Pornography And Lds: 25 Years From Now...

[keith_brian]

At what age does one stop being a child?

Bernard

Um, really?

[Skylla]

Congratulations. You've just advocated for pedophiles. You seem to not know that their perspective on sexual "play" is the sooner the better. There is no practical difference between a child and an adult where pleasure is compared. They contend that outmoded thinking, i.e. religious traditions, continue to misinform: that sex is indeed merely a "plaything" and has nothing at all to do with morals.

The root argument for or against ANY sexual expression can be advocated for or decried using the very same criteria. And thus we see the violence being done to the "system"; i.e. our laws, religiously based as they largely are, are under attack by irreligious reasoning.

Any and all inroads being made upon the laws to liberalize them will include sexual expressions in their myriad forms; including children. Get ready. It is already a bumpy ride and is going to get downright violent. And nobody knows where this is going....

Questing Beast:

Do not accuse anyone of advocating for pedophiles.

Skylla

[Darth_Bill]

With all due respect, how recent is her information?

Her experience does not reflect mine and others I know

who are trying to help people who have this issue.

Your comments seem contrary to the current literature.

Bernard.

I'm not sure what you are looking for. She's currently licensed and is regularly trained at LDSFS seminars.

I'm not saying that the church encourages x or y, but that is what people are doing.

I'm not sure what the current literature is saying either. "Experience" is what she related.

These are people that WANT to save their relationships. All she has to deal with is what they relate.

Those sent to LDSFS are seeking professional help. They attack things differently than bishops do. Bishops aren't professionally trained for the things LDSFS deals with. (Both her and I have been to therapy for different issues.)

Are you saying that her experiences are different? (I've related too few for you to make a judgement.)

Are you disputing the definition of "addicted"? I'm still not clear what is really being discussed on that. Addiction leads to dangerous or violent behavior. Not many people fall into that catagory but is what she's had to deal with, in and out of the church. For example, liking sex isn't showing addictive behavior. She doesn't view daily porn viewing as an addiction. Addiction is something altogether more personally destroying. Now daily porn viewing might not be considered healthy, but it isn't necessarily addiction.

She uses different methods to get people on the right track. It depends on the person and situation.

Again, she sees people now who WANT to become healthy. People who want to sink into depravity without help don't go to see her. She used to see those people, like those court ordered, but no longer.

[keith_brian]

The problem with this thread is that a lot of the LDS people, to try and support their religious position, keep making blanket, unsupported statements about porn (and then trying to take scientific papers out of context in the case of Bernard and ignore the parts of their position that don't agree with their view that porn is universally evil, always leads to addiction and pedophilia or something) because they feel a need to defend their church's religious position.

At best, the effects "porn" usage is a complex situation that involves a multitude of factors, including how often it's used, what type of pornography is viewed, whether it is viewed alone or with a spouse, and the individual personality of the person viewing it. I don't think any reasonable person could disagree with those statements. However, there is a certain class of people in this thread that feel the need to keep making sweeping generalizations about porn and then trying to support those generalizations by ignoring statements copied and pasted from scientific papers on the subject that show the science on the topic is not currently in support of their position.

Once again, if you want to say that LDS members shouldn't view porn because they feel it is a commandment from their god, okay. Other religions have similar practices that they adhere to as a sign of their obedience to their god.

[MorningStar]

I'm not sure what you are looking for. She's currently licensed and is regularly trained at LDSFS seminars.

I'm not saying that the church encourages x or y, but that is what people are doing.

I'm not sure what the current literature is saying either. "Experience" is what she related.

These are people that WANT to save their relationships. All she has to deal with is what they relate.

Those sent to LDSFS are seeking professional help. They attack things differently than bishops do. Bishops aren't professionally trained for the things LDSFS deals with. (Both her and I have been to therapy for different issues.)

Are you saying that her experiences are different? (I've related too few for you to make a judgement.)

Are you disputing the definition of "addicted"? I'm still not clear what is really being discussed on that. Addiction leads to dangerous or violent behavior. Not many people fall into that catagory but is what she's had to deal with, in and out of the church. For example, liking sex isn't showing addictive behavior. She doesn't view daily porn viewing as an addiction. Addiction is something altogether more personally destroying. Now daily porn viewing might not be considered healthy, but it isn't necessarily addiction.

She uses different methods to get people on the right track. It depends on the person and situation.

Again, she sees people now who WANT to become healthy. People who want to sink into depravity without help don't go to see her. She used to see those people, like those court ordered, but no longer.

I heard an specialist in addiction describe it as behavior that continues despite negative consequences. If you risk losing your job, marriage, etc. by viewing porn and you still can't stop, that is addiction. With LDS members, they might be devastated by the loss of their temple recommend or other consequences, yet they continue doing it. I know several people who were fired because they watched porn at work. I don't think you can call those situations just an interest in sex.

[Darth_Bill]

I am curious if she finds this is the case even with those who developed using porn as a coping mechanism prior to marriage. Also, does she see porn as a healthy coping mechanism or does she encourage her clients to try and find a more effective replacement?

Not sure. I'll ask. I think it depends on the person. Causual use usually doesn't rise to a visit to LDSFS. Of course she suggests replacements, it is LDSFS after all.

The problem I see with accepting occasional usage of anything that can be highly destructive is that behaviourally speaking that can be one of the hardest habits to break, there is just enough reward involved to keep the behaviour in place for a very long time even when the benefits are nonexistent for most of the time.

Highly destructive depends on the personality type. Most people aren't affected by it otherwise our highly sexualized society would implode from depravity. It might be a hard habit to break not because of the reward, but because it maybe isn't as destructive as other behaviors. There isn't personal injury issue as much. "Hold my beer and watch this" doesn't have a porn equivalent. "Hold my porn DVD and watch this" doesn't happen all that much. "Driving while porned" doesn't happen much either. A person can watch porn, do whatever people do, and they can still function. If it is so widespread in the church and society, it shows that people can still be highly functioning.

[Darth_Bill]

I heard an specialist in addiction describe it as behavior that continues despite negative consequences. If you risk losing your job, marriage, etc. by viewing porn and you still can't stop, that is addiction. With LDS members, they might be devastated by the loss of their temple recommend or other consequences, yet they continue doing it. I know several people who were fired because they watched porn at work. I don't think you can call those situations just an interest in sex.

I didn't say it was. That is showing destructive behavior. That might be an addiction. When you lose the ability to make the choice, that is addictive behavoir.

For example, I'm typing this at work. I might be addicted to LDS apologetic boards. I'm not trying to minimize it, but addictive behavior manifests in different ways.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Darth_Bill

[Calm]

She doesn't view daily porn viewing as an addiction. Addiction is something altogether more personally destroying. Now daily porn viewing might not be considered healthy, but it isn't necessarily addiction.

I would assume her definition of "addiction" is when the behaviour starts to interfere with the ability to function in a normal environment. What label would she place on daily porn viewing where it is something the individual doesn't want to act out the behaviour intellectually, but does it anyway because he emotionally chooses to use it as a coping mechanism.

[Ariarates]

Don't forget you have a standing CFR!

I don't think so. Asked and answered in my post no. 185. BTW, I didn't say the author was pretending to be a scholar, like you charged, but that he was pretending to be scholarly. Stacking a paper with several double, triple, quadruple, etc. references that don't support what is being stated in the main text isn't scholarly.

[Calm]

For those who see porn as something healthy in a married relationship, do you also see married men going to strip clubs to watch women disrobe as healthy when there is no actual sexual contact?

Edited August 4, 2011 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

I think that porn is destructive if nothing more then loss of the spirit, mind you other things can drive away the spirit but regardless

[Darth_Bill]

For those who see porn as something healthy in a married relationship, do you also see married men going to strip clubs to watch women disrobe as healthy when there is no actual sexual contact?

Are we now saying that porn is healthy? I haven't seen that here. Plus, what about married relationships that don't have a problem with porn use by mutual agreement? I would see married men going to strip clubs as unhealthy unless the woman goes too and enjoys it. (Very small number that). It is a selfish activity. However, some marriage dynamics might accept it. Some people accept polygamy. Go fig.

[Calm]

Are we now saying that porn is healthy? I haven't seen that here.

I believe keith brian ( ), and at least one other person (Jaybear?) have suggested that porn itself can be a healthy sexual activity and that churches are the one creating the problem by labeling it as sinful. If I have misinterpreted their position, perhaps they can clarify it.

ariatetes sees the problem as inflated by the Church, but I don't know for sure if he sees porn as healthy or not: http://www.mormondia...__p__1209032425

Edited August 4, 2011 by calmoriah

[Bernard Gui]

I get the impression that those who feel porn is a healthy outlet would say that it is the wife's issue, not the husband and she is the one who needs to change her feelings of betrayal over the fact her husband prefers imagining sexual relationships with imaginary women (or whatever) to interacting with her or the family, even to the point to allowing a virtual 'threesome' to occur by accepting porn as part of their own sexual relationship.

This is very important. Even the "casual" use of pornography by a husband is usually viewed as betrayal

by the wife, and has been indicated in the literature, results in trauma. Drawing her into the

circle of deviation, IMO, is serious spousal abuse.

Bernard

Edited August 4, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Jaybear]

I believe keith brian, ariatetes (sp?) and at least one other person (Jaybear?) have suggested that porn itself is a healthy sexual activity and that churches are the one creating the problem by labeling it as sinful. If I have misinterpreted their position, perhaps they can clarify it.

Nah. I agree with you that porn viewing can be destructive to a marriage, and if a man wants to look at porn, which is an entirely natural desire, he would be well advised to take steps to avoid getting caught by his wife.

I am sure that there are some instances where porn viewing is healthy and some where its unhealthy.

[Jeff K.]

I think its sad when we go from attempting to live right, to trying to hide the wrong we do. It is that kind of slipshod hold of ethics that leads to the dissolution of families. In other words, its notthat you are doing the wrong thing, just don't get caught doing it. Such an attitude should be rejected on the face of it.

[Bernard Gui]

Um, really?

Yes. While child pornography has its advocates, not surprising considering the overall

decline of moral safeguards in our society, it is certainly one of the most vile practices

devised by conspiring men.

While most people condemn child pornography, some, like yourself, are hesitant to

admit the dangers of adult use, even in the face of continually increasing evidence

of the damage it wreaks.

My question:

Is there a time in a child's life, growing through adolescence and adulthood, that

involvement with pornography either as yiewer or producer becomes acceptable, if not beneficial? How is that date determined?

Bernard

Edited August 4, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

Nah. I agree with you that porn viewing can be destructive to a marriage, and if a man wants to look at porn, which is an entirely natural desire, he would be well advised to take steps to avoid getting caught by his wife.

I am sure that there are some instances where porn viewing is healthy and some where its unhealthy.

So you think it's okay for a married man to look at porn since it is a natural desire and the man should only be careful not to get caught or do you think that it would be better to control the desire and not look at it and are only suggesting men be careful not to get caught for those who don't have enough self discinpline and can't control the natural desire?

Edited August 4, 2011 by calmoriah

[Bernard Gui]

I'm not sure what you are looking for. She's currently licensed and is regularly trained at LDSFS seminars.

I'm not saying that the church encourages x or y, but that is what people are doing.

I'm not sure what the current literature is saying either. "Experience" is what she related.

I am not a licensed counsellor, but I work with some and have participated in family support groups

for 4 years, now facilitating one, and have been through the addiction crazy dance with a family member.

So, experience is what I can relate to.

Maybe I misunderstand, but she seems to be down-playing the damages caused even by casual porn use.

This seems to be counter to current thought (see the paper inadvertently presented here by Brian).

They attack things differently than bishops do. Bishops aren't professionally trained for the things LDSFS deals with.

(Both her and I have been to therapy for different issues.)

I understand.

Are you saying that her experiences are different? (I've related too few for you to make a judgement.)

Are you disputing the definition of "addicted"? I'm still not clear what is really being discussed on that. Addiction leads to dangerous or violent behavior. Not many people fall into that catagory but is what she's had to deal with, in and out of the church. For example, liking sex isn't showing addictive behavior. She doesn't view daily porn viewing as an addiction. Addiction is something altogether more personally destroying. Now daily porn viewing might not be considered healthy, but it isn't necessarily addiction.

Yes, I would say this is where we disagree. I believe one can be addicted to pornography, and I also believe just sporadic casual use can be problematic,

and the recent literature I have read supports this. Liking sex is not the problem, but voyeuristic substitution of digital experience for appropriate personal relationship is clearly a problem, whether one agrees addiction exists or not.

Again, she sees people now who WANT to become healthy. People who want to sink into depravity without help don't go to see her. She used to see those people, like those court ordered, but no longer.

I understand that, too.

Thanks to you and her for your input. Keep it up. We are all learning.

Bernard

Edited August 4, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

The problem with this thread is that a lot of the LDS people, to try and support their religious position, keep making blanket, unsupported statements about porn (and then trying to take scientific papers out of context in the case of Bernard and ignore the parts of their position that don't agree with their view that porn is universally evil, always leads to addiction and pedophilia or something) because they feel a need to defend their church's religious position.

CFR that I have taken anything out of context. From your own citation, I quoted whole paragraphs, the compete introduction and the complete conclusion.

Also, you have not addressed the direct attack on your religious theory (Post 255) or the specific refutations of almost all of your positions from the very

paper you cited. Your own citation devastated your arguments and you don't even realize it.

At best, the effects "porn" usage is a complex situation that involves a multitude of factors, including how often it's used, what type of pornography is viewed, whether it is viewed alone or with a spouse, and the individual personality of the person viewing it. I don't think any reasonable person could disagree with those statements. However, there is a certain class of people in this thread that feel the need to keep making sweeping generalizations about porn and then trying to support those generalizations by ignoring statements copied and pasted from scientific papers on the subject that show the science on the topic is not currently in support of their position.

Unfortunately, this does not even come close to reality. In the paper you cited, there were specific references to specific damaging effects of casual use of pornography. The purpose

of the paper was to investigate its effect on depression and general well-being, and it demonstrated those damages.

Once again, if you want to say that LDS members shouldn't view porn because they feel it is a commandment from their god, okay. Other religions have similar practices that they adhere to as a sign of their obedience to their god.

And some people execute pornographers. Can you show that people in those religions that advocate pornography, whatever they are, do not experience the damaging effects

of pornography as cited, studied, and proved in your paper?

Bernard

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

I don't think so. Asked and answered in my post no. 185. BTW, I didn't say the author was pretending to be a scholar, like you charged, but that he was pretending to be scholarly. Stacking a paper with several double, triple, quadruple, etc. references that don't support what is being stated in the main text isn't scholarly.

That is not a CFR response. Please follow the board rules or leave the conversation.

Bernard

[Jaybear]

So you think it's okay for a married man to look at porn since it is a natural desire and the man should only be careful not to get caught or do you think that it would be better to control the desire and not look at it and are only suggesting men be careful not to get caught for those who don't have enough self discinpline and can't control the natural desire?

Its not my place to tell another adult male whether he should or should not look at porn. That is entirely up to him.

I am simply advising that if he does, he better be careful not to let his wife find out, as many women take it personal.

I will add that if you think that looking at porn is immoral and sinful, then you probably shouldn't look at porn. Doing so, with such a presupposition, could lead to feelings of guilt and self loathing.

[Bernard Gui]

Nah. I agree with you that porn viewing can be destructive to a marriage, and if a man wants to look at porn, which is an entirely natural desire, he would be well advised to take steps to avoid getting caught by his wife.

I am sure that there are some instances where porn viewing is healthy and some where its unhealthy.

I can't believe you support dishonesty in the marriage relationship. And when she discovers the duplicity,

the dishonesty contributes to the loss of trust in her husband, which is the most difficult thing to

rebuild, if it ever is.

Anyone who follows this idiotic plan is in for big, big heartache.

Bernard

[LeSellers]

porn viewing can be destructive to a marriage, and if a man wants to look at porn, which is an entirely natural desire, he would be well advised to take steps to avoid getting caught by his wife.

As I said, there is exactly one step he can take to accomplish this effectively.

I am sure that there are some instances where porn viewing is healthy ...

I cannot imagine such a case. You might provide examples.

Lehi

[Jaybear]

I can't believe you support dishonesty in the marriage relationship. And when she discovers the duplicity,

the dishonesty contributes to the loss of trust in her husband, which is the most difficult thing to

rebuild, if it ever is.

Anyone who follows this idiotic plan is in for big, big heartache.

Bernard

Who said anything about dishonesty. I just said don't get caught looking at porn.