A Terrific Article about Pornography

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

For example, there are reports that 70% of active men in the Church are supposedly porn “addicts” now.

Source? That sort of statement can’t stand without some sort of source citation.

I’m not saying this claim is accurate; it is just hearsay from these online forums where someone went to a meeting specifically about porn and some leader said this and that it supposedly came from LDS Family Services. My guess is that it isn’t completely made up and they probably did some kind of survey and 70% admitted to viewing porn within the last year or that they have a “problem” with porn and in the process of translation someone started calling them porn addicts and extrapolating this limited sample to the Church as a whole.

Or perhaps the question was “Have you ever looked at porn?” Seriously, I don’t deny that porn is a problem and for some a very serious problem. 70%? The doubter in me really questions that one (even more than the BoM! ). I have to put this one with the “neighbor’s cousin’s friend-of-a-friend’s brother in Utah got a call to serve a mission in China – but it’s secret” category. Repeating it doesn’t make it true. I’d rather deal with real facts.

[Anonymous]

There was a time (back in the day) when Wards had projects to finance Ward budgets.

Our ward at the time, did inventories for mainstream book stores.

There was an older couple working in the Art section counting books.

They ran across some art books of nudes.

They came out & called the artwork pornography.

This may account for the higher percentages. (Individual’s definition of porn)

fwiw

[Anonymous]

I have a friend who is counselor who says one of the deeper problems with Pornography is the definition. There are people who find Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue as porn and others who have a much broader definition (film genre’s, etc.)

She also says that the more we talk about it the more problem we create. We hyper set ourselves, our responses become extreme when they shouldn’t be. I keep trying to keep that in mind when I read or hear about pornography addiction. There was a time when a woman’s ankle could be quite alluring.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I suppose the Supreme Court’s definition of porn

Quote:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [“hard-core pornography”], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that*

likely comes into play. My definition of porn might well be different from anyone else’s – but I think I do know it when I see it.

(*Justice Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio)

[Anonymous]

Do you think there is a lower threshold for the definition of pornography in the lds church?

I personally believe there is.

The couple I mentioned before was looking at Michelangelo’s David for example.

[Anonymous]

Miniyan Man –

Quote:

Do you think there is a lower threshold for the definition of pornography in the lds church?

I personally believe there is.

The couple I mentioned before was looking at Michelangelo’s David for example.

I do. To push back on it a bit in our home, my husband and I chose 2 prints of famous paintings of naked women and hung them on our bedroom wall. The kids were taken aback at first, but when we explained that we learned how important the human body was to art in those ages we decided we should appreciate it, too.

Now in the kitchen we hung Van Gogh prints, and we have Rembrandt over the fireplace, we made sure to show art in it’s many forms.

But yes Michelangelo’s David is quite a piece of art.

[Anonymous]

I think the issue is that we have conflated nudity (or even near nudity) with porn.

We have broadened the meaning so much that it has lost its real meaning.

I also believe the way we ask a question, as mentioned earlier, is critical. 70% viewed what they considered to be pornographic? I can believe that. Addicts? I don’t believe that for a second.

Finally, absolutely, we talk about it too much.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I think the issue is that we have conflated nudity (or even near nudity) with porn.

We have broadened the meaning so much that it has lost its real meaning.

I also believe the way we ask a question, as mentioned earlier, is critical. 70% viewed what they considered to be pornographic? I can believe that. Addicts? I don’t believe that for a second.

Finally, absolutely, we talk about it too much.

I think this has been referenced before but I think it’s worthwhile revisiting. http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/06/18/men-sex-and-modesty/ Once again, Ray, you have pierced to the heart of the matter.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

Do you think there is a lower threshold for the definition of pornography in the lds church?

I personally believe there is.

The couple I mentioned before was looking at Michelangelo’s David for example.

Undoubtedly. David is plain an simple not porn (I’ve seen it and I know it ). Nudity = porn. I think many in the LDS church go way overboard with what should be considered modest as well. My wife wouldn’t let our boys not wear shirts on those hot, humid summer days we get here in the US. Every other boy in the neighborhood and all their friends were shirtless. One of my sons did become rebellious about this in his later years and now that he’s preparing for a mission she still nags him about it – even when he sleeps without a shirt. (Yes, he has expressed some concerns about garments.) But I’m getting off track. I don’t think we’re going to get a clear definition of porn from the leadership so I think we’re stuck with recognizing it when we see it. For some that may be a painting or sculpture by a master, while for others it’s probably nothing short of hardcore.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

To me it looks like the Church and other anti-porn crusaders are simply using pseudoscience as yet another way to pile on the guilt, fear, and shame and try to browbeat men that don’t want to stop viewing porn/nudity into submission.

DA you seem to be referencing a portion of the population here that are content in their porn use…The important part of the study I referenced IMO is that even for people with problematic and destructive porn habits that they actively want to change – Even for this group, calling their porn use an addiction and treating it as such can actually be counter productive to effective treatment.

The interesting thing to me about this idea from the article was that I didn’t think it was any coincidence that these ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy) treatment studies were done at Idaho State and Utah State University. I can easily think of one very obvious reason why these are perfect locations to find plenty of men that have been repeatedly told that they are basically worthless porn “addicts” and supposedly abnormal and deviant perverts, that have their wife threatening to divorce them, etc. simply because they have not managed to become completely porn free. So it’s no surprise that some of them would be especially desperate to stop in a permanent and final way and frustrated and discouraged that they have been unable to do so possibly even going through 12-step and other addiction treatments without much success. Certainly the unrealistic expectation that viewing porn/gratuitous nudity even once ever again is a big deal and supposedly means they have fallen of the wagon completely can be especially toxic and de-motivating for many men like this.

[Anonymous]

Here is a good essay mentioning 70% of LDS men looking at porn. There really is no way of knowing the actual percentage, but there is definitely evidence to support the claim. (Please note that the essay has 9 pages, you can advance to the next page at the bottom)

http://rowboatandmarbles.org/silent-seventy-percent-of-lds-men-look-at-porn

The following link provides stats from an actual study of Christian men. LDS men would be a subset of this group, but I doubt their numbers would be much different:

http://www.provenmen.org/2014pornsurvey/christian-porn-stats/

[Anonymous]

For those of you that don’t think porn viewing is an addiction, I am confident you will change your mind (at least a little) once you read He Restoreth My Soul. It is written by a neurosurgeon and he explains what happens in the brain when it is exposed to pornography. It’s very similar to what happens to a cocaine addict’s brain. Your brain doesn’t care if you call it an addiction or not; it is what it is.

http://www.amazon.com/Restoreth-Soul-Understanding-Spiritual-Pornography/dp/B0039UVUMK

I know we typically use the word addiction to refer to people that are out of control, but I think of the word meaning an “unhealthy dependency”. Frequency of use doesn’t matter. If I am dependent once a month on something unhealthy, or every day, I have an addiction. I know this definition differs from that of of its normal use. Let’s not get hung up on semantics.

Porn is certainly not healthy. It’s not good for the body, mind,or spirit. The first two can be backed up by science, but the last one is just as true.

The psychiatric community uses porn as treatment for certain sexual dysfunctions. One could look at this as evidence that porn is good. However, psychiatry has a poor track record of using treatments that in hindsight have been seen as barbaric (example: electro-shock for homosexuals). Heck, António Egas Moniz won a nobel prize for inventing an awesome procedure called a lobotomy that was suppose to treat all sorts of stuff… oops.

[Anonymous]

Well,…shucks….where have I been when this thread was all ramping up? Yikes!!!! :wtf:

In the heartland,…right in SLC, there are massive problems with “addictions” (whatever that means). I am not aware of any statistics that have been published (and gosh that would be interesting), but there are some really interesting stories that I can trace to primary source. One, for example, involved a bishop and SP of a student ward in UofU. They needed an EQ president. They went over the entire list of men and chose one they felt qualified. They brought him in and found he had a problem that prevented him from the calling. They went to the next choice…and so on. After they went through 10 individuals, the 11th was able to accept the calling as an EQ president.

This story was told in another group, and another man said: “I got that beat: I’m a branch president of a student ward at BYU,…and I went through my entire WARD and only at the very end was I able to find an EQ president!”

I know both these men personally. This is primary info. Anecdotal, but it does lend support that however big the problem is, it is BIG.

I want to mention something about shame. The pendulum swings so very far toward this Calvanistic “mortifying of the flesh” idea that it affect marriage in many deleterious ways. If a man (and it could be a woman) has a very strong libido, they can be frustrated in marriage if there is no way to express those feelings. The message that often comes from the church (and which this article brought out), is that arousal itself is evil, and this spills into shaming those who may simply have high desire levels. If, for example, this high desire person approaches their spouse and is turned down, the retort often is: “AH,…you are just an addict!” which can backfire and destroy marriages as well. If this person then takes care of their own body through masturbation, for example, and even does it while focusing their entire attention on their spouse (who just rejected them bty), even that is condemned in many circles and ways.

I find it frustrating that marital disharmony in the bedroom is so often unilaterally ascribed to the high-desire person (often the man, but not always), and him being called an addict. It seems the church is so afraid of sexual hunger leading people to use porn and masturbation, that their messages spills over and condemns those people for having those feelings in the first place.

I have heard many counselors and even well meaning LDS authorities (even in some GA related circles) counsel that men (using that stereotype) need to control themselves, and that pushing for sexuality in marriage is not justified. However, those same people leave open the message that not wanting sex and denying ones spouse is acceptable.

This is all very destructive stuff. Piety that reveals itself in pristine platonic behavior is idealized and enthroned; whereas “rushing home from the temple” because you can’t wait to have a good romp…well, that is just plain disgusting, I mean…AFTER THE TEMPLE? (How could you!!!! <>)

My return back into the LDS faith (and I plan on returning) isn’t going to have all this shame about getting hot attached to it. If I can’t go to the temple and then rush home for some good hard lovin?…I won’t go to the temple. Cuz the lovin is more important to me,..and I don’t think that is no sin. 😆

[Anonymous]

JAC, I think everyone here would agree that porn can be addictive and someone can be addicted to porn.

I think we also agree that everything many people call porn isn’t necessarily porn and that occasional viewing of porn doesn’t constitute an addiction.

In the words of Pres. Uchtdorf, “It’s not that simple.”

Also, just to say it again, I LOATHE the porn industry, as a whole. It is a vile, evil thing.

[Anonymous]

JAC wrote:

For those of you that don’t think porn viewing is an addiction, I am confident you will change your mind (at least a little) once you read He Restoreth My Soul. It is written by a neurosurgeon and he explains what happens in the brain when it is exposed to pornography. It’s very similar to what happens to a cocaine addict’s brain. Your brain doesn’t care if you call it an addiction or not; it is what it is…I know we typically use the word addiction to refer to people that are out of control, but I think of the word meaning an “unhealthy dependency”. Frequency of use doesn’t matter. If I am dependent once a month on something unhealthy, or every day, I have an addiction. I know this definition differs from that of of its normal use. Let’s not get hung up on semantics…Porn is certainly not healthy. It’s not good for the body, mind,or spirit. The first two can be backed up by science, but the last one is just as true…

That’s what I don’t understand about this; the article Roy pointed out sounds like it is saying almost exactly the opposite of this about the comparison of porn viewers’ brains with drug users and that’s one reason why they claim that porn isn’t a real addiction along with the fact that the American Psychiatric Association doesn’t recognize it as such. In fact the same article says that after publishing their conclusion that porn isn’t actually an addiction two neuroscientists actually received six legal threats and emails telling them to kill themselves. Why is it so important to some people to classify porn as an addiction instead of being open to the possibility that maybe it isn’t in a technical sense? The following comment about this idea from the article the thread was originally about makes perfect sense to me.

Quote:

Too often, people who condemn pornography rely on fear to motivate us. They call pornography “the new drug” and frame it as if it were more damaging than alcoholism and more addictive than heroin. They mean well, but their message (“Looking at porn dooms you to a life of crippling addiction and miserable loneliness!”) is unproductive. It gives pornography more power than it needs to have.

I would add that some of this over-the-top fear-mongering basically undermines the credibility of overzealous anti-porn crusaders when so many people have already viewed porn many times without experiencing anything close to some of the claims being made about how bad and bad for you porn supposedly is. In any case, where is this discrepancy between different researchers’ conclusions coming from? Are they looking at different parts or functions the brain? I have also heard that the similarities between people’s brains when viewing porn or using drugs are also present when doing practically anything people happen to enjoy even if merely simple hobbies or pastimes that are generally regarded as completely benign and socially acceptable by practically everyone.

To be honest, trying to sort through all this enough to get to the bottom of it seems rather tedious but even if there are similarities between people’s brains when using drugs or viewing porn my initial reaction would be, “So what?” It still sounds like a case of trying to compare apples and oranges for practical purposes in real life. For example, has anyone ever overdosed on porn? As far as I can tell the main tangible negative consequence of porn is simply many wives not being happy about it sometimes to the point of divorce but if someone is single or their wife doesn’t know about it or care about it that much then in many cases it looks like it will never result in any significant negative consequences for all we really know. I don’t doubt that some people will compulsively view porn in an unhealthy way similar to compulsive gambling, shopping, over-eating, etc. but that doesn’t mean the same thing is going to happen to everyone or even the majority that view porn once in a while.

[Author]

Posts