Dear influencers: We are not built for this much intimacy

[Michie]

The Angelus News link in Post #1 was okay.
But the links to Mail Online and Mirror.co.uk in Post #12?
Graphic. Graphic details and graphic photos.
Imo? Too graphic for a Christian site. But that is just me.

Those articles did make me ponder the state of the world, and the widespread depravity and lostness of mankind within it. They made me weep. And they inspired me to pray for Lily. And then to set my eyes on some goodness, after reading about such depravity. But did I want to read those graphic articles after just leaving a time of Bible study and prayer on the Book of Revelation? No, not really.

- I just need to be more careful about what threads I read. Not all threads are for everybody.

p.s.
Maybe threads like this one need a 'Graphic' warning in the title???
(Just an idea ... I got a million of 'em! )

I did not find anything particularly graphic in the second article except the reality of Lily’s reaction on her psyche and now she feels she needs to up her game when she is clearly traumatized? She posed in a bikini maybe? *shrug* We can talk graphically about abortion, transgender issues, child sex trafficking,etc., what leaves Lily’s situation out working for the porn industry? We cannot bury our heads in the sand when it comes to these issues. How are we to be the salt and the light in a dark world when it is forbidden to speak or acknowledge these issues? Seriously, I do not get it.

Deleted the link that upset you.

 

[mourningdove~]

I did not find anything particularly graphic in the second article except the reality of Lily’s reaction on her psyche. *shrug* We can talk graphically about abortion, transgender issues, child sex trafficking,etc., what leaves Lily’s situation out working for the porn industry? We cannot bury our heads in the sand when it comes to these issues. How are we to be the salt and the light in a dark world when it is forbidden to speak or acknowledge these issues? Seriously, I do not get it.

Okay.

But this is a Christian board, and Lily is naked on a bed in one article ... and barely in a bikini in the other.
And she talks openly about doing 100 men in a day ... and is 'in training' to do 1000 next.

So, you say you don't get it ... but ...

- Do you not see anything potentially 'triggering' to male readers who may not want to stumble onto the photo of a naked young woman, while they're being enlightened about the problem?

And what about the image of Lily doing 100 men in a day? And yes, she's got a new goal of 1000.

- Do you not see anythng potentially 'triggering' to female readers who might not want to read the details of a woman being sexually used by 100 to 1000 men, while they're being enlightened about the problem?

You keep implying that I don't think the topic should be discussed. Wrong.
I just think the links in Post #12 were too 'naked' and 'descriptive' for a Christian board.
I found the discussion in the Post #12 articles of Lily taking her sexual beating to be disturbing.
And the photos in those articles to be inappropriate for male readers.

... But yeah, that was 20 years ago! And, we are not all sensitive to the same things.

In retrospect, I guess I never should have mentioned my concerns. In the whole big scheme of things, what does it matter if I found the articles to be disturbing and the photos inappropriate for male readers? It doesn't. It really doesn't matter. Sometimes I think we could do things better, to help each other along the journey. A simple 'trigger' alert of some kind in the thread title could be helpful to those more sensitve to violent discussion or to those wanting to avoid naked pictures. But hey, this isn't my board, or my thread, so I best keep my ideas to myself.

My apologies.
And all done.

 

[Michie]

There was no picture of her naked on a bed. I would not if posted it if that were the case.

 

[mourningdove~]

There was no picture of her naked on a bed. I would not if posted it if that were the case.

You are mistaken, so please don't imply that I'm lying.
(What point would there be in my doing that???)

Looks like you've deleted the old Post #12 with the two questionable articles in it, but I was able to find one of them.

Here is the Mail Online article that was posted:

(Deleted upon OP request.)

 

[Michie]

You are mistaken, so please don't imply that I'm lying.
(What point would there be in my doing that???)

Looks like you've deleted the old Post #12 with the two questionable articles in it, but I was able to find one of them.

Here is the Mail Online article that was posted:
In it, there is a photo of Lily, kneeling on a bed. She is holding some of the bedding to cover her frontals.
Not naked? Guess that depends on how one sees it, but she looks naked to me.

Lily Phillips reveals moment she decided to become an Only Fans star

She was a seemingly conventional youngster, enjoying watching SpongeBob Square Pants at home and playing netball with her friends after school.

www.dailymail.co.uk

She had bikini bottoms on. Look, it’s strange you would post an article that you find so offensive after I deleted it on your account. Why is it you are arguing with me about this? I tried to be considerate and you are just trying to argue. I never implied you were lying. There is no nudity in that photo. I’ve seen people on the beach in less. If you have an issue you should have PM’ed me. Now where’s the trigger alert since you reposted what you thought should have never been posted in the first place? Shouldn’t you delete it?? I posted 2 articles. 1 from Angelus and one from the Mirror. What was questionable about the op? The second article was about more than those pics that shook you up so much.

 

[RileyG]

Hmmm.....

It reminds me of a foreign exchange student in the 11th grade I went to high school with, an agnostic from Sweden, he was very surprised by the so-called "puritan" views that American had on sex. He was barely 15 and not a virgin.

It also reminds me when Miley Cyrus made a photo when she was underage of her bare back. Some considered it "provocative", others did not.

I guess it depends on someone's' perception?

I don't know.

 

[Michie]

Hmmm.....

It reminds me of a foreign exchange student in the 11th grade I went to high school with, an agnostic from Sweden, he was very surprised by the so-called "puritan" views that American had on sex. He was barely 15 and not a virgin.

It also reminds me when Miley Cyrus made a photo when she was underage of her bare back. Some considered it "provocative", others did not.

I guess it depends on someone's' perception?

I don't know.

I was concerned about her. Like I said, I see more on the beach. I’m just going to delete my posts. This really took a very odd turn. Reposting an article that is being complained about so I delete it and the person complaining posts it again??? Without a trigger warning? Wow!

 

[RileyG]

I was concerned about her. Like I said, I see more on the beach. I’m just going to delete my posts. This really took a very odd turn. Posting an article that is being complained about so I delete it and the person complaining posts it again??? Without a trigger warning? Wow!

No.

You don't have to delete anything.

If anything, just request the thread to be closed.

You're fine!

 

[Michie]

No.

You don't have to delete anything.

If anything, just request the thread to be closed.

You're fine!

I’m going to request it closed. Still very disturbed by what happened here though.

 

[RileyG]

I’m going to request it closed. Still very disturbed by what happened here though.

You did nothing wrong.

God bless you.

 

[Michie]

You did nothing wrong.

God bless you.

Thank you Riley.

 

[RileyG]

Thank you Riley.

May God bless you abundantly.

 

[Michie]

I requested it closed.

 

[mourningdove~]

She had bikini bottoms on. Look, it’s strange you would post an article that you find so offensive after I deleted it on your account. Why is it you are arguing with me about this? I tried to be considerate and you are just trying to argue. I never implied you were lying. There is no nudity in that photo. I’ve seen people on the beach in less. If you have an issue you should have PM’ed me. Now where’s the trigger alert since you reposted what you thought should have never been posted in the first place? Shouldn’t you delete it?? I posted 2 articles. 1 from Angelus and one from the Mirror. What was questionable about the op? The second article was about more than those pics that shook you up so much.

We aren't on the same page at all in this discussion, no matter how hard we try. But we've been here before, where we just don't connect on a subject and find ourselves going round and round in circles, and still not communicating well. I'm sorry if you've seen my posts as some kind of attack. They weren't. I was just trying to get my point thru to you, first gently and then alittle more directly, but I obviously failed.

Apologies for upsetting your thread. Wasn't my intent, but I'm not sad to see this thread close. Good decision.

 

[mourningdove~]

Hmmm.....

It reminds me of a foreign exchange student in the 11th grade I went to high school with, an agnostic from Sweden, he was very surprised by the so-called "puritan" views that American had on sex. He was barely 15 and not a virgin.

It also reminds me when Miley Cyrus made a photo when she was underage of her bare back. Some considered it "provocative", others did not.

I guess it depends on someone's' perception?

I don't know.

You are very right @RileyG . Some of us are more 'puritanical' about some things, than others.

And some of us just don't have the stomach ... are too sensitive ... to read secular articles about a woman allowing men to sexually use and abuse her, and not be disturbed by the story.

But I realize that much of the younger generation is less sensitive about many things, and less 'puritanical'. That doesn't make anyone right or wrong, just different in how they perceive things.

 

[Michie]

We aren't on the same page at all in this discussion, no matter how hard we try. But we've been here before, where we just don't connect on a subject and find ourselves going round and round in circles, and still not communicating well. I'm sorry if you've seen my posts as some kind of attack. They weren't. I was just trying to get my point thru to you, first gently and then alittle more directly, but I obviously failed.

Apologies for upsetting your thread. Wasn't my intent, but I'm not sad to see this thread close. Good decision.

No you were wrong to repost the article you were objecting to after I deleted it on your account. You should delete it since it upset you so. You were also wrong saying I was implying you are a liar. I PM’ed you and got no reply. But I see you’d rather carry this out publicly. I think you should reflect a little bit yourself. I think what you did and how you handled this speaks volumes.

 

[mourningdove~]

No you were wrong to repost the article you were objecting to after I deleted it on your account. You should delete it since it upset you so. You were also wrong saying I was implying you are a liar. I PM’ed you and got no reply. But I see you’d rather carry this out publicly. I think you should reflect a little bit yourself. I think what you did and how you handled this speaks volumes.

Whoa.

You really have missed the point of my posts.

And I had just PM'd you, when I noticed this latest post.
(PM edited to delete contents.)

You got no reply to your PM earlier because you sent your PM after midnite. I was already in bed for the nite. It is only 11AM here where I am. How long do you give persons to respond to your PMs? Guess I missed the deadline ...

I personally don't care about the indecent pictures. (The men here might.) But the secular articles you posted, not the Angelus article, were disturbing.

I would take you back to the Angelus article in your Post #1. The author herself writes .....

"Last December I found myself unable to shake a story I had read in the Wall Street Journal. It has bothered me into the new year."

"This December, I couldn’t stop thinking about another online “influencer,” Lily Phillips, of OnlyFans fame."

... So, the author herself found the stories disturbing, and lingering afterwards in her mind.

(Discuss what you want, but would a triggering warning be too much on threads discussing violence and adult content?)

I don't appreciate the scolding @Michie , but as OP of this thread I guess you have that right.

 

[Michie]

Whoa.

You really have missed the point of my posts.

And I had just PM'd you, when I noticed this latest post.
(PM edited to delete contents.)

You got no reply to your PM earlier because you sent your PM after midnite. I was already in bed for the nite. It is only 11AM here where I am. How long do you give persons to respond to your PMs? Guess I missed the deadline ...

I personally don't care about the indecent pictures. (The men here might.) But the secular articles you posted, not the Angelus article, were disturbing.

I would take you back to the Angelus article in your Post #1. The author herself writes .....

"Last December I found myself unable to shake a story I had read in the Wall Street Journal. It has bothered me into the new year."

"This December, I couldn’t stop thinking about another online “influencer,” Lily Phillips, of OnlyFans fame."

... So, the author herself found the stories disturbing, and lingering afterwards in her mind.

I don't appreciate the scolding @Michie , but as OP of this thread I guess you have that right.

I don’t need to say anything more. The way you handled this speaks for itself. SMH

 

[mourningdove~]

I don’t need to say anything more. The way you handled this speaks for itself. SMH

I'm very sorry I've upset you. (As you've requested, I've put you on Ignore.)
God bless.

 

[Michie]

Good grief. Why didn’t you say that in PM instead of stop PM-ing me? After 3 attempts to communicate with you?