-11-18T09:04:58.720-05:002014-11-18T09:04:58.720-05:00I have to admit to being a little puzzled at any s...I have to admit to being a little puzzled at any sort of "us vs. them," "male vs. female" approach to this issue, especially among Christians and conservatives. We are all opposed to all of it. We should recognize that about each other and not try to prove something by challenging each other: "This is just to make sure that you are sufficiently condemnatory of the kind of p that *your* gender views." <br /><br />The article I was responding to did tend to emphasize the male use and to tell women, in particular, not to make stopping a sine qua non because otherwise there would be "too view marriages." And in Facebook discussions I have found that those who view themselves as defending Regnerus's position tend to accuse someone taking my position of "not understanding male nature." So in a sense it is those who disagree with me who are implying that it is men, particularly, who cannot be expected to stop p use entirely as a condition of dating and marriage. In fact, they will often imply that men, in particular, have a right to hope that marriage will cure them and that women should hold out marriage to them as a potential cure, without expecting them to stop p use *first*. <br /><br />That is in some ways the background of this post. However, I have been *meticulous* to make it clear that I apply the same standard to women and that p use is also unacceptable in a woman as a prospective marriage partner.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-85398022965540895542014-11-18T08:49:59.244-05:002014-11-18T08:49:59.244-05:00Yes, it's absolutely horrible, and like Zippy ...Yes, it's absolutely horrible, and like Zippy I would outlaw it across the board if I could with sharp penalties. It's important to raise our daughters to avoid all that sort of thing entirely.<br /><br />I would say that women are often creatures of their peer group. If their peer group tells them it's okay, they'll do it. This applies to clothing as well. There's a kind of obliviousness there.<br /><br />This is just one reason of many why I am so gung-ho on home schooling. It gives young people, male and female, a *strikingly* different group of influenc-ers. The daughters of the home schoolers I know have *no* notion in their heads that such p as in Cosmo or bodice-ripper romance novels is acceptable. They would be horrified at the thought. The young men know that on-line p is wrong.<br /><br />I do think that parents and young people need to be knocking themselves out more protecting against the on-line stuff, because the very fact that the other stuff is bought in a physical store makes it less private and hence, for a young person who has been raised to oppose it, more embarrassing to buy. But if one has no filter on the Internet and one's child uses it in private, it's easy to find and view p that "nobody knows about." Moreover, what I have read about the addictiveness of the virulent stuff on-line *sounds* stronger (in terms of power of addiction) than that of the lighter stuff. Hence, there is a very real possibility that one's innocent 10-year-old son (or daughter) will literally stumble upon p accidentally on-line and be sucked in, as with a drug addiction where the first "hit" was literally administered by someone else.<br /><br />I have recently enabled Google safe search for this very reason. I now have to see, though, if it is too restrictive of innocent images (e.g., if one is researching birds or something), but that may be no big deal anyway.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-34608809303025231782014-11-18T07:01:02.799-05:002014-11-18T07:01:02.799-05:00Other people may not see what I see, but I can'...<i>Other people may not see what I see, but I can't not-see what I actually do see. Pornography targeted at women is more insidious, more pervasive, and more accepted than pornography targeted at men.</i><br /><br />I doubt that either of you can demonstrate which kind of porn is more widespread or frequently indulged, and I'm not sure it's worth arguing. But I do agree with Zippy's point about the insidiousness of the public respectability of porn targeted at the female audience. It's on the grocery store bookshelf, for pete's sake. It's in the drugstore. It's on the TV. I heard 50 Shades being discussed on a supposedly conservative talk show, not as something worthy of condemnation, but as a perceptive window into the different ways that sex is marketed to men and women. The sexual ethic recommended to young women in a magazine like Cosmopolitan is thoroughly pornographic, but there it is, available for purchase by any 17 year old. It is a respectable political talking point to accuse conservatives of a War on Women, the battle cry of which war is the call to a sexual ethic that would deny women their God-given right to sexual license. The hardcore stuff, with its immediate appeal to many men, is more revoltingly graphic, but the more acceptable and pervasive, because mainstream, p-lite sort of stuff is aimed directly at the mothers of the future.William Lusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15928946919078483848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-89826532953360543792014-11-17T22:22:51.610-05:002014-11-17T22:22:51.610-05:00I strongly agree that young men should not settle ...I strongly agree that young men should not settle for a woman who consumes p, even if "only"in book form. We agree there. <br /><br />Btw, some of the "women-directed" stuff is that disgusting trash in Cosmopolitan, which *isn't even* pretending to be romantic. It's straightforward, physical, and in some ways imitates the male-directed kind. Someone induced my local grocery store to put a blocker on the Cosmo issue in the checkout aisle. I was ashamed that I hadn't talked to the manager (who is a great guy) first and gotten it done before Whoever did it. Kudos to Whoever.<br /><br />I almost certainly disagree that the female-targeted kind is more widely used than the male-targeted kind (speaking in sheerly statistical terms), because I think that your criteria for drawing that conclusion are flawed. That is to say, it definitely doesn't follow from the fact that something is being read with kids around and is on display widely in stores that more people are reading it. I can see why you would think that, but I think it's a faulty empirical inference. Anecdotally, the male use rate, particularly among secular men, is sky-high. Yes, _most_ of them do it in private, though not all. There's an increasing problem with men using p on public library computers where women and children are walking by--in plain view. But even waiving that, people do _lots_ of things in private in huge statistical proportions that they wouldn't do in public. So the "do this in public" vs. "do this in private" distinction just isn't IMO a good guide to percentage of users.<br /><br />I think too that there's an ambiguity on the term "accepted." You're right that the lighter-weight, female-targeted stuff is more "accepted" for public display. But I'm not convinced that it is more widely *accepted as not-wrong* in people's minds and practice.<br /><br />Again, though, I _agree_ with you that a woman's consuming p is a huge problem, even if via the printed word. It is a grave sin against chastity and does harm to her mind, heart, and concept of sexuality. <br /><br />It may not be *as* addictive or *as* harmful, because less graphic and less likely to lead to darker stuff, but that is a harmfulness issue not a sinfulness issue, and at that point we're splitting hairs. I have no desire to split hairs, as indeed I have refused to do so in all my discussions of this with those on the male side who say they think only that women should be willing date men who use "only soft-core" p or the "not so bad" stuff. I won't play that game with women-targeted stuff anymore than I will with male-targeted.<br /><br />The only thing I will say is that I think it might be easier to get a woman to _stop_ reading, e.g., Twilight. But she needs to stop, and stop now, and if she shows reluctance to stop, and stop now, and stop completely, he should drop her.<br /><br />I trust that is strong enough for you.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-23980997964093072522014-11-17T22:09:35.265-05:002014-11-17T22:09:35.265-05:00Lydia:
The fact that something is, among some, re...Lydia:<br /><br /><i>The fact that something is, among some, recognized as a problem certainly doesn't automatically translate to its being less widespread!</i><br /><br />I conclude as I do - that porn targeted at women is more widespread and more generally accepted by our society (a statement about our society, not a normative statement nor a statement about anyone commenting here) - because of my lying eyes. I see women reading pornography (not "divorce porn" but actual pornography) targeted at women (e.g. 50 shades etc) in broad daylight surrounded by young children in public places. I see porn targeted at women on open display in the checkout aisles. Etc, etc. I see porn targeted at women all sorts of places where porn targeted at men is still not allowed, or is at least frowned upon.<br /><br />Other people may not see what I see, but I can't not-see what I actually do see. Pornography targeted at women is more insidious, more pervasive, and more accepted than pornography targeted at men. <br /><br />That by no means makes pornography targeted at men even remotely in the same country of a ballpark of acceptable. If I were king they'd all hang, if they refused to cease producing their filth. But the pushers of feminine porn would not be spared the gallows.<br /><br />Young men should not "settle" for a consumer of feminine pornography, for much the same reasons a young woman should not "settle" for a consumer of male-targeted pornography.<br /><br />And if she is a big fan of "Twilight", it ought to give him as much pause as it should give her if he collects the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-75433139507269660602014-11-17T18:12:11.671-05:002014-11-17T18:12:11.671-05:00By the way, it's my impression that a great ma...By the way, it's my impression that a great many non-Christians, especially men, don't believe that p use is wrong at all, at least for adults. So the fact that this is (mostly) done in private doesn't really tell us anything about its being recognized as wrong, much less about how widespread the problem is (e.g., that it isn't very widespread).Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-35497666744293172152014-11-17T17:21:33.874-05:002014-11-17T17:21:33.874-05:00Zippy, I agree that a woman who reads that book is...Zippy, I agree that a woman who reads that book is using p and that she needs to stop, just as any man needs to stop, before holding herself out as a candidate for courtship and marriage.<br /><br />In fact, I would say that a woman should *just stop* reading any sexually explicit scenes in any books whatsoever.<br /><br />I am somewhat concerned, and do not know whether we would agree, about the expansion of the term "p" to cover, e.g., books, stories, or movies that teach a wrongful view of marital commitment in other ways--e.g., that glorifies divorce.<br /><br />In fact, in general I don't like the way that the term "p" gets used for other things--e.g., "food p" gets used for lusting over food. I even saw one blogger refer to women who spend too much time on Pinterest looking longingly at other people's perfect houses as engaging in "p." I forget if she used some phrase like "interior decorating p," but this is just a classic case of term inflation, which is always a bad idea if we want to be precise in our use of language.<br /><br />To be clear, reading books or watching movies that glorify divorce can indeed be very bad for a person and perhaps especially bad for women. But they are not *the same as* either a man's or a woman viewing or reading materials that are *literally* p-ographic, and the problem should be treated as a separate issue. For example, is the person reading this material in fact being influenced by it? What is her worldview? Does her worldview reflect the wrongful views of these books and movies? Why does she read them? Watching a movie that glorifies divorce is not intrinsically wrong. Gratifying one's lust by reading or watching p is intrinsically wrong.<br /><br />I am not prepared to agree with your statement that the p problem for women is worse or more widespread than for men "because it is recognized." The fact that something is, among some, recognized as a problem certainly doesn't automatically translate to its being less widespread! More alarming still, there are allegedly Christian men who pressure women (and I am not attributing this to Regnerus, be it noted) to shrug off p use. I mentioned in the comments a Christian woman who gets pushy comments from men in response to her E-Harmony account. They are allegedly Christians but all her a prude for regarding present p use as a non-negotiable. So it's not clear to me that p use among men is as widely recognized as wrong as you seem to be indicating, even (alas) in Christian circles.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-64983407890623145082014-11-17T16:41:12.999-05:002014-11-17T16:41:12.999-05:00NB I haven't read all the comments.
It is pro...NB I haven't read all the comments.<br /><br />It is probably also not a good idea for a young man to "settle" for a young woman who reads "50 Shades of Grey" or is a fan of "Twilight", "Desperate Housewives", etc. I have argued that pornography targeted at women is actually a much bigger problem than pornography targeted at men, precisely because pornography targeted at men is at least generally recognized as pornography. <br /><br />But media which has a similar reality-distorting effect on women to what conventional visual pornography has on men is not even recognized as pornography. Obvious graphic porn for men is obvious, and male sexuality is pretty transparent. Equivalently sinful and destructive sexual fantasy for women is not as graphic, and because of that is much more socially accepted. And because it is much more socially accepted, it is more pervasive and dangerous. <br /><br />Observe of how many men you see nonchalantly reading <i>Hustler</i> or the like in public; compare that to the number of women who nonchalantly read <i>Fifty Shades of Grey</i> in public. There is a much bigger female-targeted porn problem than the male-targeted porn problem, if only because the latter is actually recognized as a problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-89906395899449422922014-11-17T16:23:25.840-05:002014-11-17T16:23:25.840-05:00"But not all p. consumption is habitual, and ..."But not all p. consumption is habitual, and not all habits are equal.... The stuff is frighteningly easy to come across online, and it's frighteningly easy to rationalize looking at it."<br /><br />Here I think, Titus, that to some degree you invite the reiteration of my dilemma, above, for those who would defend Regnerus's article: Either the person in question has a habitual problem or he does not. If he does not, then it should be relatively easy for him to stop "rationalizing looking at it," since ex hypothesi he has no addiction whatsoever. If he has a habitual problem, then a woman is being asked to date and consider marrying a man with a vicious habit. Moreover, if the vicious habit is merely that of rationalizing viewing the allegedly "less bad" forms, that is still entirely unacceptable and would be a violation of the marriage vows. Therefore (see argument above) must be conquered before one can hold oneself out as ready to enter into such vows.<br /><br />As far as "frighteningly easy to come across," I agree. Hence, anyone who has *any degree of* problem of this kind, even an occasional one, should take steps. These steps include: The use of Ad Block to block many popups and other inappropriate content that comes up in advertisement. The customized use of Adblock to block page elements, such as the inappropriate "friend suggestions" from scantily clad women that Facebook gives to men. The use of OpenDNS filtering to filter sites with known adult content. The use of Safety Mode on Youtube which, as a bonus, automatically forces safe search in Google to prevent adult content from coming up in search results. These steps *alone* will prevent a lot of the "frighteningly easy to come across on-line" problem if we are *merely* talking about someone who stumbles across the material. Finally, if all of that is not enough, a software such as Net Nanny or Covenant Eyes can be installed and can help a man who has a problem that causes him to do more than just "stumble" across the stuff. To the extent that we are talking about pictures in the margin of news sites, one can customize a blacklist. I'm afraid here that news sites out of the UK are especially bad. If the price of keeping one's eyes from evil is not being able to read stories in The Independent or The Telegraph, and if one is inclined to let one's eyes linger over nearly naked women in the margins at such sites, and if one cannot find any way to block that type of content with customized page elements blocks, then so be it.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-60907753978934800442014-11-17T15:22:09.830-05:002014-11-17T15:22:09.830-05:00Just to cover all the bases, Titus: You may reply ...Just to cover all the bases, Titus: You may reply that you didn't mean anything about satisfaction of desire when referring to graces given to married men but not to single men, that you meant something more entirely spiritual.<br /><br />In that case I will simply say that, however one interprets such graces, there is zero scriptural or rational basis for the conclusion that one can or should count on such graces *in the sense that* one courts and marries without first stopping p use or other perverse and promiscuous sexual habits, on the _assumption_ that "graces of marriage" will fix the problem afterwards.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-46302155853673221542014-11-17T15:16:28.536-05:002014-11-17T15:16:28.536-05:00Titus, I was *extremely* careful in my interpretat...Titus, I was *extremely* careful in my interpretation of Regnerus *not* to attribute to him the position that women should "shrug off" such use, though I have also argued that in practice it is going to be difficult in a relationship where this is an on-going problem to maintain that distinction. In theory, however, I not only admit the distinction but made it *explicitly* both in my post and in these comments.<br /><br />I simply disagree that there is any level or type of fairly regular use that is acceptable in a person, female or male, putting himself forward as a candidate for marriage. As Tony shrewdly pointed out, if you do not have a rational basis for believing that you can keep your marriage vows, there are serious questions about the validity of those vows.<br /><br />I think that you are blurring the distinction between a "predilection" and a current, on-going problem with use, even if it is of the allegedly "less bad" type. That is a very important distinction not to blur. A man may have a predilection but may have been, to use the alcohol metaphor, "on the wagon" for a couple of years, for example, perhaps through the help of accountability partners and rigorous application of software such as Covenant Eyes. At that point, whatever else may be the case, he at least has grounds for arguing rationally that he "no longer does" this and has a reasonable expectation of not violating his marriage vows in this way. There may be other "baggage" that the couple has to work through. I'm not saying this is a sufficient condition for being a good candidate for marriage. I am, however, saying that having stopped *any* sort of regular p. use is a _necessary_ condition for being in a position to hold oneself out for courtship and marriage.<br /><br />Your "graces given to those who are married," I'm afraid, sounds far too much like using marriage as therapy, and I'm afraid that we disagree there. Compare: Suppose that a man were going to a prostitute approximately twice a month. (Just to pick a number.) One should *never* counsel him to get married, or a woman to marry him before he has stopped doing so in the hopes that the satisfaction of his desires after marriage and any other graces of marriage will "cure" him of visiting prostitutes. That would not only be reckless but, as already discussed, would call into question the validity of the marriage vows.<br /><br />I believe that any idea that a man can use p. even semi-regularly up until marriage with the hope that marriage will fix the problem is a complete mis-use of St. Paul's words about its being better to marry than to burn. Chastity is a necessary part of life. There will be times even after marriage when intercourse will be impossible--physical and other situational issues that are the fault of neither spouse. If one spouse is counting on the satisfaction of desire in marriage as therapy to prevent p. use, that person is in a terrible position to handle the deprivations that sometimes necessarily occur later in marriage itself. <br /><br />Moreover, it is right for a Christian to want to marry a godly spouse. Godliness includes not presently using p., having that problem under control. This is true for both men and women.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-19242297243816129292014-11-17T15:04:37.443-05:002014-11-17T15:04:37.443-05:00"I also think that in practice the distinctio..."I also think that in practice the distinction becomes very difficult to maintain between "just accept this and put up with it" and "accept a man with this problem as long as he's working on it." How much "working on it" is enough?"<br /><br />This is exactly the problem some Catholics, including myself, have with the notion of, "gradualism." In a blog post on the National Catholic Register, Jimmy Akin quotes St. Pope John-Paul II, in Familiaris Consortio [34]:<br /><br />"[Married people] cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy.<br />And so what is known as 'the law of gradualness' or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with 'gradualness of the law,' as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God's law for different individuals and situations.<br />In God's plan, all husbands and wives are called in marriage to holiness, and this lofty vocation is fulfilled to the extent that the human person is able to respond to God's command with serene confidence in God's grace and in his or her own will.<br />On the same lines, it is part of the Church's pedagogy that husbands and wives should first of all recognize clearly the teaching of Humanae vitae as indicating the norm for the exercise of their sexuality, and that they should endeavor to establish the conditions necessary for observing that norm."<br /><br />He, also cites the Vademecum for Confessors [3:9]:<br /><br />"The pastoral "law of gradualness", not to be confused with the "gradualness of the law" which would tend to diminish the demands it places on us, consists of requiring<b> a decisive break with sin</b> together with a progressive path towards total union with the will of God and with his loving demands."<br /><br />The whole idea of gradualness, which may be prudential in some situations, such as getting rid of over-eating or even smoking, has been a raw wound among some Catholics observing the recent Extraordinary Synod on the Family, where some liberal Cardinals tried to argue that married couples in a state if sin should be allowed to receive Communion if they are working on the issues. <br /><br />That is not how conversion works. Some sins, like adultery or murder do not admit of turning the spigot off, little-by-little. Watching pornography is a violation of the Sixth Commandment, period. One must channel Yoda in giving counsel about stopping: "Do or Do not. There is no try."<br /><br />The ChickenThe Masked Chickennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-46812503549774200152014-11-17T14:41:51.475-05:002014-11-17T14:41:51.475-05:00I believe the premise of Lydia's objection is ...I believe the premise of Lydia's objection is mistaken. I don't believe Mr. Regnerus is encouraging women to "settle" or to shrug off pornography use.<br /><br />Rather, Mr. Regnerus is encouraging women to pursue sanctification, not only of themselves, but of their (intended) spouses. If A loves B, and B has a predilection to a sin, it should be A's desire to assist B in resisting and breaking that predilection. <br /><br />No, A does not want to marry an individual with vicious habits, nor does the fact that she may love an individual mean that she should marry him in spite of a habit that would make their marriage intolerable.<br /><br />But not all p. consumption is habitual, and not all habits are equal. Not all p. is equal, although we would quickly get off into discussions unfit for mixed company if we examined that at length. Nor is all p. consumption predicated on a deep-set disorder. The stuff is frighteningly easy to come across online, and it's frighteningly easy to rationalize looking at it.<br /><br />Finally, one has to bear in mind that there are graces derived from matrimony. God gives spouses assistance in fulfilling their vows. A man who admits that the consumption of pornography is evil and desires to refrain from viewing it will receive graces in his marriage to help him do so. He will not receive those same graces as a single man. Titushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01905201479928703850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-28676270906849514432014-11-17T10:24:18.008-05:002014-11-17T10:24:18.008-05:00Superb and truly impressive article, Lydia. I will...Superb and truly impressive article, Lydia. I will link to it on my Facebook page. I'm delighted to totally agree with you this time!Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.com