CASTIMONIA

Sexual Purity Support & Recovery Group

sex addict

By

Prostitute Who Romped With Irish Footie (Soccer) Fans at Euro 2012 Arrested for Spreading HIV

Polish police claim hooker ‘knowingly spread HIV’ as she served clients close to Irish supporters base

By Declan Ferry-IM
25 Jul 2013 09:40

A prostitute with HIV has been arrested for bedding thousands of men – including Irish fellas – during Euro 2012.

The hooker, who is known as ‘********** ******’, was working in Gdynia where the Irish team trained and about 10 miles from the Irish fans’ base in Sopot.

The 28-year-old vice girl, who also advertised under the name **** ******** and ********, is set to face trial over having unprotected sex with clients even thought she knew she was HIV positive.

Police spokeswoman Beata Gora said: “She accepted around 10 clients a day, all the while knowing she was infected.

“Multiply them over the years and that’s an enormous number of men who could have been infected.”

Cops said the woman had been under surveillance for some time before her arrest and that she offered traditional sex, along with more adventurous activities.

Fellow sex workers tipped off cops about the woman over fears that her actions would give prostitutes a bad them.

But officers only arrested her after two of her clients came forward and admitted they had tested positive for HIV.

Ms Gora said: “Due to the sensitive nature of the case we will not be disclosing personal details of the accused.

“I can only say that the suspect is a woman, and that she has been charged with knowingly spreading HIV.”

A Dublin-based sexually transmitted disease expert has warned soccer fans who played away from home at Euro 2012 to get tested.

Dr Derek Freedman said: “If people were in that area and had unprotected sex with a prostitute then I would urge them to get tested.

“What we are afraid of is people presenting themselves when it is too late. The risk of transmissions is greatest during the first year.”

By

Dependency

“Codependent” is a word that comes up frequently… Being dependent in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it’s a component of healthy relationships. Some people fear dependency, interpreting it as a sign of weakness or helplessness, or out of a fear of intimacy. In healthy relationships, this is not the case. It is altogether possible to be an autonomous person and yet be able to be dependent on another. If you exhibit healthy dependency you are willing to admit the need for others in your life, and to let them need you. After all, we all start out life as completely dependent on our caretakers. If we grew up in a family that encouraged a sense of autonomy and independent growth, with parents who praised our achievements and showed us love, we will reach adulthood with a sense of security about ourselves and our internal worth and our ability to move through the world as successful people, in whatever way we define that for ourselves. Setting emotional boundaries, giving someone space (and taking it for ourselves) is acceptable. We can allow people to be who they are, not who we want them to be. We understand that we can’t change other people, and balance feelings of closeness with feelings of separateness. Yet we also know how to care for others and let them care for us – we’re able to ask for help when we need it. In other words, it’s ok to need and be needed, because we know and feel good about who we are independently of another person if that person happens not to be around. We are able to form healthily interdependent relationships without losing our sense of self. Sometimes things don’t go the way described above, and what’s experienced growing up is criticism, rejection, conditional love (often based on achievement that validates the parents’, not the child’s, sense of self-worth), over-dependence promoted as valuable, making it impossible to feel adequate without another person around to shore up self-worth. In this scenario you are unable to take responsibility for your own sense of adequacy. You expect your good feelings about yourself to be validated from outside yourself – usually from another person. You feel weak and vulnerable. You depend on someone else to feel secure, comforted, nurtured, supported, lovable, or worthy. You can’t make a decision without the approval of the other person. Your relationships tend to be enmeshed rather than engaged, and the other person in your relationship probably complains about feeling suffocated. More than likely you’ve been called “clingy.” Since it’s hard to set your own agenda, you’re often at a loss, looking to the other person to fill in what’s missing for you. From an on-line article by Katherine Rabinowitz, LP, M.A., NCPsyA
http://www.therapycanwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=49&Itemid=99

“If you need encouragement, praise, pats on the back from everybody, then you make everybody your judge.” – Fritz Perls

By

Castimonia Tuesday Night Meeting Topic: When does “looking” become “lusting”?

Originally posted at:
http://sexual-sanity.com/2012/08/when-does-looking-become-lusting/

When does a look become lust? Where is line that separates normal, healthy, God-given sexual response from sinful, destructive lust?

Christians generally focus on Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:27-28 as the standard for moral purity: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” So if this is our goal, we need to be clear about what it actually means to “look at a person lustfully.”

Let’s say you go to a restaurant. You look over to your left, and notice someone at the next table who is very attractive. Maybe they are dressed provocatively. You look at them, and their attractiveness registers in your mind. You might even notice something about their body that is attractive or alluring.

Is that lust? When does awareness and/or sexual attraction cross the line into lust?

Christians have been wrestling with this question for generations. Many wise people have written and taught about this. Let me suggest three words that are helpful in drawing the line between looking and lusting:

1. Looking becomes lusting when we stare

Intuitively we all know that there is some difference between looking at someone and staring at them. It’s one thing look at, or notice someone, it’s another to intensely watch them, to “visually feast on them.”

This is where the much maligned and often misunderstood “two-second rule” applies. The two-second rule suggests that looking at someone for a short amount of time is normal and socially acceptable. But looking at someone for more than two seconds constitutes staring and generally signifies crossing the line into lust.

While trying to legalistically apply this “rule” doesn’t work very well, understanding the principle behind it can be helpful.

Neuroscientists tell us that if we look at something intently for an extended period of time, that image gets burned into our brain, and we can recall the image later. We encounter millions of images and sensory impressions as we go through each day. Most of these we either ignore or pay such scant attention to that we can’t recall them later. They move in and out of our consciousness and aren’t retained.

But some of these images and sensory impressions make a deeper impression. They are retained if we pay focused attention to them … if we “take a mental picture.” That’s what happens if we stare at someone.

Let’s go back to the restaurant example. So you see someone who is attractive and/or dressed in such a way that catches your attention and possibly even creates a minor sexual response. But then, instead of fixating on that, you turn your attention elsewhere. You get involved in a conversation with your companion(s), and other thoughts, sights, and sounds take up our attention. It doesn’t take long for that earlier stimulus to fade, as your consciousness is filled with other thoughts and other stimuli.

But if you were staring, you were burning that image into your memory. Later that day, if you sat down and closed your eyes, you could probably call to mind that person, or that image.

2. Looking becomes lusting when we fantasize

Sometimes we do this while we stare: we build a fantasy in our minds about the person we are starting at. We imagine talking to this person, starting a relationship with this person, or doing something sexual with this person. In the later instance, way we are literally “committing adultery in our minds” as Jesus talks about in Matthew 5:28.

When we start to obsess about the person, when we spin stories or scenarios in our minds about them, then we have crossed the line into lust.

3. Looking becomes lusting when we objectify

To objectify someone is to cease to view them as a person, and instead view them as an object. We do this when we focus on a person’s body – or body parts – instead of focusing on them as a person. Then we move from relating to them as a human being to thinking about them, looking at them, maybe even evaluating them in the same detached, objectifying way we might look at a pornographic picture.

Habitual pornography users can struggle to build healthy relationships with members of the opposite sex because of this tendency. Viewing pornography trains you to objectify people, focusing on their body and sexuality. Sexual thoughts can intrude in your consciousness as you are trying to relate on a social level with someone.

You can probably see that these three words — staring, fantasizing, and objectifying — are related, and they often go together in practice. If you’re staring at someone, you might also be fantasizing about them. If you are fantasizing about someone, you might also be undressing them in your mind … objectifying them.

Obviously things like pornography, sexual chat, and erotic stories all fit into this category of lusting. They don’t satisfy our sexual desire, they feed it and create desire for more. They don’t build intimacy. They don’t bring people together. They alienate people, because they train people to objectify and fantasize, rather than to love, serve, and relate.

Our goal is to treat other people with love and with dignity as persons. When we view people primarily as objects for our viewing and critique, or view them primarily from the standpoint of potential sexual partners, we are severely limiting the ways in which we can connect on a human, non-sexual level.

 

 

By

Pornography use is a relationship issue

“As sex and relationship therapists, we know that pornography use is a relationship issue.  Porn affects the user’s inner life (the relationship he has with himself), as well as the interactions he has with his partner and other family members.  Regular porn use often interferes with a person’s ability to maintain good self-esteem and experience manually fulfilling sexual intimacy with a partner.  Dealing with pornography is not solely about stopping a behavior or overcoming an addiction.  It also involves reclaiming a sense of personal integrity and manifesting attitudes and behaviors that promote healthy sexual intimacy.  Nothing we found in our research discussed pornography use and its repercussions with this type of emphasis.” – Wendy Maltz, LCSW, DST and Larry Maltz, LCSW in The Porn Trap

Sexual addiction is an intimacy disorder, not about sex but about an emotional issue.  Regular porn use lowers the ability to feel good about themselves and their intimate relationships, so they withdraw which increases the emotional disconnect.

By

‘The old man’s still got it’: Senior Constable secretly filmed his sex sessions with 33 women

Marc Osborn recorded footage using pinhole camera hidden inside alarm clock

Kathy Marks
Wednesday 14 August 2013
web-mar-osborn-getty

With two children and a job in a busy Sydney police station, Senior Constable Marc Osborn had plenty on his plate.

Yet he found time not only to date no fewer than 33 women, but also to make tapes of himself having sex with them, which he then showed off to colleagues.

It was the tapes that landed him in court this week, where he was convicted of three counts of “filming a private act for sexual  gratification”. Osborn, 42, who will be sentenced next month, claimed he filmed the encounters – with a pinhole camera hidden inside an alarm clock – only to prove to younger officers that “the old man’s still got it”.

Police investigators found details of 33 women on his mobile phone. Sydney’s Downing Street Local Court heard that he would meet four of them on any given day, sometimes travelling between Sydney and Newcastle, 75 miles to the north. He also sent group texts to some of them.

Osborn, who faces immediate dismissal from the New South Wales force, told the women – many of whom he met on internet dating sites – that they could trust him, because he was a police officer. One of them testified that she felt “very betrayed” and “completely bewildered”.

The court heard that on one occasion Osborn winked at the camera while having sex with one of his conquests.

At one of the stations where he worked – Gladesville, in north-west  Sydney – a frequent topic of conversation was: “Have you seen Osborn‘s latest video?” And eventually it was his colleagues who reported him to senior officers. The force now faces a possible damages claim from some of his victims.

One 31-year-old woman, identified only as “Miss BB”, said she had sex with Osborn in a fully marked Nissan patrol police vehicle, and that  he visited her so frequently that “even the neighbours were commenting… that it appeared I had personal security”.

She was shocked to discover he had filmed them together, telling  investigators that the only mementos Osborn was entitled to have of  her were topless photographs, which she had had taken “professionally”.

During his at times tearful testimony, Osborn – who wore a large pair of dark sunglasses while entering and leaving court – said he was the second oldest on his team. “I guess I was just trying to compete with my peers … trying to join in the conversation.”