Pornography in Utah

[DonBradley]

Add to this the proportioanly higher access to the internet in Utah than most other states, you may just have nailed it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Cool--that would help round out an explanation.

Thanks, Wade.

Don

[William James]

I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed. In taking a class for my CEU

[juliann]

I doubt we can conflate Utah with Mormons when it comes to studies anymore, especially in cities with high numbers of people who are not LDS. Something done in Ogden will not have the same implications as something done in Provo.

This finally came to light in the high Utah suicide stats. When analyzed, it turned out that active LDS had a lower than average suicide rate. This is also evident in divorce stats that look high until the temple marriage variable is recognized. In fact, when any religion is factored in it always supports measures of life satisfaction and happiness.

So it is one thing to discuss a Utah stat but quite another to consider it a statement about Mormons without establishing that it was a study of active Mormons.

[juliann]

We should re-examine the assumptions which have heretofore been relied upon by puritan-influenced leaders and prophets, and really ask ourselves, for example: "What harm does it inherently cause?

One thing the church has done right is to recognize the problem and provide recovery groups. Porn usage is an addiction as vicious as drug usage and destroys marriages.

[Tango]

Add to this the proportioanly higher access to the internet in Utah than most other states (see 2007 Census statistics for internet use per state), you may just have nailed it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Doesn't BYU have filters for un-Godly sites? Of course...your straw man is flawed. What I would find fasinating would be to see a statistic of how many stake presidents and bishops are included into that "Highest Porn" number-

[juliann]

In fact, let's combine the two explanations more fully. Utah has higher numbers of young people and a higher "cost" to pornography and other nonmarital sexual stimulation; and young people are both more likely to use the Internet and to be unmarried. Not that I think all this porn consumption is among singles, but where you have a bunch of young people who can't have sex outside of marriage and are not married....

Good to see you back, Don! The more exclusive we get to justify this study the more problematic it becomes. We have to ignore that this was done in zipcodes that have a high non-LDS population and then further reduce the LDS population to singles. Here is another problem...does your wife never look at the credit card statement? Internet usage is likely to leave a paper trail that even the corner store wouldn't. It would seem the risk is between being spotted by neighbors at a store...or a much bigger risk of being caught by a family member who can look at mail, credit card statements and browsing history.

[juliann]

Doesn't BYU have filters for un-Godly sites? Of course...your straw man is flawed. What I would find fasinating would be to see a statistic of how many stake presidents and bishops are included into that "Highest Porn" number-

But then you would have to acknowledge how many aren't.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Lets get down to business. It is obvious that mormons are repressed and horny. What other explination could there be.

On another note only 50% of Utah is LDS. WHy do critics think that this is a mormon produced problem. The LDS church teaches against it. I hear about it every GC. It is a huge problem too, as I know some people have issue with it.

On another note there are not near the strip clubs and other outlets for that kind of stuff in this state as there are in other states.

[gmormon]

...On another note there are not near the strip clubs and other outlets for that kind of stuff in this state as there are in other states.

Wait a minute I worked as a stripper when I lived in Salt Lake

but then I decided I didn't want to work as an printer assistant anymore. (As stripper in a offset printer shop take the negatives and blocks out any unwanted blemishes before they are burned on a plate for the press.)

[handys003]

I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed. In taking a class for my CEU

[William James]

One thing the church has done right is to recognize the problem and provide recovery groups. Porn usage is an addiction as vicious as drug usage and destroys marriages.

Obesity destroys marriages. A wife's cutting remarks to her husband destroys marriages. A wife's failure to make any reasonable effort to satisfy her husband sexually destroys marriages. Why don't we hear the same scathing sermons at the pulpit about these issues? I think the answer is that the Church has a pre-occupation with perceived sexual immorality. Leaders are so disproportionately concerned with making sure people don't have extra-marital sexual release compared with making sure couples have sexually fulfilling relationships that they virtually toss the legitimate concern of sexual fulfillment to the wind. They wholly tolerate sexless marriages in which partners are miserable, but heaven forbid that one of the marital partners should find some relief that is not marital intercourse!

Also, if porn usage is an "addiction as vicious as drug usage and destroys marriages," how do you explain the fact that so many women do NOT have a problem with viewing it or their husbands viewing it, and the fact that many couples even watch it together? Granted, a husband's use of sexually-oriented media can make his wife angry if she is against it, but if that is the case, why does that necessarily mean the man is at fault? Have we at least considered the possibility that sexually-oriented media is not inherently damaging to a marriage, but can simply be a source of discord where there is disagreement about whether it is acceptable? And shouldn't we at least consider the possibility that a wife might actually get over her revulsion to it by becoming more educated on the topic so that it is not so demonized in her mind? Shouldn't we also consider the possibility that a wife's intolerance of sexually-oriented media is based upon cultural prejudices, religious indoctrination, and her own emotional and/or sexual insecurity? Whereas illegal drugs have an inherent tendency to ruin the body, use of sexually-oriented media has no such effects and can be a safe outlet. Some people perceive it as "addictive" because it is admittedly difficult to abstain. But the challenge of abstention is no sensible measure for what constitutes an addiction, for such a definition could very well embrace, for example: (1) sex between spouses; (2) praying; (3) eating meat; (4) eating sweets; (5) watching TV; (6) reading; etc. For something to be categorized as an addiction, there must first be, in my opinion, significant inherently negative consequences to the behavior. Marital discord is not a "significant inherently negative consequence" to all use of sexually-oriented media, as shown by the examples cited above. Moreover, sexual release can rightly be viewed as a basic human need, unlike getting high through illegal drugs.

[Edither]

The notion of "repression" is a hold-over from the failed Freudian psychology, and mistakenly attributes unhealthy practices to overly stringent social standards, and as such, tragically advocates for permissiveness. Much of the increase in social problems since the early 1900's, with things like teen pregnancies, higher divorse rates, and so forth, can be attributed, in part, to the spread of this incideous notion.

Wise people these day prefer a proven and workable explanation and treatment for unhealthy practices. They attribute it to people making irresponsible choices. If the incidence of online pornography is higher in Utah than in other states, it is because there is a higher number of people who are irresponsible and making bad choices in that regard. The way to curb it, isn't to become lax on sexual standards (that would tend to only increase or encourage the unhealthy behavior), but rather to teach and encourage and show the value of responsible and healthy behavior.

By the way, if I remember correctly, Utah is one of the top, if not the top, states in the nation for internet access. So one would expect that where there is proportionally greater access, there will be proportionally greater incidence.

Also, the incedence of online pornography tends to be clustered around the universities, the U of U in particular, where the incidence of irresponsible and unhealthy behavior would be expected be high.

P.S. Besides, if sexual "repression" were supposedly a problem in Utah, why does the state lead the nation proportioanlly in births (the obvious result of human sexuality).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Again, good points particularly of how the world proffers solutions. I agree we need to encourage and show the value of responsible and healthy behavior. The idea of the average age of Utahans

[wenglund]

Doesn't BYU have filters for un-Godly sites?

Yes. So? Are you assuming that the BYU filters extend to the non-BYU housing for students scattered around Provo/Orem?

Of course...your straw man is flawed.

What straw man would that be?

What I would find fasinating would be to see a statistic of how many stake presidents and bishops are included into that "Highest Porn" number-

Yes...I am sure just the thought of it gets you all excited.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[hagoth7]

...the question was brought up as to why Utah residents are statistically the highest consumers of pornography...

1) Are they?

2) What is the statistic which supposedly demonstrates that to be true?

3) What is it based on?

4) Where is the statistic from?

[Edither]

1) Are they?

2) What is the statistic which supposedly demonstrates that to be true?

3) What is it based on?

4) Where is the statistic from?

Apparently This is true. This was brought up by a professor (not my professor) but a professor I took class for CEU's (got my degree many years ago) to maintain my licensure. It was news to me and that is why searched for a link (which I posted). You can click on the link to get more info. I am sure there are more out there that reference this study.

[wenglund]

Obesity destroys marriages. A wife's cutting remarks to her husband destroys marriages. A wife's failure to make any reasonable effort to satisfy her husband sexually destroys marriages. Why don't we hear the same scathing sermons at the pulpit about these issues? I think the answer is that the Church has a pre-occupation with perceived sexual immorality. Leaders are so disproportionately concerned with making sure people don't have extra-marital sexual release compared with making sure couples have sexually fulfilling relationships that they virtually toss the legitimate concern of sexual fulfillment to the wind. They wholly tolerate sexless marriages in which partners are miserable, but heaven forbid that one of the marital partners should find some relief that is not marital intercourse!

Also, if porn usage is an "addiction as vicious as drug usage and destroys marriages," how do you explain the fact that so many women do NOT have a problem with viewing it or their husbands viewing it, and the fact that many couples even watch it together? Granted, a husband's use of sexually-oriented media can make his wife angry if she is against it, but if that is the case, why does that necessarily mean the man is at fault? Have we at least considered the possibility that sexually-oriented media is not inherently damaging to a marriage, but can simply be a source of discord where there is disagreement about whether it is acceptable? And shouldn't we at least consider the possibility that a wife might actually get over her revulsion to it by becoming more educated on the topic so that it is not so demonized in her mind? Shouldn't we also consider the possibility that a wife's intolerance of sexually-oriented media is based upon cultural prejudices, religious indoctrination, and her own emotional and/or sexual insecurity? Whereas illegal drugs have an inherent tendency to ruin the body, use of sexually-oriented media has no such effects and can be a safe outlet. Some people perceive it as "addictive" because it is admittedly difficult to abstain. But the challenge of abstention is no sensible measure for what constitutes an addiction, for such a definition could very well embrace, for example: (1) sex between spouses; (2) praying; (3) eating meat; (4) eating sweets; (5) watching TV; (6) reading; etc. For something to be categorized as an addiction, there must first be, in my opinion, significant inherently negative consequences to the behavior. Marital discord is not a "significant inherently negative consequence" to all use of sexually-oriented media, as shown by the examples cited above. Moreover, sexual release can rightly be viewed as a basic human need, unlike getting high through illegal drugs.

Someone appears to be in heavy rationalization mode. Here's an article reporting on authoritative sources that disagrees with your attempt to minimize or dismiss the effects of porn: Internet Porn: Worse than Crack?.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Thinking]

Another explanation is that the non-mormons find it hard to find pornographic magazines/videos in Utah, and so turn to the internet to find it. As I understand it, the study was specifically about internet porn.

Just a guess.

Yep, it's all those non-mormons making mormons look bad. If you pay attention to conference talks, porn is an LDS problem too.

[Ivan the Magnificent!]

Has any study actually been conducted in Utah to see what the rates of porn usage are? I suppose it would be difficult, but one does wonder how porn usage differs in relation to age. Once read that women over 50 rarely visit porn sites, but women under 30 are as likely to have visited porn sites as men, but they do not spend as much time on those sites. Do LDS people use porn more because it is a taboo? Does porn viewing really break up marriages or is it like when you watch a show about a mass murderer they always find something in his past to emphasize made him bad.

I was talking to a man the other day about the porn issue. He said that while he was a teen in the 1970s he had been told that porn was violent and degrading to women. Then he said that when he did see some for the first time it was neither violent or degrading. I wonder if we go to the etreme in our condemnations then young people, who will undoubtedly see porn sometime in the future, will wonder what is so bad about it.

[Ivan the Magnificent!]

Yep, it's all those non-mormons making mormons look bad. If you pay attention to conference talks, porn is an LDS problem too.

Should parents be warned beforehand that a talk is going to be given about porn? Do we really want little kids in the audience coming homw and asking, "Mommy, what is porn?"

[handys003]

Obesity destroys marriages. A wife's cutting remarks to her husband destroys marriages. A wife's failure to make any reasonable effort to satisfy her husband sexually destroys marriages. Why don't we hear the same scathing sermons at the pulpit about these issues? I think the answer is that the Church has a pre-occupation with perceived sexual immorality. Leaders are so disproportionately concerned with making sure people don't have extra-marital sexual release compared with making sure couples have sexually fulfilling relationships that they virtually toss the legitimate concern of sexual fulfillment to the wind. They wholly tolerate sexless marriages in which partners are miserable, but heaven forbid that one of the marital partners should find some relief that is not marital intercourse!

Also, if porn usage is an "addiction as vicious as drug usage and destroys marriages," how do you explain the fact that so many women do NOT have a problem with viewing it or their husbands viewing it, and the fact that many couples even watch it together? Granted, a husband's use of sexually-oriented media can make his wife angry if she is against it, but if that is the case, why does that necessarily mean the man is at fault? Have we at least considered the possibility that sexually-oriented media is not inherently damaging to a marriage, but can simply be a source of discord where there is disagreement about whether it is acceptable? And shouldn't we at least consider the possibility that a wife might actually get over her revulsion to it by becoming more educated on the topic so that it is not so demonized in her mind? Shouldn't we also consider the possibility that a wife's intolerance of sexually-oriented media is based upon cultural prejudices, religious indoctrination, and her own emotional and/or sexual insecurity? Whereas illegal drugs have an inherent tendency to ruin the body, use of sexually-oriented media has no such effects and can be a safe outlet. Some people perceive it as "addictive" because it is admittedly difficult to abstain. But the challenge of abstention is no sensible measure for what constitutes an addiction, for such a definition could very well embrace, for example: (1) sex between spouses; (2) praying; (3) eating meat; (4) eating sweets; (5) watching TV; (6) reading; etc. For something to be categorized as an addiction, there must first be, in my opinion, significant inherently negative consequences to the behavior. Marital discord is not a "significant inherently negative consequence" to all use of sexually-oriented media, as shown by the examples cited above. Moreover, sexual release can rightly be viewed as a basic human need, unlike getting high through illegal drugs.

1) Straw-man argument

2) CFR the above in bold

[MorningStar]

Porn is used as an escape. Non-LDS people may use alcohol, drugs, etc. A counselor friend of mine said that it takes about three or four exposures to porn to get hooked (for men). Being so available, it is easy for someone to use as their escape without being detected - that is, if they know how to cover their tracks and don't have Internet savvy parents or spouse.

High use in Utah would be due to a number of factors. I'm sure a large amount of users are LDS - probably many youth included. Just yesterday, I saw a grade schooler with a little laptop he kept in his backpack with Internet access. A lot more people now have cell phones and other devices that can access the Internet too, which are given to children to use. Someone mentioned earlier that it's harder to access adult shops in Utah. Even if there were plenty, there would be a high chance that someone you know would see you going in there. Non-LDS would also make up a significant percentage.

William, whether a wife approves or not, porn usage can lead to problems in the marriage. I have met non-religious women who complain that their husbands start to choose it over them - that it causes erectile dysfunction with them, but not with the porn. It's often the women who feel deprived and it's a myth that a man turns to it because he's not getting enough sex. Alcoholics don't turn to alcohol because they have a thirst they can't quench.

[Tsuzuki]

The notion of "repression" is a hold-over from the failed Freudian psychology, and mistakenly attributes unhealthy practices to overly stringent social standards, and as such, tragically advocates for permissiveness. Much of the increase in social problems since the early 1900's, with things like teen pregnancies, higher divorse rates, and so forth, can be attributed, in part, to the spread of this incideous notion.

Even though many of his more far fetched ideas have been supplanted by better explanations, Freud is still the father of psychoanalysis, and you ignore him at your peril. The concept of repression is still alive and well in modern psychology.

Also, Brigham Young had this to say about it.

"I make these remarks to lay the foundation for principle in the minds of the people; and if you do not yet understand what I would be at, I will try to illustrate it still further. For example, we will take a strict, religious, holy, down country, eastern Yankee, who would whip a beer barrel for working on Sunday, and never suffer a child to go into company of his age--never suffer him to have any associates, or permit him to do anything or know anything, only what the deacon, priests, or missionaries bring to the house; when that child attains to mature age, say eighteen or twenty years, he is very apt to steal away from his father and mother; and when he has broken his bands, you would think all hell was let loose, and that he would compass the world at once.

Now understand it--when parents whip their children for reading novels, and never let them go to the theater, or to any place of recreation and amusement, but bind them to the moral law, until duty becomes loathsome to them; when they are freed by age from the rigorous training of their parents, they are more fit for companions to devils, than to be the children of such religious parents.

If I do not learn what is in the world, from first to last, somebody will be wiser than I am. I intend to know the whole of it, both good and bad. Shall I practice evil? No; neither have I told you to practice it, but to learn by the light of truth every principle there is in existence in the world.

Still further. When I was young, I was kept within very strict bounds, and was not allowed to walk more than half-an-hour on Sunday for exercise. The proper and necessary gambols of youth having been denied me, makes me want active exercise and amusement now. I had not a chance to dance when I was young, and never heard the enchanting tones of the violin, until I was eleven years of age; and then I thought I was on the highway to hell, if I suffered myself to linger and listen to it. I shall not subject my little children to such a course of unnatural training, but they shall go to the dance, study music, read novels, and do anything else that will tend to expand their frames, add fire to their spirits, improve their minds, and make them feel free and untrammeled in body and mind. Let everything come in its season, place everything in the place designed for it, and do everything in its right time. And inasmuch as the Lord Almighty has designed us to know all that is in the earth, both the good and the evil, and to learn not only what is in heaven, but what is in hell, you need not expect ever to get through learning. Though I mean to learn all that is in heaven, earth, and hell. Do I need to commit iniquity to do it? No. If I were to go into the bowels of hell to find out what is there, that does not make it necessary that I should commit one evil, or blaspheme in any way the name of my Maker."

- Brigham Young, "Organization and Development of Man" (Journal of Discourses 2:94)

[Ivan the Magnificent!]

It's often the women who feel deprived and it's a myth that a man turns to it because he's not getting enough sex. Alcoholics don't turn to alcohol because they have a thirst they can't quench.

It is a well established fact that if a person does not get a particular nutrient in their diet, they will crave it and will do just about anything to get it into their system -- even if it is unhealthy junk food that provides the substitute. Why should sex be any different? If a man or woman is deprived of something that is hard-wired into our physiological and psychological makeup then they will either become bitter, find someone who will satisfy the longed-for craving, or will find a substitute like porn. Your analogy of alcohol falls flat in that if you put the most ardent supporter of the WofW into a desert, deprive himor her of water for a day, and they give them a keg of beer they will be downing the beer sooner or later.

[mbh26]

On this same logic I would expect that despite LDS teachings (mildly) against masturbation, Mormon singles (particularly young men) would have a higher than average rate and frequency of this behavior, precisely because they're (overwhelmingly) not having sex.

I think that is exactly right. Why would you pay good money for porn when you could just pay for the real thing?

[juliann]

Also, if porn usage is an "addiction as vicious as drug usage and destroys marriages," how do you explain the fact that so many women do NOT have a problem with viewing it or their husbands viewing it, and the fact that many couples even watch it together? Granted, a husband's use of sexually-oriented media can make his wife angry if she is against it, but if that is the case, why does that necessarily mean the man is at fault? Have we at least considered the possibility that sexually-oriented media is not inherently damaging to a marriage, but can simply be a source of discord where there is disagreement about whether it is acceptable?

Your appeal to women to enjoy watching the degradation of women was...interesting.

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/rgcolumns/2005/0301.asp

"At a recent meeting of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, two-thirds of the divorce lawyers who attended said excessive interest in online pornography played a significant role in divorces in the past year."

Sen. Brownback quoted Richard Berry, President of the Academy, who said, "This is clearly related to the Internet. Pornography had an almost non-existent role in divorce just seven or eight years ago."