Somehow, this topic came to mind------. They preach fire & brimstone about "immoral sex", yet they SHTUPP providers. They confess & are tormented about their "indiscretions", but they come across as quintessential hypocrites. I think hobbyists grab the vomit bag when we hear their self-indulgent,blubbering angst.

The most prominent real-life example of this is Jimmy Swaggart. In literature, examples of this are Somerset Maughn's "Rain" & Sinclair Lewis "Elmer Gantry" ( catch the 1960 film version of of Elmer Gantry---great ! )

So,what does the TER community think about all this ? Are there any other real life or fictional examples of these sanctimonious losers ?

It's always the ones who go on and on about the immorality if sex, or homosexuality that end up being caught visiting sex workers.  Or tapping their feet in the airport bathroom.  I've had at least 3 ministers visit me.  One was remarkably self-aware and a really good guy.  Another was just a regular guy who liked porn and women and wasn't getting enough at home.  And the third was completely fucked up.  He needed therapy.  He had been married for a few short months to someone with a past because he was trying to save her while he trolled the internet for sex.

the pastor of the church I attened while a senior in HighSchool cheated on his wife... my dad told me long before anyone else knew... my dad truly like the guy (As did I).  He in all other aspects of his life was a good man.

he simply fell in love with another woman.

he was "discovered" by the church elders... and they got rid of him, and had him ex-communicated....

he switched denominations, and continued in the ministry...

When dad died, I had him give the eulogy, as my dad never lost that friendship... he truly liked and respected the man... oh, and he married the paramour...

I believe that there are biological imperatives that we try to short-circuit - such as the sex drive.... how stupid to think that we can make rules to govern our hard wiring.  kinda like expecting the chip inside an X-box to run the power grid.... ain't gonna happen.

Jim Baker!  They are all human and work in the lucrative business they call religion.  To make the most money and sell themselves, they put a representative of themselves forward for the suckers to see.  Give me your cash and you shall be saved!

I don't personally judge a minister (man or woman) who is doing so, but I think for his/her own good, s/he needs to find a new line of work, solely due to the psychological damage s/he is doing to his/her own self, and the damage s/he will do to his/her family, and congregation when it is found out.

I agree.  And while there are many social constructs that attempt to repress sexuality, religion is the big one.  It's a massive tool of repression by convincing people that sexuality and spirituality are not the same thing or even mutually exclusive.  It's the gateway to shame-based sexuality that gives rise to a whole boatload of problems.

I put Religious personalities into three groups.

1) Believes and does his best to follow his church doctrine. Only a few fall into this group.  an example would be Mother Theresa.

2) Believes but has a few faults.  I think most fall into this group.

3) Are the ones that talk about religion in public but in truth they are using religion for their own personal goals.  

Just because someone can recite god's word, does not mean he is doing god's work!

Let me give a different idea, though, that you have given before and I believe is more applicable:

A man shouldn't be doing anything that gives him a guilty conscience. If he is going to be seeing providers, he should be at peace with that decision. If he is not at peace with it, every time he sees a provider, it hurts him. If he is harming himself -- he should stop.

Keep in mind, though, that MANY hobbyists are initially conflicted and ultimately resolve those conflicts.

BUT -- at the same time -- we should realize we likely have a disproportionate number of psychopaths in our midst for whom their own whim is deemed adequate justification for any evil and there is no conscience.

As a community, it is in our best interest to put forth and enforce basic moral standards or, over time, there will cease to BE a community. Psychopaths will destroy it.

In fact, all of the arguments we see about things like verifications, payments and so forth spring from fear and distrust -- and that fear and distrust has its roots in unethical behavior.

Look at the Newbie board. A guy asks if providers quit if they contract an incurable STD and the other guys basically say "Don't count on it."

I don't care if I am the Pope and I bang 10 providers a day; if I put forth a basic idea from Catholicism that would actually help to improve behavior, decrease distrust and increase the wellbeing of those within the hobby -- that is GOOD.

Good is Good no matter WHO states it.

So is your problem REALLY with the messenger ... or the message?

But let me give you some theological answers as one of my many degrees is in theology. (Most are in hard sciences.)

1. It is not hypocritical

I will assume, for the moment, that you are talking about people who subscribe to the big-three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

ALL THREE of these religions recognize the imperfection of Man. That a subscriber to such a religion -- no matter his status in that religion -- would fall short of the ideals of the religion is predicted within the religions themselves.

So the fact that a subscriber to one of these religions would fall short of the ideals is not, in and of itself hypocritical.

If a smoker tells you that smoking is unhealthy -- does that negate the truth of his statement?


2. You are arguing that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater.

The idea that once a person falls short of his ideals morally in one way that he should cease to expect moral behavior in himself or others altogether is disturbing.

Taken to its logical conclusion, hobbyists shouldn't object to ANY behavior within the hobby, up to and including murder. After all, they are already breaking the rules of their respective religions in many cases.

NO.

The fact that one wrong is committed does not, in any way, negate the obligation to prevent further wrongs.

When someone argues in favor of applying the Golden Rule in the way hobbyists and providers treat each other; he frankly shouldn't be attacked for that.

3. Your argument is not unique to religious belief

PLENTY of people, who are not religious, believe it is wrong to schtupp a provider. Included among these are second wave feminists, and followers of many other philosophical movements.

Philosophies (and arguably, religions) are imperfect human creations. When applied rigidly, they result in inquisitions, witch burnings and human misery. (Look at the USSR as an example.)

Human beings typically pick and choose among the aspects of a philosophy they will adopt based upon their own experiences and needs. There's nothing inherently wrong with this as it can help a  philosophy evolve in closer agreement with reality.

but, religious hypocrites,which is another thing altogether. Jimmy Swaggart & Jim Bakker are the previously cited egregious examples.

A man with that many degrees will argue with a traffic light. Read his posting history, he's in love with his own wit. Just leave him to it.

Oh - i forgot mercenary. And rocket scientist. And brain surgeon, sex therapist, and and and

how willing some of the religious folk here are to get all precious about it when you let it be known that you do not put stock in *their* religion....

To my mind, the *last* persons on earth who are qualified to get all brassed off and ugly with a person of another religion (or of no religion) are those who are frequenting a board dedicated to acting a manner contradictory to fundamental tenets of their own religion.

LOL

i guess i stumbled across a group of folks who apparently believe prostitution to be legal. No hypocracy there.

which is very apt subject for this thread. Anyone wanna take bets on the TER handle of the above alias ----?---

-- Modified on 12/4/2009 1:44:51 PM

-- Modified on 12/4/2009 1:46:19 PM

I'm sure it will be lost on many here.

One thing that always irks me is the equating of a follower of a belief system with the merits of the moral values put forth by the belief system. Then, if the follower fails in some way, people make the leap that the belief system is somehow invalidated. It is not.

Too often people 'revel' in the short-comings of a follower of a beleif system, using it to somehow assuage their own internal feelings that maybe something isn't quite right in their own life.  aka 'Misery loves company'.

Interestingly enough, we are all going to find out, whether in years, or in decades, whether our current belief system was right.

Every sinner for a belief system knows they fell short. Charity would say not to kick'em while there down.

... because sometimes "Do as I say, not as I do" is good advice.

I certainly wouldn't recommend most people do most things I do.

And, let's not forget how many of us are married. Or "officers of the court."

Nope. No hypocrisy to be found!

Let's divide up the "rules."

There are rules that are sins against deity, and rules that are sins against others, and rules that are sins against self.

Things like homosexuality defined as sins in many monotheistic religions are really "sins against deity" -- because, really, no human is hurt by them. They are a natural manifestation of a natural phenomenon.

So a guy who rails against this sort of "sin against deity" and then runs out and gets butt-fucked in the bushes is the worst kind of hypocrite.

I think where things may become blurry is in people who rail against "sins against others" yet commit those sins themselves. The fact that they are hypocrites notwithstanding, is the fact they are hypocrites germane to their message?

Sins against self, I would put in the true hypocrisy category as well, as only you know what is really a sin against yourself.

So the question is: in which category does seeing a provider fall?

after all, for most of us, whoring was an acquired taste.

Even me! Forty years ago lol....

encourages others to hate, condemn, or ostracize someone for doing the same thing s/he is doing. It's even worse, in my eyes, when they do it from a pulpit.

(spelled this way to make a point)

and neurochemically. Thus perhaps the common mixing of extreme forms of religion with sexuality, the number of charismatic (in the general sense) religious figures who are found to be promiscuous.

Certainly thus the eastern admixture of spirituality and sexuality found in some vedic / yogic forms, which see spiritual energy or prana as one with sexual energy (correctly in my view).

And perhaps, thus the number of very seriously religious pesons who are horndogs lol

The literature, symbol set and iconography of western monotheistic religion is repleat with sexual symbolism and admixture.

And many with strong religous backgrounds are drawn to vigorous sexual expression as a moth to the flame.

The cycle of desire / satiation / guilt / religious enthusiasm/ rationalization repeats over and over.

Interesting that this schema is attributable to a primary defect in human cognition (one of several), which though an effective evolutionary adaption in primitive man, has become an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

You practice what you preach.

Then again, I have a rather LOW opinion of religion, so I'm sure that's clouding my opinion.


hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: \ˈhi-pə-ˌkritFunction: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings


Looks like a preacher/priest/religious person who hobbies falls under BOTH of these definitions of a hypocrite.

"If a smoker tells you that smoking is unhealthy -- does that negate the truth of his statement?"

No, it does *not* negate the truth of his statement, but that *still* makes that person a hypocrite if they continue to smoke.

reminds me of the old joke about the baptist preacher who drove a young lady out into the boondocks. After stopping the car he asked her" sister, do you believe in the here-after'?The young lady replied" oh of course reverend, I DO believe in the here-after', to which the reverend commented ' That's good sister-cause if you ain't HERE AFTER what I'm HERE AFTER you gonna be HERE AFTER I'm gone."

... pursuit and expenditure of resources on unimpregnable females is maladaptive.

And there's a reason I am no longer involved in the monotheistic religions.

I'll stand corrected here!

persecutory anxieties arising from unconscious phantasies of annihilation?

Just joking!

Hypocrisy is having two different standards, one for yourself and one for others.  That is different from having a standard that you fail to live up to.  The second situation is human weakness.

For example, when I was smoking, I knew it wasn’t good. I knew it was bad for me. But I was weak and couldn’t quit for a long time, even though I wanted to.  A friend’s 15-year old kid wanted a cigarette from me, and I won’t give it to him.  I know it was bad.  I just was not able to avoid temptation.  

Later, I was into heavy drugs, which I knew was bad and regret.  I would then and now discourage kids from using those drugs.  I wasn't a hypocrite. I didn't have two standards.  I just couldn't live up to the one I knew was right for me (and others).

Hypocrisy would be saying, “It is good for me, but not for you.”  

A religious person can cheat on his wife, and if he knows it is bad for him, but just caves in, he is weak, not a hypocrite.  

This is an important distinction.  If failing to live up to standards is hypocrisy, then the only non-hypocrite is someone who is perfect or someone who has no standards.  

It is better to have standards and not realize them than to have no standards and make fun of those who do.

with which you believe you can win.

To set some standards and then fall short or never set any standards?

It is better to have standards.

The same could be said of any vice or evil.  

Is it better to say beating your wife is bad, but in a tirade to into an unexcusable rage and hit her.  (PLEASE, I AM SAYING THE CONDUCCT IS BAD AND UNEXCUSABLE. IN NO WAY AM I ENCOURAGING IT.)

Rather, it is better to realize the conduct is bad and try to control it.

The alternative is to say, "Well, I can't always live up to it, so I will just engage rather than be a hypocrite."

Same with gambling.  If you have the weakness, is it better to realize it isn't good for you and try to control it, or just give in and lose your home.

Likewise, when talking to other people, should you say, "At times I get mad at my wife and hit her, so you just do the same because who am I to jduge." or is it better to say, "I know it is wrong.  I try not to do it. But sometimes I screw up. It is bad. I shouldn't do it.  I honestly pray and hope other people do not do it also."

People are weak.  That is part of the human condition.  

Having standards is better than not having them, even if you do not qualify for sainthood.

Yep! And, we need people to communicate and teach those standards. And, at times they fail to live up to them. But, there is no excuse for them to practice a behavior opposed to those standards, ongoing.

I totally agree that the practitioners of whatever the “vice” should not be the ones proclaiming its virtues and practice.

I was simply making the distinction between a “standard”, its advocate and the imperfect advocate. Certainly there is a hypocrisy involved with the imperfect advocate. I was merely attempting to make a distinction between criticizing the imperfect advocate, the general advocate and the standard. Usually, but not always, when people are critical of the imperfect advocate yet do not believe in the standard itself, they are doing so not to improve the quality of the standard but to diminish it.

You say "there is no excuse for them to practice a behavior opposed to those standards."

My whole point was that there is no excuse in failing to live up to standards.  It is just weakness and giving into temptation.  

That is wny I used the examples (some, didn't have time for all) of my failings.  I didn't claim a standard different that I suggested.  I didn't put forth a defense or excuse.  My lack of will power was an explanation, not a defense or excuse.

It is better to encourage good, even if you can't live up to it.

I don't expect preachers to live in caves and be fed by the ravens.

I was just making the distinction, in my own mind, and not communicating it very well, that I don't see hypocrisy so much in someone trying to live by standards, and even teach them, but having an episode of failure. But, I do see it as being very hypocritical when someone teaches a standard of behavior while practice a behavior that everyone knows is totally against those standards.

-- Modified on 12/5/2009 1:18:58 PM

As I told RWU, I'm just speaking my mind, and not too clearly. I was not objecting to anything you said.

I think I'll go back to bed and pull the covers over my head, and give this poor old brain the rest it needs.

But thanks for making shit up that has absolutely nothing to do with the point of my post, which was that Johngalt, like losers such as yourself, will argue with a lamppost over minutia because they have no life to speak of. They also, like you, have delusions of grandeur and randomly make up shit to back up their loony opinions, shit like "I have many degrees, I'm a mercenary, I have degrees in Theology" etc. In your case, it would be that you have any modicum of reading comprehension skills, or that you have any reasoning ability at all. Just stick to the talking points like a good dittohead, and keep tilting at those straw windmills you are so fond of setting up.

And oh yeah - feel free to kiss my ass.

if he does his smoking in secret while not only telling you that it is unhealthy, but that you should be imprisoned and made a social pariah for getting caught doing something that he is doinh himself.