Utah's Westminster College offers 'Porn' class where students will watch pornographic films together

It also affects those who make it. The extent to which it reflects society as a whole may also be worth studying.

 

You are trying to make a tempest out of a teapot.

There is no hypocrisy other than yours.

 

....he says, with no evidence to support his claim...

 

Lol what support do you have for yours? A picture that you have interpreted and your double standards?

Way to point out everybody else's hypocrisy

 

Do you study illegal drugs or consume illegal and dangerous drugs?
Do you study the effects of porn or consume porn that has potential for consequences for the health of youth?
Do you study Satanism or cults or are you talking about performing satanic rituals and injecting kids into dangerous cults to study them?

You can study things without engaging in them especially when they are dangerous, damaging, or unhealthy.
I don't understand why this simple distinction is so difficult to understand, unless you just don't want to understand it.

 

Did you read the article? It's a college course, junior level, for film majors.

 

I understand the distinction with drugs but, as I already explained, that does not apply to porn. Please explain how someone can study it, without watching it.

As far as your analogy for Satanism, it is also incorrect. The true analog for watching porn is reading Satanic writings, and even watching a ritual, if one had the opportunity. But watching porn is not the same as "performing satanic rituals and injecting kids into dangerous cults." The equivalent of that, would be making porn, in order to "study" it.

 

Sigh... Thank you.

 

The picture was nothing more than a light-hearted dig…..way to point out your sense of humour…

However, if you can’t see the hypocrisy, on a daily basis, of the manner in which Christian conservatives in general mock, ridicule and discriminate against the sexual preferences of others, while involving themselves in those same behaviours, then I can’t help you any further… Have a look at some of the evidence presented by others in this thread…while conservatives as a group rail against the so-called “sexual perversions” of their opponents, we see that they are the greater consumers of sexual porn, for example…

I don’t know if you are a gay person or not, but if you are, I could imagine that you would be very uncomfortable witnessing your political ‘mates’ increasing attacks on the gay population…

 

It's rather ironic that you're talking about other people's hypocrisy but you can't see your own.

 

I’m an educator, so always willing to learn. Please point out my hypocrisy, rather than making bald accusations…

 

You’re welcome. So, we are in agreement that poor Mr Crawford is doing a less than stellar job of adhering to the Christian principles that he boasts are so important to him…?

 

You're holding this man to standards that you don't hold crossdressers and transgenders to.

If his standards are wrong and you're holding him to his standards then they're wrong no matter what.

I think it's ridiculous to chastise someone for wearing women's clothes if they're a man doesn't matter who does it. I'm not being hypocritical because I apply that standard across the board

 

Do you actually believe these people watched porn in order to learn the ill effects of consuming it for their research?

https://fightthenewdrug.org/3-reasons-why-watching-porn-is-harmful/

There are plenty people to study, examine, and interview, without hurting additional young devolping minds, via this dumb idea of a class.

 

You’re not listening…I am NOT criticising him for dressing in drag, or for any “standards” that attach to that behaviour…got that?

I am criticising his HYPOCRISY, in that he identifies with 2 groups (conservatives and Christians) who DO make criticisms of that nature. He is a part of groups who would routinely call their opponents “perverts” for behaving as he has…

Again, I DO NOT criticise him for dressing up…I criticise the hypocrisy.

 

Christian? Duet is the old Jewish law. We use it as a teacher, and I'll personally follow a law like this, thanks for pointing it out, but, as Paul pointed out, we don't saddle others with a law that none of us seem to manage to keep, we are saved by grace through faith.

Jesus summarized all the law and the prophets in the two greatest commandments.

 

then why are you criticizing him at all?

no they don't. I'm more or less conservative and you heard me State what I thought about it. I am Christian as well and you still heard what I stated about it maybe the hypocrisy is just your stereotype toward a certain type of person

Right you're criticizing him for violating the ideals you apply to conservativism and Christianity and those aren't necessarily relevant.

There is no Christian doctrine whatsoever that says man shall not wear Lacey things. To the Christian Engel is nothing that's something you made up.

And I've met quite a few crossdressers that are conservative so to say that he's violating some unwritten rule is to make some unwritten rule up on the spot that everyone must adhere to that's your hypocrisy.

 

I'm not judging him at all. While I wouldn't wear lingerie, I understand that he did it as part of a playful event on a cruise and I don't see where anyone was harmed by it, no harm, no foul.

Every Christian finds themselves in the position of holding this aspirational standard and falling short, that is why we rely on God's grace. Christ purchased that grace by willfully submitting to the cross, it was dearly purchased and we accept in all humility.

It feels like you have another bone to pick with Crawford and I'll leave you to it.

Also, I'm not familiar with Crawford but I infer from some of your statements that he can be pretty judgy, and the problem with that, as Jesus warned, is that people then tend to hold you to the same harsh standard you hold others to, and if Crawford has done that and you are reflecting it back on him, well, maybe Crawford would do well to be a bit more tolerant in the future and it will be his pleasant experience to find others extending more tolerance to him in return.

We are all in different stages of our journey, and where we are Christians, hopefully we are continually maturing in grace.

 

And yet, when Christians point out that homosexuality is a sin, they point to "Deuteronomy" and other Old Testament Books. Yet the Apostle Paul wrote about the law in Romans, Galatians, and a few other books. However, the word "law" was never defined as a universal term. Sometimes it is meant as the worldly law, such as in Romans Chapter 7 for instance, when he said he is free from the law. And in other cases, it is the Hebrew Law in keeping the commandments. However, if one believes we are not bound by the Jewish Law, the Torah, other than the Ten Commandments, well, more like 600 plus in Leviticus, then, it becomes either a misinterpretation of what Paul was writing or we are trying to interpret, or spin, the verse, to fulfill our own criteria.

And when Jesus said the two greatest commandments, in Matthew 22:34-40, were love thy neighbor as thyself and love the Lord with all my heart, soul, and mind. Sadly, a majority of Christians, including church leaders in the Evangelical faith, do not do either or both of these commandments.

 

Well, hopefully we are doing our best. As for your conflicts with other Christians, take it up with them, I have my hands full wrestling with my own shortfalls and to the extent that I understand God's communication to me, he wants me to stay focused on my own shortcomings for the most part.

 

A local private college that is loosely associated with the baptists have a gaming team as a sport. It is actually kind of odd to me to call it a sport but it is about adapting to the changing student body. They apparently go around and compete in video game tournaments.

As for the porn class, my guess is that it will be some porn scenes/clips with a whole lot of feminist "men are patriarchal oppressors" nonsense. My school had a class called Human Sexuality and word on the street was 1) don't sign up for it and 2) if you are a guy, don't be near the building when they let out. It was apparently a man-hating Feminazi 101: Introduction to Lesbianism type class.

 

Your link actually contradicts your argument, by showing how commonplace an occurrence it is for someone to see porn:

[Snip]
Let’s Talk About Porn. Is It As Harmless As Society Says It Is?
Considering an estimated 91.5% of men and 60.2% of women consume porn, let’s examine how porn may be affecting consumers, relationships, and our society.
[End]

Your beliefs about the perniciousness of porn are just that: your beliefs. They are not accepted by mainstream science or law, as being true. Therefore it is ludicrous to expect society to conform to your own, personal theories.

As to your answer to how one could study porn, w/out watching it, your response seems to be: by studying (?), examining (?), or interviewing others. So you are suggesting that social scientists should limit their observations to the impressions of non- professional, untrained porn watchers? Would you also maintain that police, if they interview witnesses to a crime, could not be expected to learn anything more, by investigating the crime scene, themselves (or looking at video footage of the crime)?

Your argument, from a logical standpoint, is ridiculous.

 

I don’t know who Engel is…? But let me introduce you to Deuteronomy 22:5……King James version.

“5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

 

Not pointless at all ... you won't find me running around crying "Proof Proof" - with a bad case of denial of the obvious.

Where I do ask for support is when the claim obviously flawed - and poster has provided no support for claim .. then throws out advective .. "You don't know stats"

Well - unfortunately for Krane .. I do know Stats .. quite well .. being a research scientist .. and its clear that you two don't.

I never once rejected the idea that Red frequents the black female domination tent more than Blue .. What I asked for was quantification.

In the adult room - among those with domain expertice - a statement like "Republicans are more likely" .. is spewing nonsense .. even though I agree that Republicans may well be more likely.

Do you understand why ? Clearly not so I will continue. Say we have 1 in 100 frequenting the side from the Blue side and 1.00001 in 100 frequenting from the red side.

as you can see .. the claim "Republicans are more likely" . while partially true .. is a statistical falsehood.. The result is statistically zero.

BUT - in the case where the difference is statistically significant say 1.0 vs 1.5 .. where the headline citing the study might claim "50% more likely" and you see this all the time. The claim is 99% pants on fire false .. Why ?

 

It's an arts college. Some porn films definitely have an artistic aspect.

Also, nobody is forced to attend a porn class. So the end of the world stays out again.