- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Rob, good to hear from you! I have missed you. Quote:devilsadvocate wrote:As far as I can tell the main tangible negativ 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.
The fact that it breaks wives’ hearts is reason enough, but there are plenty of tangible reasons to avoid it.
Read
He Restoreth My Soul; there are plenty of tangible negative consequences. Here’s a few highlights : There is significant scientific evidence that porn use causes the frontal cortex to shrink which diminishes one’s ability to think rationally. As a result one is likely to engage in wreckless behavior without even being capable of considering the consequences; The pleasure centers of the brain atrophy under the burden of unnatural bursts of neural transmitters causing diminished ability to feel joy (depression) and contributes to erectile dysfunction; In many cases it inhibits people from pursuing real relationships in favor of fantasy. It doesn’t just tear apart marriages, but in many cases it prevents them from ever happening. The brain damage caused by porn usage is real. Research shows that it takes about two years to completely reverse the damage by abstaining.
BUT , I must point out that the problem is not porn itself, it is the sexual fantasy associated with it that is damaging. Exposing your eyeballs to nudity is just one way to indulge. Your imagination can do the same damage if you let it run wild. Ogling women, or even flirting, can give you a “hit” of these drugs.
I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t flirt if you are single. If you are married and are flirting (with people that are not your spouse), you are likely subconsciously chasing a high – Please stop.
It is true that porn itself is not a drug, BUT your body produces and releases real drugs as a result of the stimuli. Your body releases adrenalin, endorphins, and dopamine in response to exposure. Yes, this is a natural process and is there for a purpose, however, porn is most certainly not natural and essentially hacks that natural system and pushes it beyond its limits.
All addictive drugs trigger dopamine. That is why they are pleasurable. All addictive substances hack the natural reward systems in our brain in an unnatural way. There is always a downside to hacking those systems. ALWAYS!
Let’s not wait for the psychiatric community to tell us it’s bad. It is what it is.
If tomorrow the prophet announced that porn was no longer morally wrong, I still wouldn’t touch it.
I personally believe porn use can and often does end in addiction. Excessive porn use, whether addiction or not, can create erectile dysfunction and all kinds of other response problems. These are known facts, and there is a VERY strong correlation between usage rates and the degree of problem. My source is yourbrainonporn.com. Good site. I also have information from Dr. Mark Chamberlain, Dr. Don Hilton, Dr. Lori Schade, and others. I believe there is a problem out there. But, my problem is not that it is addictive or not–it is that the church addresses it in such a way as to over-compensate for other problems. Arousal is NOT bad…but it has been made bad. Noticing an attractive person, feeling sexual hunger for that person is not bad…but it has been made bad. And, the biggest problem is that even arousal over your spouse, in some circumstances, has been made bad (the counseling culture, when influenced by LDS religious teachings–and I can only speak from my own experience on this one–has become contaminated).
The concern as I see it is that not just porn has been made a bad thing, sexual arousal itself has been made bad. Shame is being attached to having sexual feelings in the first place.
THAT is a VERY unhealthy thing.Rob, great post. I somewhat agree with you on your point that arousal is not bad. To some degree, when and how we get aroused is outside of our control. Of course, we should not feel guilty or ashamed for that which we cannot control. However, there are a lot of things that arouse us that are completely in our control.
We need do a lot less shaming and a lot more teaching. I have been presenting on this subject (porn and what not) at bishop youth counsels throughout my stake and I make it a point to never bring shame into the dialogue. I am pretty sure one bishop was expecting me to heap on the shame, and was disappointed when I didn’t. I also don’t just talk about porn, but include many of the temporal things we become dependent upon that stand between us and God. I aim to have those kids leave inspired, not burdened with guilt.
I also make sure they know I once had a problem with porn myself. This typically shocks people because our church culture does not share past transgressions opening, but I have found that if people know they are not alone and hear a voice of hope from someone that has overcame it, they will be inspired to change. As I understand it, the theory behind hiding past transgressions was to not give people a reason to engage in sin by thinking, “Brother So-and-So used to look at porn and he turned out fine, so I can indulge in it.” I have not found that this theory to be true. Those that want to stop will be inspired. Those that don’t want to stop won’t stop no matter what, so it doesn’t matter what you say.
For every person that comes before me with this problem I make sure they understand that what they are up against is common and extremely hard to master. Before they come to me they are almost always beating themselves up over it, and helping them see that they are not evil spawns of satan helps immensely. I don’t start making progress with them until they start to believe that they are a good person trying to do a very hard thing.
I do believe that the pendulum can swing too far to the other side. I certainly believe that the message that porn and sexual fantasy are benign and morally acceptable is much louder than the opposition. That side of the argument does not need any help from us.
JAC wrote:Rob, good to hear from you! I have missed you.
Old-Timer wrote: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.
[Moderator note: Let’s be careful in our editing and quoting. Ray did not say this.
Also, let’s be careful of beating the dead horse. There are clearly deeply held opinions on both sides of this issue, and no common definition of porn or addiction. For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD.]
Yeah, attention to detail is important. 
This is a good example of a topic about which people have widely differing opinions and experiences about which they feel strongly. If it becomes nothing but an argument, we will need to close it; if it remains a respectful discussion, great.
Rob4Hope wrote:I personally believe porn use can and often does end in addiction. Excessive porn use, whether addiction or not, can create erectile dysfunction and all kinds of other response problems. These are known facts, and there is a VERY strong correlation between usage rates and the degree of problem. My source is yourbrainonporn.com. Good site. I also have information from Dr. Mark Chamberlain, Dr. Don Hilton, Dr. Lori Schade, and others. I believe there is a problem out there.
But, my problem is not that it is addictive or not–it is that the church addresses it in such a way as to over-compensate for other problems. Arousal is NOT bad…but it has been made bad. Noticing an attractive person, feeling sexual hunger for that person is not bad…but it has been made bad. And, the biggest problem is that even arousal over your spouse, in some circumstances, has been made bad (the counseling culture, when influenced by LDS religious teachings–and I can only speak from my own experience on this one–has become contaminated).
The concern as I see it is that not just porn has been made a bad thing, sexual arousal itself has been made bad. Shame is being attached to having sexual feelings in the first place.
THAT is a VERY unhealthy thing.I actually think that the pressure to marry early, have lots of children conflicts with the earlier teachings of “don’t be aroused”, sex is bad etc.
Rob4Hope wrote:…But, my problem is not that it is addictive or not–it is that the church addresses it in such a way as to over-compensate for other problems.
Arousal is NOT bad…but it has been made bad. Noticing an attractive person, feeling sexual hunger for that person is not bad…but it has been made bad.And, the biggest problem is that even arousal over your spouse, in some circumstances, has been made bad (the counseling culture, when influenced by LDS religious teachings–and I can only speak from my own experience on this one–has become contaminated).The concern as I see it is that not just porn has been made a bad thing, sexual arousal itself has been made bad. Shame is being attached to having sexual feelings in the first place. THAT is a VERY unhealthy thing.I think this was one of the best points of the original topic article and this is one of the main reasons I don’t like the misapplication of the “addict” label by the Church and other anti-porn crusaders. Basically it’s not men’s fault that most of them naturally like sex and naked women so much. Like I said before, in reality it is not some kind of unusual disorder or disease, it is just the way men are in their natural state. Even if they can be successfully trained to avoid viewing porn/gratuitous nudity for various reasons that doesn’t change the physical reality that this is just the way they are wired from the outset. But the addict label like pervert implies that this is abnormal and deviant behavior that shouldn’t ever happen and that men shouldn’t feel and react the way that they actually do.
JAC wrote:Quote: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.
Read
He Restoreth My Soul; there are plenty of tangible negative consequences. Here’s a few highlights : There is significant scientific evidence that porn use causes the frontal cortex to shrink which diminishes one’s ability to think rationally. As a result one is likely to engage in wreckless behavior without even being capable of considering the consequences; The pleasure centers of the brain atrophy under the burden of unnatural bursts of neural transmitters causing diminished ability to feel joy (depression) and contributes to erectile dysfunction; In many cases it inhibits people from pursuing real relationships in favor of fantasy. It doesn’t just tear apart marriages, but in many cases it prevents them from ever happening… The brain damage caused by porn usage is real. Research shows that it takes about two years to completely reverse the damage by abstaining…It is true that porn itself is not a drug, BUT your body produces and releases real drugs as a result of the stimuli. Your body releases adrenalin, endorphins, and dopamine in response to exposure. Yes, this is a natural process and is there for a purpose, however, porn is most certainly not natural and essentially hacks that natural system and pushes it beyond its limits…All addictive drugs trigger dopamine. That is why they are pleasurable. All addictive substances hack the natural reward systems in our brain in an unnatural way. There is always a downside to hacking those systems. ALWAYS! Let’s not wait for the psychiatric community to tell us it’s bad. It is what it is.Alright before this thread gets locked I just have to say that I don’t believe some of this for a second. If some of these assertions are true then how was I able to graduate from college with honors and have sex with my girlfriends several times per week while also viewing porn/nudity a few times per week as well? This is why I have a hard time taking some of these claims seriously, because they basically have nothing to do with my own experience in real life and I know that many men nowadays continue to view porn without any obvious problems as well. For example, based on the survey results you posted before this would mean that the majority of self-identified Christian men, married or not, and something like 77% of Christian men aged 18-30 supposedly all have brain damage that should be hindering their ability to “think rationally” and I suspect the percentages could easily be even higher for atheists and other non-religious men.
Personally I don’t see it, if that many men are already viewing porn on a regular basis without it being a major catastrophe or even very noticeable at all then how bad could porn “addiction” (the way this label is typically used in the Church) really be? I don’t doubt that viewing porn and masturbating all the time can lead to erectile dysfunction, avoiding real relationships in favor of fantasy, and other problems in some cases but I also believe there are many cases where occasional porn viewing never results in anything of the sort. Also I suspect that some of these psychologists/therapists end up dealing with many extreme cases that are not necessarily typical precisely because those are the ones that are generally going to end up looking for help whereas any men that feel fine are not going to go out of their way to try to be cured of something they don’t see as much of a problem to begin with.
Everyone who has eaten more than ice cream has died. Clearly these individuals are addicted to ice cream because after trying it and enjoying whatever side effects eating the ice cream brought with it they did not stop eating it. Some people cannot leave the stuff alone, continually craving more and new flavors. Many of the worst addicts – those who indulge at least daily and perhaps more – suffer from depression in part due to their own body image. This does not deter them from seeking the ice cream high, however. Even those addicts who only occasionally partake are not deterred by the very unpleasant occasional “brain freeze.” Ice cream’s negative effect on nutrition and health are well known. I am sorry to admit I am an addict and look death in the face. 
There is an important difference between “can” and “does” – especially among different people. We need to be very careful with this topic not to conflate the two. There also are important differences in levels of activity – in all areas of our lives, not just relative to this topic.
This, like so many other things, is not always an all-or-nothing thing.
As a rule, I have no problem with a general standard to abstain from porn, especially hardcore porn. There is absolutely no good from it that can’t be gained in better ways, for the large majority of people. It has absolutely no redeeming quality for them. I do know of a few people, however, for whom I cannot say that, given the specific challenges they face in life. For them, some release is better than a life of no release – and private release through porn is better than the alternatives.
Otoh, I have a HUGE problem with equating nudity with porn – and with lumping all porn into the same category – and with obsession over porn – and with hyper-sensitivity to all things sexual – and with terrible, limited understanding of the principle of modesty – and with other aspects of our current, dominant culture.
Old-Timer wrote:Otoh, I have a HUGE problem with equating nudity with porn – and with lumping all porn into the same category – and with obsession over porn – and with hyper-sensitivity to all things sexual – and with terrible, limited understanding of the principle of modesty – and with other aspects of our current, dominant culture.
I think the equation of nudity with porn comes from fear of the slippery slope and sexuality and sexual expression being so powerful that without strict controls will become all consuming. It’s like The Music Man, “first medicinal wine from a teaspoon the beer from a bottle…”. One of the biggest culprits in this skewed view of nudity is being raised in a closed door home and along with it a hyper strict definition of modesty. In part that’s why I’m a nudist/naturist. It’s done more for me to be able to see the false idea that nudity equals porn and to really appreciate how different we all are and how that’s OK. And it’s truly a lot of fun.
🙂 I think there are plenty of non-sexual nudity contexts. If a male gynaecologist examines a female patient with some unpleasant condition downstairs, he will not be aroused. It’s inappropriate in the circumstances, it’s not his job, and he’s there to help. Likewise, there’s nothing lesssexual than a small baby running/rolling around in the scud. (At least for non-perverts) And the fact that there are a number of people I don’t find attractive in the nude at all, let alone “sexual”.
I am loving the way some VERY tricky and potentially controversial topics can be discussed here without it getting crazy and disrespectful. I want to say thanks to everyone. Context does affect sexuality and sexual arousal. The example of the gynecologist is a very good one. After seeing “anatomy” over and over, the purpose to help someone and to diagnose health or find problems (for which you will be held liable if you mess up) does not generally follow the “sexual” pathway. I’ve wondered about this, and after talking with folks, they confirm. What I’m saying is you often have to contextualize something sexually for the arousal pathway to be triggered in the first place. If you are looking at something literally from a different perspective, it doesn’t have to be sexual at all. So, to me at least, there is a pretty big distinction here.
Now, if you are a 16 year old male (for example) with all kinds of hormones blasting through your body, just about anything can become sexualized. In the quest to protect against that, it seems like hyper-sensitivity can do damage–which is where this shame thing came into it. This all makes pretty good sense to me.
There are 2 others aspects that this shame thing has crossed IMHO: 1) sexuality and spirituality are often set up as opposites–you can’t have one without loosing the other; 2) sexual expression is tied in almost every context I have ever heard it discussed to the “expression of love”.
I have problems with both, and this pornography discussion and the associated shame crosses into both. With regards to #1, I read something Finalayson-Fife said in her dissertation about sexuality and spirituality being in opposition, and how this damage has affected many LDS woman. Sad, but I know some women who heard this message. I am also aware of some men where this caused damage as well. With regards to #2, it takes all kinds of other sexual things off the table, like enjoyment being a motive. A guy named Romel Mackelprang wrote an article about this many years ago, and pointed out that many LDS people are left to wonder if sex “for pleasure” (in marriage between a husband and wife) is actually a sin.
I was hurt by some of these damaging perspectives. I have since concluded, for myself, that often “doctrines” (which I use VERY loosely here) are defined not necessarily by God, but by the culture of the person who shares it. IN fact, I think a lot of the struggle currently happening in this area is influenced by the upbringing culture of the GA’s lives–not by revelations.
The fascinating thing is that our current teaching specifically says that sex within marriage is intended to be for more than making babies and includes enjoyment and pleasure. It is the tying of sexual activity to sacredness (like the Catholic terming of it as a sacrament) that is the issue, imo. I know one couple who prayed before having sex – which is flat-out creepy to me. I agree that truly uncontrolled passion is sinful, in the sense that it can be damaging, but limiting sex to a sacramental box and defining a line that marks the difference between unbridled and controlled gets all kinds of messy in a hurry.
Old-Timer wrote:The fascinating thing is that our current teaching specifically says that sex within marriage is intended to be for more than making babies and includes enjoyment and pleasure.
It is the tying of sexual activity to sacredness (like the Catholic terming of it as a sacrament) that is the issue, imo. I know one couple who prayed before having sex – which is flat-out creepy to me. I agree that truly uncontrolled passion is sinful, in the sense that it can be damaging, but limiting sex to a sacramental box and defining a line that marks the difference between unbridled and controlled gets all kinds of messy in a hurry.
Ray, that is a third concern,..this sacredness. Some of the statements I’ve read from Holland just blow me away. After reading his Souls, Symbols and Sacraments, I felt like: “Wow,…forget about fun and passion–better fast and pray for a MONTH before getting into the bedroom,..and by all means, don’t do ANYTHING provocative or playfully sexy…NO WAY. You will go to HELL for that!”
Sometimes the church wraps the topic up so tight that is amazes me that anyone has sex at all. Its certainly not a normal part of life….it is a religious ceremony, akin to the sacrament or temple worship, and something you MUST treat with utter respect and piety.
It is BECAUSE of those types of things, and the earlier teachings that tended to emphasis babies ONLY for sex, that convinced me when young that sexuality actually was a necessary and sometimes tolerated evil. Sad, but true. I was hurt by that culture. I also know that despite what others have heard or believe, there are MANY like me–many have been hurt. I’ve met dozens of people who had similar experienced and internalized messages FROM THE CHURCH like I got growing up.
Good news is I don’t believe any of it any more.
I am grateful for the FHE lesson the church published about a year or so ago. It helps, because it is the first time I have seen something in years where the church actually admits that sex is for joy and happiness in marriage, and is an IMPORTANT part of marriage. Geez, that information would have helped me years ago when my marriage fell apart, because I always thought that sex was completely optional and non-essential in marriage. Problem was I just didn’t have enough faith so that God could bless me to be a “real man” and follow the spirit.
I was hurt by spirituality vs. sexuality. That was something I learned from the church to. Ouch. Didn’t help me out any…shame is the gift that keeps on giving….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.