A Terrific Article about Pornography

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

…when Richard Scott said we should read [MoF] during a GC talk, my heart sunk.

Of little condolence but at least he mentioned reading the last two chapters first.

I think society in general, not just the church, has had a tough time shaking off the Victorian Era view of sexuality.

Rob4Hope wrote:

That is what got me. It wasn’t that my wife refused me–it was that this refusal was covertly approved of by the church. It is clearly a sin to “act out” in marriage: adultry, fornication, masturabation (I wonder about this one) and porn use are condemned. But, “acting in” in marriage by refusing your spouse is not considered a sin. The church hits on a single side, but has inadvertently given license for a spouse to refuse another for whatever reason they think. Oh sure, the church will suggest and perhaps pay for marriage counseling, but the damage for me was already done.

That’s a complicated issue to address. It would be rather difficult for the church to come out and say that it is a sin for a spouse to refuse sexual advances. Where does a spouse’s agency come into the discussion? I think I’d prefer the church giving license to people to refuse advances than for the church to tell spouses they must consent to unwanted advances, I think that would set a bad precedent.

You bring up a good point though. This creates a scenario where a person has no approved sexual outlets. We talk of leadership roulette but marriage is a sexual roulette. The deck is stacked such that sexual compatibility is only determined after the Rubicon has already been crossed; not just in the church but in any culture where premarital sex is considered serious sin. At that point the discussion can turn into “we are put here to learn to bridal our passions” where one partner is called on to find ways to suppress their sex drive. It can create an imbalance in the relationship.

I’m not sure what the answer is. In any relationship in all cultures and in all walks of life I’m sure there are couples where one spouse has an extremely strong sex drive and the other spouse seemingly has none, at least relative to the other spouse. What is the counsel? Is it all on the spouse with the stronger sex drive to learn self control, to put off that natural man (this does seem to be the more puritan approach)? Do the two find a way to meet in the middle? Does the person with the stronger sex drive supplement with masturbation? If so how might that make their spouse feel? It’s not an easy issue by any stretch of the imagination.

Rob4Hope, is it your view that the majority of LDS couples are sexually dysfunctional or perhaps a greater than average percentage of LDS couples are sexually dysfunctional? I guess a part of me thinks that there’s a slightly higher than normal rate of sexual dysfunction among members of the church. I mean, I get the feeling that a lot of the dysfunction can come from teachings about premarital sex that are coming from parents that don’t want their 13 year old to get pregnant or get someone else’s 13 year old pregnant. There’s no LDS monopoly on building up fear to keep kids from having sex before they are ready.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

One reason I say this is because the repeated guilt-trips about porn were definitely one of the main reasons why I became inactive after my mission and didn’t get married in the temple. I would usually stop viewing porn/nudity for several months at a time but always ended up doing it again. Eventually I got tired of this routine and didn’t even try to stop anymore which made me feel better overall but the problem was that I still believed that if I died in a car crash or something like that then I would literally go to the Telestial or Terrestrial Kingdom because of this so I didn’t see the point in attending church, doing home teaching, paying tithing, etc. anymore either and started drinking. At that point, I thought I wasn’t worthy to marry any “good” Mormon girl and didn’t even like to go on first dates with them so I gave up on that idea and started dating non-Mormons and inactive members instead and ended up having sex with a few different girlfriends.

I agree that this is a problem. I wish we were more accepting of people in our community that are different. There was a time when “Jack Mormons” were still considered “one of us” – less so now.

I appreciate that Elder Oaks is saying that someone that has had porn/M issues in the past can still be fully worthy. To me this helps counter the expectation that I believe we have instilled in too many of our young women that their future husband will never have looked at porn – “not even once.” I agree that this extreme expectation does tend to set up a no win situation for many marriages if/when such youthful indiscretions come out. I do not agree with everything Elder oaks said but I don’t really expect him to start sounding like “The Mormon Therapist” so I will celebrate every tiny step.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Even if the Church doesn’t ever officially add more explicit questions to worthiness interviews, porn and masturbation are already implicitly included in the generic chastity question

I agree that many would assume that these issues are included in that question and yet… our official definition of the law of chastity is to not have “sexual relations” with anyone that is not our spouse. I read that to mean sex acts with another person (not my spouse) are prohibited.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Folks, in subtle and not so subtle ways, the church promotes restraint and even celibacy in marriage (after the kids are created, and sometimes regardless of that as well), and this creates a problem. People have sexual feelings. That is one of the reasons they get married in the first place. And then the church, which creates some of the problem religiously in the first place by pitting sexuality against spirituality, condemns and punishes those who use their sexual feelings in the only way they can, which sometimes is outside of marriage.

I agree that we hit on the “sexual sins are next to murder” card so often that the variety of sexual expression in a healthy, supportive, loving marriage can definitely get distorted. And yet … the church has said that sex is for more than procreation. We even have a doctrine that raises the status of the human body as a necessary element for eternal exaltation (as opposed to something to be eventually discarded).

nibbler wrote:

I don’t mean to single you out Roy, I agree completely with you, but I also think that the church has infiltrated the bedroom and I think that it happened irrespective of intention. All of the language surrounding masturbation in the church works on the husband and the wife individually long before they even meet. I suspect that for many people the feeling is that there’s no need to discuss things with their spouse because there’s already a tacit understanding that masturbation is evil. Premarital restrictions can persist as marital restrictions. Even if the conversation occurs it can be an uphill battle for someone when their spouse considers their sexual desires to be “evil.”In some other thread we discussed a program to help RMs readjust to civilian life. Maybe it’s time for a sex ed program for newlysealeds to discuss how sex isn’t gross and to encourage couples to talk to one another openly about their sexual needs…

I completely agree Nibbler. Unfortunately I do not think that this can happen. Imagine if your stake had a class just like this where it was stated that things like toys and oral (etc, etc) were ok as long as both spouses felt ok about it and were not being coerced. How long would it take b4 someone in the ward or stake became incensed because that is against Mormonism as they have always conceptualized it and lived it? I expect that class to get shut down in a hurry. How would it go over to say, “DW and I enjoy XYZ during foreplay?” I just do not see the church as a body as ready for that.

OTOH, it might just work if it is couched in terms of “communication of sexual needs”, or “foreplay can be an important and necessary part of making the experience fulfilling for both parties”. :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

Speaking of the Mormon Therapist, I just visited her blog and found the following post to be very much in line with the original article that started this thread.

“How do I teach my kids about pornography?”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2014/08/how-do-i-teach-my-kids-about-pornography.html

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

That’s a complicated issue to address. It would be rather difficult for the church to come out and say that it is a sin for a spouse to refuse sexual advances. Where does a spouse’s agency come into the discussion? I think I’d prefer the church giving license to people to refuse advances than for the church to tell spouses they must consent to unwanted advances, I think that would set a bad precedent.

I think this is a very sticky issue. I am sure there are spouses that are “forcing” spouses to do acts they don’t want (such as taking out the garbage ). The simple answer that doesn’t always help is both should work to meet halfway. That is hard for both sides to see what is “half way”. And given the history of “I am the MAN of the house and I am in charge” within the church, I can see the other side of that coin and don’t want to put more pressure on women to just cave into their jerk husbands “because”.

nibbler wrote:

We talk of leadership roulette but marriage is a sexual roulette.

Nice term. Actually it isn’t nice, but it is a very good description of the situation. We can improve the odds a bit to talk about this before marriage (I was brought up saying we shouldn’t be talking about things like that as it may increase the chances of you “slipping up.” But even talking about it does not equal compatibility in the long run. I have even heard that people living together can really change once they are married.

nibbler wrote:

Rob4Hope, is it your view that the majority of LDS couples are sexually dysfunctional or perhaps a greater than average percentage of LDS couples are sexually dysfunctional? I guess a part of me thinks that there’s a slightly higher than normal rate of sexual dysfunction among members of the church. I mean, I get the feeling that a lot of the dysfunction can come from teachings about premarital sex that are coming from parents that don’t want their 13 year old to get pregnant or get someone else’s 13 year old pregnant. There’s no LDS monopoly on building up fear to keep kids from having sex before they are ready.

I do think that Mormons (and some strong evangelicals for that matter) do have some tendencies to have sex go off the rails once married. But in no way are we alone. Even purely atheists have issues in this area. I also have come to believe that it is the minority that have a good solid intimate relationship. I don’t think you can tell from the outside. Some couples that argue left and right are just fine and others feel the pressure to be seen as perfect and they don’t let anybody see that their relationship is anything but perfect. Meanwhile they are teetering on divorce. I have talked to 3 friends that became bishops and they all 3 said, “WOW – LOTS of couples have issues!!!!”. I had a friend of a friend tell me that one bishop confided that the one thing a bishop needed to do in order to be a successful bishop was “get the married folks to have sex and the unmarried to stop having sex.” quite an uplifting thought.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I completely agree Nibbler. Unfortunately I do not think that this can happen. Imagine if your stake had a class just like this where it was stated that things like toys and oral (etc, etc) were ok as long as both spouses felt ok about it and were not being coerced. How long would it take b4 someone in the ward or stake became incensed because that is against Mormonism as they have always conceptualized it and lived it? I expect that class to get shut down in a hurry. How would it go over to say, “DW and I enjoy XYZ during foreplay?” I just do not see the church as a body as ready for that.

I hear this argument a lot. There is a difference between getting into the bedroom details as opposed to generally saying that you and your spouse should be in the bedroom without getting in there yourself.

Often I hear arguments like “The church has no business knowing what my wife and I are doing in the bedroom.” I agree. But this arguments gets pushed so far that some in the church, including me, hear the message that we (the members) should avoid the bedroom completely. The bedroom is less than spiritual or honorable in the first place. THOU SHALT NOT messages are so loud they drown out the whisper of the thou shalt.

I’m sick of it.

I want to hear more positive statements that sexuality for the pure pleasure and enjoyment it brings is good. I want to hear statements that husbands and wives should love each other and express that love with affection that INCLUDES sexual expression. I hear too many euphemistic substitutes that somehow are suppose to keep sex sanitized; it distorts and waters down the whole message.

((Edited to tone it down. You all get my point))

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Rob4Hope, is it your view that the majority of LDS couples are sexually dysfunctional or perhaps a greater than average percentage of LDS couples are sexually dysfunctional? I guess a part of me thinks that there’s a slightly higher than normal rate of sexual dysfunction among members of the church. I mean, I get the feeling that a lot of the dysfunction can come from teachings about premarital sex that are coming from parents that don’t want their 13 year old to get pregnant or get someone else’s 13 year old pregnant. There’s no LDS monopoly on building up fear to keep kids from having sex before they are ready.

I think there is a general mess across north america about marriage and sexuality. I think the mess in orthodox patriarchal religions is just as bad, but for slightly different reasons.

I asked Laura Brotherson directly what she felt about this topic. She said that of the 50% of marriages that survive, there are perhaps 15-20% of those where the partners stay connected for any real length of time, and that includes sexuality. So, that means the numbers are dismal. People disconnect, and the marriages that often remain intact drift apart. Sex is usually one of the biggest casualties. Women often sterotypically get involved with their children completely, and men typically and sterotpyically get involved with their jobs. There can and often is role reversal, or complete changes, but the bottom line is the people are like ships in the night who pass and don’t notice each other.

I’ve heard Jennifer Finlayson-Fife explain that women in the LDS church are often taught that spirituality and sexuality are at odds, and are treated for the first years of their life–up to marriage–as non-sexual people. They have no feelings, and should not be discussing any sexuality with their future husbands at all. Men, on the other hand, are treated like beasts, and are often given messages that shame them at core levels. Hence, they withdraw and leave the flock.

I’ve read writings of Michele Weiner-Davis, who wrote a wonderful book called “The Sex Starved Marriage”. She lays it out there in pretty clear terms. In many marriages, when the sex struggles and ends, the marriage ends. People disconnect.

I’ve interacted with 2 PhD people on this topic, who have a good handle on the LDS community in SL County, as well as therapists from Utah County up through Davis County.

Bottom line? There is a BIG problem in LDS communities. The LDS people are not exempt from serious problems in this area.

Parenthetically, there are also a lot of people like me–who are baffled at what appears to be indifference form the LDS church with regards to the anti-sex messages that are given, and which hurt. IN the quest to protect people from the sins of immorality, there is an over-innoculation that has hurt many.

That is my opinion.

[Anonymous]

I agree that there is a trend. There are messages within the LDS church that say that sexual expression is healthy within marriages and serves to bind the spouses together. Unfortunately these messages can seem to be few and far between compared to the tide of “immorality” language and topics. However, at some point I need to make decisions on how I personally can stay and deal organize this subject in my mind in a way that does not create too much tension or cognitive dissonance. I latch on to these messages that tell me that having desires for my wife and “being one flesh” with her are normal, healthy, and positive. DW and I determine what is good and fulfilling between ourselves based on comfort level, respect, and preference. Even for types of foreplay that we personally do not include in our repertoire – we discuss and agree that some other couples may enjoy them and still be faithful LDS.

I know that not everyone has this option. I imagine that some are affected by immorality messages in their formative years to the point that they have been internalized. I imagine that some may be married to spouses that have very specific ideas about what the church/God would approve of being good and holy in the bedroom. I am not dismissing these and other circumstances. It can be a real struggle disentangling it all. I am just saying that for people who are not quite as constrained by such circumstances, there is a way forward that involves counseling together with your spouse and not checking with church leaders for permission/ratification of your decision.

[Anonymous]

The LDS Church does NOT teach celibacy within marriage. It comes nowhere close to that. Seriously, it isn’t anywhere close.

It does teach restraint in marriage, since it teaches agency and respect of agency. That is a good, even great, thing. Teaching no restraint in marriage would be abominable.

I mean that last sentence. I have a dear friend who was married to a rapist, essentially. No restraint in marriage is truly an abomination. No sexual restraint in any situation or relationship is abominable.

[Admin Note]: We value individual opinions here, deeply, but egregiously inaccurate and inflammatory statements have not been and never will be allowed. Almost any opinion worth discussing can be stated in a way that is not blatantly inaccurate and not inflammatory. Before hitting the Submit key, everyone should reread their comments and simply ask themselves if those comments are over-the-top, overly-broad, harshly stereotypical, inflammatory, etc.

Writing in the heat of strong emotion can be cathartic, but it also can be poisonous. We value catharsis; we can’t allow poison.

This post has strayed quite a distance from its original point and the message of the article linked in it. As its author, I am closing it. Thanks, everyone, for the comments.

[Anonymous]

I am bumping this thread for new comments, since the article was mentioned in a new post.

It will remain open IF we can keep it focused this time on the article and what it says. If not, it will be closed again.

[Anonymous]

As I mentioned back on page 9…

Quote:

As Roy said about the article…the emphasis for me is to allow the communication to be open about it. It is part of life.

My son is prepping to go on a mission, my other one is 13.

Recently we have had talks about it again with my boys, especially with the one getting ready to get his mission papers done and is sure to have to talk about it with priesthood leaders. And my talks with the boys went well. I think it helps them have some perspective on it and reduce some of the fears about it and be aware of the evils around it. Sometimes talks start awkward, but they are well-worth it to have the door open to have the discussion.

I would say that some of the things in this article were a little unrealistic for my situation, but the gist of the article was what I pretty much went through with my boys.

I wonder if others have had similar experiences trying to have the conversations at home to balance out some hyperbole at church.

[Anonymous]

One point I don’t remember the article mentioning that I brought up on the other thread is that the internet has been a permanent game-changer in this case but it looks like the Church doesn’t want to accept the current reality and adjust to it. Their familiar toolset for controlling people’s behavior of guilt, shame, fear, and social pressure that actually used to work fairly well to prevent LDS men and especially married LDS men from doing this similar to the way they currently work for the Word of Wisdom no longer work as effective deterrents nearly as well anymore because now it is more like masturbation where it costs men nothing and they can easily get away with it without anyone that would disapprove knowing about it.

So now more LDS men are certainly going to continue to view porn/nudity repeatedly than the way it used to be no matter how wrong and unacceptable anti-porn moral crusaders act like it is. That’s why I think the more they try to push the idea that this supposedly makes men unworthy the more it will backfire by causing more LDS men to fall away and encouraging many LDS women to judge men relatively harshly over this sometimes to the point of divorce. The fact that they aren’t quite as obsessed with trying to completely stamp out masturbation, romance novels, etc. already shows that they don’t absolutely have to do this but it seems like it has become one of their favorite boogeymen they have singled out to focus on for whatever reason. In fact here in Utah of all the problems legislators could spend time worrying about they recently passed a resolution declaring porn a “public health crisis” and when this was reported Holland was going on about this as if the sky was falling. For exmple look at the following news quote.

Quote:

“Society must see this evil like the epidemic it is,” said Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, member of the LDS Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “This ought to be seen like a public health crisis, like a war, like an infectious fatal epidemic, like a moral plague on the body politic that is maiming the lives of our citizens.”

Really? Why? Suppose that never happens on a large scale; what difference will it make for the average person in real life (not in terms of hypothetical “spiritual” consequences)?

[Anonymous]

This article talks specifically about an approach to having this sensitive discussion with your adolescent children.

I agree that some of our all or nothing rhetoric is just driving the problem underground with heaps of shame. I want my son to know that he is not deviant or deficient.

Heber13 wrote:

Recently we have had talks about it again with my boys, especially with the one getting ready to get his mission papers done and is sure to have to talk about it with priesthood leaders. And my talks with the boys went well. I think it helps them have some perspective on it and reduce some of the fears about it and be aware of the evils around it. Sometimes talks start awkward, but they are well-worth it to have the door open to have the discussion.

Yes, to be able to talk about it is key. My son is 8. I really hope to eventually talk to him about what a great kid he is and how these desires and emotions are normal (if somewhat overwhelming during the puberty years). This is not a fatal flaw, or Achilles heel, or chink in the whole Armor of God. Someday, he will be a good husband and partner for a young woman of his choosing (and at that time she will equally choose him). In the interim – it is natural to explore some. I believe it is important to avoid extremes. I also believe that it is important to grow and maintain healthy respect towards all human beings as complete individuals (as opposed to just one dimensional images on a screen).

[Anonymous]

The trick is how to talk about it responsibly because of the real evils and problems that exist.

The problem I hear DA talk about is that it becomes institutionalized in missions and priesthood interviews.

Those are the lowest forms of teaching and motivation. Perhaps it is better than nothing, with a risk young people actually thing it is a good thing when it is not.

But it feels to me like it is akin to alcohol. For most people, moderation in all things would work, it’s not good and should be avoided but not an “epidemic” unless they make it to be so and start prohibition laws.

But for a few small number of people, it really could be disastrous for their lives and relationships, or the industry having awful things as a result of the demand.

So to make it easy, just have everyone in the church agree to avoid it always and that takes care of it from a teaching point of view. That’s easy.

Even if alcohol isn’t going to ruin your soul with one sip. Same with this.

But the church takes the easy way and avoids talks about sex.

It’s not the best situation, and therefore parents MUST fill in the gaps.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

The trick is how to talk about it responsibly because of the real evils and problems that exist…The problem I hear DA talk about is that it becomes institutionalized in missions and priesthood interviews…Those are the lowest forms of teaching and motivation. Perhaps it is better than nothing, with a risk young people actually thing it is a good thing when it is not…But it feels to me like it is akin to alcohol. For most people, moderation in all things would work, it’s not good and should be avoided but not an “epidemic” unless they make it to be so and start prohibition laws…But for a few small number of people, it really could be disastrous for their lives and relationships, or the industry having awful things as a result of the demand…So to make it easy, just have everyone in the church agree to avoid it always and that takes care of it from a teaching point of view. That’s easy…Even if alcohol isn’t going to ruin your soul with one sip. Same with this.

Personally I think they talk about it too much and if they never said anything about it then the overall results would actually be better for almost everyone involved. Just because they tell everyone it it wrong, terrible, etc. that doesn’t mean hearing that repeatedly will actually stop most LDS men from doing this. So what happens when it is demonized so much but a significant number of LDS men continue to do this anyway?

It’s basically a question of how much “sin” can we live with or not and why? For example, it seems like the Church is already content to live with the “sin” of masturbation to some extent and I think the primary reason why is that deep down they know that there would be practically no men/young men left to pass the sacrament, go on missions, get married in the temple, accept many callings, etc. if it required the same drawn out groveling repentance process as fornication to be temple worthy and/or was openly condemned as much as porn.

However, Church leaders still act like they cannot live with members disobeying the WoW and are happy to let this be an absolute deal-breaker to really separate the sheep from the goats. My main point is that the internet has completely changed the whole dynamic so that I’m not sure Church leaders have a very good idea what they are doing with this whole war on porn because it just doesn’t look like a battle they are going to win over the long run in terms of the number that will actually happily do what they are told in this case versus the number that will it will mostly serve to alienate and/or de-motivate.

[Anonymous]

I agree that obsessive focus causes more damage than simply teaching a correct principle and having people make the connections on their own.

[Author]

Posts