- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Absolutely, Sam. It’s more than a little ironic that we are very clear in Mormonism about sex being a wonderful part of marriage and very clear about rejecting the idea of original sin (and especially original sin being sexual in nature) but we have such a hard time divorcing ourselves from the constraints of the “apostate” attitudes and philosophies of the past simply because we don’t want to embrace the other extreme.
My concern simply is that we not throw the baby out with the bathwater – even if he is naked.
SamBee wrote:…if someone has deep seated sadistic or power issues, then these might be somehow enhanced by looking at it …This is one reason why I think S&M isn’t a good thing at all. I personally think if we’re looking for moral panics – real ones – we need to look at some of the aspects of rap music, which reinforces sexism and racist stereotypes, video games which are often seriously violent, hard drugs and militarization of society etc.
Old-Timer wrote:Sam, I agree – with your last sentence, especially – but I happen to put hard-core porn within the group of things you mention.
swimordie wrote:I agree that there is no defense of hard-core porn. It panders to the absolute worst in any of us.
I will say however, that from my experience, and I’ve been very close to this in ways similar to what Ray has mentioned, that it’s not the porn but the forbidden nature of porn and the taboo nature of sexuality in general that have led to most abuses.
One defense of hard-core porn is that its relative popularity and sales speak for themselves because it’s a multi-billion dollar industry. To me this says that either there must be an awful lot of sickos out there buying it or else it’s really not all that repulsive to many average and ordinary men if they were really honest about it. In fact, I’ve never heard of any well known soft-core “porn stars.” Doing hard-core movies is their claim to fame.
For the record, when I talk about hard-core porn without piling on about how vile and disgusting it is all I really mean is typical porn that simply depicts basic sex acts without leaving anything to the imagination. Certainly it’s not for everyone’s taste but at the same time I just don’t see the supposed connection between this and all these horror stories about child abuse and whatever else. In fact, I can think of many R-rated movies that are more likely to give men pathological, violent, or anti-social ideas than a lot of hard-core porn ever will. Maybe I’m just being naive and there’s more to it than just making a fast buck by giving people what they want but as far as any S&M or other weird kinky stuff I don’t really want to know about it and I really doubt that a very high percentage of other men are into that either.
Personally, I think that even if all porn was eliminated somehow it would actually backfire and result in more infidelities, prostitution, sexual assaults, child abuse, and whatever else moralists like to blame on porn. Think about it, in many cases porn is probably more of a symptom of unfulfilled sexual desires than a real root cause of other problems. So in this case getting rid of porn will only eliminate a relatively cheap and safe outlet for some of this and will probably just make some men even more likely to start looking for something else to fill the void no matter how risky or unthinkable under normal circumstances.
What is the answer here? Should we realistically expect wives to try to fulfill all these desires? What happens if they don’t feel like it half the time or don’t have the time and energy to worry about it? The conservative answer in the puritan tradition that many Church leaders seem to subscribe to is that men should just deal with it and basically live like a monk in that case. In other words, as long as people have their children then sex has already served its God-given purpose and there’s really no need for it. This might work alright for men with exceptionally strong willpower (like myself), but what about everyone else out there? It’s just not going to work for everyone all the time.
Quote:One defense of hard-core porn is that its relative popularity and sales speak for themselves because it’s a multi-billion dollar industry. To me this says that either there must be an awful lot of sickos out there buying it or else it’s really not all that repulsive to many average and ordinary men if they were really honest about it. In fact, I’ve never heard of any well known soft-core “porn stars.” Doing hard-core movies is their claim to fame.
I don’t think sales can be used as either a defense, or attack on the industry either way. My biggest gripe must be whether the participants want to do what they’re doing or not. Some do, and some don’t. Some are forced into it, and some are clearly not. (There’s actually at least one former Mormon porn star – see this list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Mormons – I can’t believe she was forced into it. Very strange list, worth checking out, some surprising names on it.)I beg to differ on the matter of soft core porn stars. There are actually quite a few well known ones. Look up Koo Stark for example – she became famous partly for having an affair with Prince Andrew of the UK and has pursued a “straight” career since. There are a few others who are famous for taking their clothes off, pouting, and maybe moaning, but not much else. Some of them have gone onto other careers in other lines of work. I think Gillian Anderson did soft porn for a while.
Quote:Personally, I think that even if all porn was eliminated somehow it would actually backfire and result in more infidelities, prostitution, sexual assaults, child abuse, and whatever else moralists like to blame on porn. Think about it, in many cases porn is probably more of a symptom of unfulfilled sexual desires than a real root cause of other problems. So in this case getting rid of porn will only eliminate a relatively cheap and safe outlet for some of this and will probably just make some men even more likely to start looking for something else to fill the void no matter how risky or unthinkable under normal circumstances.probably just make some men even more likely to start looking for something else to fill the void no matter how risky or unthinkable under normal circumstances.
Banning something gives it an illicit thrill. Look at Victorian society, or strict Muslim societies, they frown(ed) upon nudity and open displays of affection, and yet, they are still ridden with sex problems. Prudish Victorian society, whose “pornography” would barely merit the term by today’s standards gave us Jack the Ripper. In Muslim societies, a kind of temporary homosexuality amongst young single men is rampant, and pretty much an open secret dealt with by a knowing wink. When said “homosexuals” get married to a woman, then many of them lose interest in it. (Much the same as people in jails perhaps)
I think Americans have gone overboard with banning stuff. It is not the answer in many cases, look at prohibition of alcohol (which more or less set up the Mafia) or the puritanical overtures about the War on Drugs whose failure is borne out by statistics and a drive around a few inner cities.
Prostitution, which has been mentioned, has never ever been successfully banned. It has existed in all societies, even Communist ones, although at a much lower level than ours perhaps.
If you’re going to deal with these things, more roundabout approaches are needed.
Quote:What is the answer here? Should we realistically expect wives to try to fulfill all these desires? What happens if they don’t feel like it half the time or don’t have the time and energy to worry about it? The conservative answer in the puritan tradition that many Church leaders seem to subscribe to is that men should just deal with it and basically live like a monk in that case. In other words, as long as people have their children then sex has already served its God-given purpose and there’s really no need for it. This might work alright for men with exceptionally strong willpower (like myself), but what about everyone else out there? It’s just not going to work for everyone all the time.
This is a difficult one. If I found a lovely LDS lady, and married her, and found that the bedroom side was dull or barely existent, then what? As you say, sex may produce children (not a bad thing, if you want them and have the resources), but many men do want the physical side. Particularly if they’ve had to live like a monk in the years leading up to it. In this case, the personality and even physical appeal of a certain woman don’t suffice. Folk do have needs, and that’s perfectly natural, but I have seen marriages fail on this basis. I don’t advocate rape – definitely not – but I suppose there has to be a duty of one spouse or the other occasionally engaging in it when one half wants to, and they don’t. Then there’s the seven year itch…
In fact, this thought terrifies me. A woman can be beautiful, and the best of company and a great friend, but frigid in bed, and/or not willing to discuss the matter to improve the situation. And if you live the bona fide LDS life, you’re not going to know that until you’re locked into the contract. (There’s also the situation of women who change for the worse when they get married. I’ve seen that happen too. I’ve also gone out with a woman or two who was perfectly nice until she thought she had me under her thumb, and then I got to see the other side)
SamBee wrote:Quote:One defense of hard-core porn is that its relative popularity and sales speak for themselves because it’s a multi-billion dollar industry. To me this says that either there must be an awful lot of sickos out there buying it or else it’s really not all that repulsive to many average and ordinary men if they were really honest about it. In fact, I’ve never heard of any well known soft-core “porn stars.” Doing hard-core movies is their claim to fame.
I don’t think sales can be used as either a defense, or attack on the industry either way. My biggest gripe must be whether the participants want to do what they’re doing or not. Some do, and some don’t. Some are forced into it, and some are clearly not.
I beg to differ on the matter of soft core porn stars. There are actually quite a few well known ones. Look up Koo Stark for example – she became famous partly for having an affair with Prince Andrew of the UK and has pursued a “straight” career since. There are a few others who are famous for taking their clothes off, pouting, and maybe moaning, but not much else. Some of them have gone onto other careers in other lines of work. I think Gillian Anderson did soft porn for a while.
Right, I know there are some celebrities that are mostly famous for taking their clothes off and/or doing soft-core sex scenes but I never hear them referred to as porn stars they are typically just called a model or actress and anyone directly called a porn star that I know of has actually done hard-core movies.
I’m not trying to claim the sales and numbers mean that hard-core porn is alright or a particularly healthy or respectable occupation, just that it makes it harder to try to claim that only a few degenerates are supporting it or to realistically expect to ever have much success in getting rid of it nation-wide through legislation.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that people should ever be forced into this by holding a gun to their heads but I don’t really believe this is all that common for the top-selling porn in the US to begin with. Some of them might be addicted to drugs and not see any way out of this lifestyle but as far as I’m concerned that’s their problem and banning porn will not necessarily help their situation because they could just as easily continue to do this illegally or turn to prostitution instead.
Has anyone suggested banning all porn? Old-Timer wrote:Has anyone suggested banning all porn?
I think defining it is the problem as has been discussed. You’ll find lots of folks willing to ban it. The problem is what they’re willing to throw out along with it. (Veiled reference to Ray’s baby/bath water point). I still remember the rabid letter to the editor of the Deseret News from the mother that had to get up early Sundays to get the lingerie ads out of the paper before her teenage boys got and had their souls forever stained. But I digress.
Yeah, I think in many ways it’s difficult to define or delineate what constitutes porn because of the overblown sexual repression. I don’t mean to be graphic but based on the For the Strength of Youth handbook, basically the goal that every young man should have is to never get an erection, and for every young woman, to never cause one. With this as the standard, it’s impossible to approach the issue with any rationality, hence the wildly divergent thoughts. The ultimate dilemma, for any religion, is how do you set physical guidelines while maintaining a semblance of control?
It’s an interesting dilemma because it also speaks to the dilemma mentioned elsewhere: one group of people yearns for rules to follow and the other group yearns for feelings to follow.
Ah, porn is one of my favorite topics. I have studied it quite a bit and have given talks and have lots of thoughts about it. Too much to discuss here. But, I will say that based on my research, Ray’s experiences are probably on the fringe or outside the normal range. What I mean is that there is little evidence that porn LEADS to or CAUSES such atrocities as he described earlier. That being said, porn still typically accompanies such atrocities, so there is certainly a correlation. Exposure to child porn does not make normal neurological people more apt to abuse children (it usually just makes them sick). But, child abusers typically are involved with child porn. Similarly, violent porn does not lead to increased violent sexual behavior in normal people (people with intact neurology). Interestingly, in societies that have relaxed porn laws, violent sexual behavior such as rape actually decreases, which has led some to speculate a possible causation in the opposite direction.
Still, frequent and regular porn exposure certainly affects sexual expectations, can affect sexual development, and can influence sexual behavior (just no evidence that it directly causes sexual crimes).
Confounding the research is the fact that porn is also very hard to operationally define, which is another problem that’s been discussed on this thread. What is porn, really? It kind of depends on who you are or who you ask. I know people who think that the Victoria’s Secret catalog is porn. I have also seen a photo of a completely naked woman in a BYU art show ON the BYU campus and had LDS people explain to me how nude art is not porn in any sense of the word. I don’t even know if I know what porn is… confusing. When asked, I just say that “porn” is “short for pornography”. That’s the best definition I can think of. What is pornography? The long way to say “porn”. There you go. Maybe you need a pornograph to really find out for sure.
Porn for LDS men is also very interesting. I think some church leaders misunderstand the problem for the most part and focus on the wrong thing. I believe porn for most married men, especially LDS men, is primarily a symptom of poor marital intimacy. Address and fix the intimacy issues and the porn often goes away. I think it can be very dangerous to demonize the desire, especially for younger men. I also worry about the youth, with the current ready access to porn, which will likely influence their sexual development… and all we as a church do about it is say “no no no, bad bad bad, stay away!!” We need much better sexual instruction and discussion of sexual development within the church. Easier said than done, but there are researchers working on these issues and some very good books already out there. However we address it, sex and porn is certainly more available than it was decades ago when many of us were growing up. Will this create a bunch of depraved sex monsters? Probably not. Will it make it tougher for our youth to have good sexual relationships with their future spouses? Maybe, but maybe not. The jury is still out. If we play the cards right it might even help them have better sexual relationships. Shoot, most of ours kind of suck anyway, right? We want better for our kids.
Quote:What I mean is that there is little evidence that porn LEADS to or CAUSES such atrocities as he described earlier.
Yep. That’s what I said.
Old-Timer wrote:Has anyone suggested banning all porn?
A motley mix of feminists and hardcore (pun intended) conservatives. A strange alliance.
Driving things underground is never a good thing IMO. I think people who work in the industry should get regular access to health checks, and support, otherwise it just becomes another shadow industry which isn’t supposed to exist, but does.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:What I mean is that there is little evidence that porn LEADS to or CAUSES such atrocities as he described earlier.
Yep. That’s what I said.
Old-Timer wrote:Has anyone suggested banning all porn?
I got the impression that you were trying to say that all hard-core porn should be strictly forbidden basically because some men that watched it have done some awful things but maybe I’m reading too much into your comments. The problem is that so many men watch porn that it’s hard to say for sure that there’s really any direct correlation and even if there is it still doesn’t mean that this correlation automatically implies causation.
For example, maybe some people who are already sick seek out certain kinds of truly disgusting porn rather than it being a case of more popular or mainstream types of porn gradually making them sick over a long period of time. I don’t doubt that some people will blame porn, but to me that’s just a scapegoat or excuse almost like saying “the devil made me do it” because they don’t want to take responsibility for their own bad decisions.
DA, I am going to respond in a seperate post I am writing, since I don’t want to derail this one further. Suffice it to say here that nothing I have said should be construed to be about banning porn. If I don’t say it, I don’t mean to say it. Sometimes, what I mean to say isn’t said very well – but if I mean to say something, I say it.
Pretty interesting article about porn and the effect on spouses on MM. I actually found the comments more interesting than the article itself. If you’re interested it can be found here. http://mormonmatters.org/2010/05/19/the-mormon-therapist-on-effects-of-pornography-use-on-the-spouse/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://mormonmatters.org/2010/05/19/the-mormon-therapist-on-effects-of-pornography-use-on-the-spouse/ Just out of interest, would you say that Mormon Matters is worth following? Yes. I enjoy some of the articles — but I have no desire to participate in the forum or comments section. I don’t like the “feel” over there. It’s mostly positive and good, but I get the feeling there are some who are “VERY TBM like” (not good for me) and I think there are possibly a few who are absolutely opposed to the church (not good for me). I just don’t really care to debate with either of those groups at this time.
In defense of MM, many of the posters over there, also cross-over and thread here as well: Ray, jmb, GBsmith, Curt, hawkgirl, MH, Heber— maybe some others.
Here is a great article that you would most certainly be interested in dealing with BRM Mormon Doctrine.
http://mormonmatters.org/2010/05/20/the-death-of-mcconkies-mormon-doctrine/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://mormonmatters.org/2010/05/20/the-death-of-mcconkies-mormon-doctrine/ Also check out this thread under Book and Media Review.
http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1508http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1508” class=”bbcode_url”>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.