Pornography And Lds: 25 Years From Now...

[Bernard Gui]

But how is that any different from when anyone engages in intercourse?

wouldn't the body react the same way and release the same chemicals?

That's the point. An addict obtains those feelings from his reaction

to pornography, to the detriment of his natural relationship with another person.

Check this out. Music can be addictive as well

http://psychcentral.com/news/2009/06/15/emotional-music-triggers-addictive-brain-activity/6521.html

This article demonstrates the effects of natural

chemicals produced in the body that create feelings

of pleasure and well-being. It does not address

addiction. Would the listener be willing to risk his life, his

family, or job to listen to his music? Addicts are.

Bernard

Edited August 2, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[blueadept]

In other religious traditions, human sexuality would even be considered something to be embraced, not frowned upon.

With the size of LDS families tend to be, I would say human sexuality is definitely embraced in the LDS culture. It's just that some things can easily be abused that wrecks the covenant of what a marriage is suppose to be. Pornography falls into that category of being something that can easily be abused by one party and be found offending by the other. Once one party is offended, pornography has already done its job in eroding a covenant that's suppose to be encouraged. LDS tend to be easily offended on this issue.

Edited August 2, 2011 by blueadept

[Bernard Gui]

My wife used to be a counselor for LDSFS but stopped to take care of our growing family. I too get tired of the constant anti-porn messages in church (but not as much as the constant home-teaching commentary). When I asked her about it, she said that addiction, true addiction, is rather rare. If it becomes obsessive, then it becomes a problem, just as playing too much Farmville. It makes a person withdraw. Most men, even those addicted, do not act out on others. It is a selfish activity. That is what stresses a marriage.

Those men who view it occasionally can stress a marriage too, and the reaction of the wife to the issue. Lack of communication, ability or desire to change can manifest in marriage stress too, but these are underlying weaknesses. How the couple handles it is key.

What do I know? Nothing. I know marriages that break up for completely ridiculous reasons, IMHO, and very few were due to porn addiction...can't think of one. My wife doesn't know of one either. Adultery, yeah, but most of those weren't from porn.

This is how most of us have approached the problem. With more study and growing awareness

of the problems caused by pornography, much of this approach os being modified.

Bernard

[cinepro]

Just think about it:

IF porn leads to incest, rape and crime (1)

AND porn is a serious problem among the Mormons (2)

THEN incest, rape and crime should be a serious problem among the Mormons (3)

This is another interesting point.

In the history of pornography, there are two eras: Before the Internet (BI) and After the Internet (AI).

Before the Internet, pornography was limited and relatively difficult to acquire, especially for young men. Even if some could be found, the supply would have to be limited. Also, that vast majority was relatively tame by any standard. I'm assuming Playboy magazine was the majority of pornography available to most people, and compared to what's out there today, Playboy is pretty tame.

Now, with the internet, everything is different. There is a limitless supply of every type of pornography (images, text, video) available to anyone with an internet connection. We all know how much there is, and how easy it is to get (even accidentally).

From a moral standpoint, this is an absolute disaster. But from an analytical standpoint, this is a perfect way to study the effects of pornography on large groups of people. You can make any hypothesis you want about the effects of pornography, and compare pre-internet society with post-internet society.

For example, suppose we think pornography viewing might lead to an increase in rape in a society. Well, what do the statistics show?

If there were any type of correlation between pornography usage and rape, the numbers would have to have increased after the widespread availability of the internet (mid-90's). But there has been a decrease in reported rapes.

So does it really matter what rapists say about pornography? Because it doesn't matter that the people who do rape might like pornography (hardly surprising). Our concern is whether people who view pornography are more likely to rape others, which is a question better answered by looking at the total population of pornography users which has increased exponentially in the last 15 years. Yet the number of rapists hasn't increased exponentially.

Are there any theorized effects of porn-usage that are shown to have increased over the last 15 years? What's happened to the divorce rate?

[subgenius]

With the size of LDS families tend to be, I would say human sexuality is definitely embraced in the LDS culture.

Human sexuality? That is problem an incorrect way to term the issue, but it is most definitely "embraced" because it is fundamental doctrine. The LDS member understands that the act of sex is sacred because of its use in (1) Procreation, bringing forth vessels for new souls and (2) Intimacy, strengthening marital relations and thus preserving the family structure as it was divinely designed.

Pornography degenerates that doctrine and further degenerates the society-at-large. Notwithstanding the LDS church, pornography has proven to offer nothing that our modern society may consider virtuous or progressive. Its rather like trying to sell batter dipped deep-fried Oreo cookies in a health food store.

It's just that some things can easily be abused that wrecks the covenant of what a marriage is suppose to be. Pornography falls into that category of being something that can easily be abused by one party and be found offending by the other. Once one party is offended, pornography has already done its job in eroding a covenant that's suppose to be encouraged. LDS tend to be easily offended on this issue.

some things can be easily abused, as in pornography is an abuse of human sexuality. That is why the term "perversion" is so easily applicable....because it is a "serious deviation".

Now, for the future of the issue....its only change will be reflected by what degree society has changed around it. For pornography differs from an issue like the ERA because it deals specifically with the struggle of the "natural man". Just as fasting is a means to confront and control the natural man, so is the issue of pornography.

[subgenius]

This is another interesting point.

[..snip..]

For example, suppose we think pornography viewing might lead to an increase in rape in a society. Well, what do the statistics show?

If there were any type of correlation between pornography usage and rape, the numbers would have to have increased after the widespread availability of the internet (mid-90's). But there has been a decrease in reported rapes.

....

interesting statistic...but a little vague.....perhaps there is a correlation, just not as one might assume.

Is not possible that since previous availability of porn was "outside the home" that rape was a crime of convenience?

And is it also possible that victims are becoming more liberal in what they consider to be rape due to the desensitizing effect of "more" pornography?

Could increased police presence and vigilance also be the cause? - with the internet there has also been an increase in crime deterring technology

The internet has also allowed for rape crimes to be publicized more and databases provided for locations of offenders, could this be an effect?

Though i agree, it seems that the leap to rape from porn is a high one - i tend to believe the choice is made by the person...not the centerfold.

[cinepro]

interesting statistic...but a little vague.....perhaps there is a correlation, just not as one might assume.

Is not possible that since previous availability of porn was "outside the home" that rape was a crime of convenience?

And is it also possible that victims are becoming more liberal in what they consider to be rape due to the desensitizing effect of "more" pornography?

Could increased police presence and vigilance also be the cause? - with the internet there has also been an increase in crime deterring technology

The internet has also allowed for rape crimes to be publicized more and databases provided for locations of offenders, could this be an effect?

All of those are interesting factors, and until they've been accounted for, it's probably irresponsible to suggest (or state) that porn usage can increase the likelihood of someone committing a rape.

[Ariarates]

@ Cinepro in # 104: this is the kind of bad science I'm talking about. In order for your graph to support what you are implying or suggesting, you must prove causation (or likelihood thereof).

What you are looking at is the effect of Roe vs. Wade. Simply put, "lower class" children are more likely to commit crimes when they become adults. When abortion was legalized, less disadvantaged children were born and by the 1990s, crime dropped significantly all across the board. It wasn't Guiliani's zero tolerance (or actually, his Chief of Police's) but Roe vs. Wade. You'll find the same graph for all major crimes.

[cinepro]

@ Cinepro in # 104: this is the kind of bad science I'm talking about. In order for your graph to support what you are implying or suggesting, you must prove causation (or likelihood thereof).

What you are looking at is the effect of Roe vs. Wade. Simply put, "lower class" children are more likely to commit crimes when they become adults. When abortion was legalized, less disadvantaged children were born and by the 1990s, crime dropped significantly all across the board. It wasn't Guiliani's zero tolerance (or actually, his Chief of Police's) but Roe vs. Wade. You'll find the same graph for all major crimes.

Thank you Freakonomics.

Edited August 2, 2011 by cinepro

[blueadept]

Simply put, "lower class" children are more likely to commit crimes when they become adults. When abortion was legalized, less disadvantaged children were born and by the 1990s, crime dropped significantly all across the board. It wasn't Guiliani's zero tolerance (or actually, his Chief of Police's) but Roe vs. Wade. You'll find the same graph for all major crimes.

As a side note for this Pro-Lifer, thank you for your observation. It gives me something more to chew on and research even if I don't necessarily agree with all of it...

[Questing Beast]

Pornography is addicting in the same way that drugs are addicting. The addiction alters brain chemistry and the addict requires more of the addictive substance,

whether it is a natural or a chemical stimulus doesn't matter. One recovery manual states, "It is helpful for that family members to understand the nature of sexual addiction. It is not a bad habit or chosen behavior. It is a powerful internal dependency upon

drugs produced by one's own brain during repeated exposure to pornography. Medical studies have shown that these reactions in the brain are as powerful as

cocaine or heroin, and can lead a person to use pornography as a way to self-medicate when under the stress of negative emotions. Thus, sexual addiction can

actually be totally unrelated to a person's satisfaction in their marital relationship. Many men suffering from a sexual addiction honestly feel a great love

for their wives."

Yes, the brain and body it governs are a teeming, chemical environment. That is not a revelation.

But there is an obvious and huge difference between sexual reactions and chemicals taken into the body that the body does not naturally manufacture or need, or worse, is harmed by. Pornography is none of these. Images taken into the brain via audio-visual media are NO DIFFERENT than the "real thing". In other words, pornography is no different in its effects upon the chemistry of the brain than thinking about and imagining sexual activity. And this includes especially DREAMING, i.e. "wet dreams". The brain does not know the difference between the real life stimulation caused by engaging in sex with another person, and imagining the same; the effect upon the brain is identical. So it is fallacious reasoning to assert that pornography is addicting because it causes brain chemistry. If this brain chemistry that occurs via pornography is harmful to the brain, then so are so-called wet dreams, and even real sexual activity with another person. If you are going to assert that "too much sex" is damaging to the brain, I will start laughing right now.

Did you even notice that the inferred problem with that quote is not about sex? It is about being lazy, selfish and cowardly, and dishonest. The hypothetical husband does not "get enough" from his wife, so he "self-medicates" through pornography. This is usually going to happen in sexually dysfunctional marriages where one spouse wants sex and the other is disinterested or even worse, repelled by sex; and communication breaks down over the dichotomy.

In other words, sex is not the issue or the problem; "irreconcilable differences" is the problem, and anything (including sex) can form the issue for irreconcilable differences. And the spouse who takes to pornography as a substitute may be reacting to that disappointment: the equal or greater wrong may reside with the dysfunctional spouse.

As I already pointed out: problems that break up marriages can only occur when something fundamentally wrong with the relationship is happening. Sexual differences are a common focus, but so too are money, family relations (in-laws, commonly), cultural, religious or other belief differences, etc. None of these on their own will break up a relationship. It takes a severe character flaw or complex of flaws to do that. For instance, dishonesty is probably at the root of all character flaws/vices; because an honest person will candidly admit their weaknesses, and openly, willingly discuss them with their spouse, thus minimizing and eventually overcoming them together. But a dishonest person will not admit their flaws, weaknesses or vices; either their existence or their wrongness. By lying to himself, the husband who loves sex far more than his wife, will probably turn secretly to pornography or worse expressions of his sexual interests. If he has no weakness for sex and is instead (hypothetically) weak in the presence of money, he will be a secret gambler. A man whose weakness is for praise will live a false life to make a perceived necessary impression. And so it goes: the character flaw is the source of the addictive behavior; the expression merely the medium through which the addiction manifests. Pornography is merely sex in another form. The brain does not know the difference. So to blame pornography as a special "addictive stimulant" is ridiculously simplistic and false.

Blaming sex on the broken marriage is likely scapegoating. Blaming pornography on the broken marriage is easy but is not the real complex of reasons why the marriage failed. (Years ago, when President Hinckley read that emotional letter in General Conferences, from the widow whose husband confessed on his deathbed that he had never stopped engaging in pornographic activities: my reaction then and afterward was, "This is one side to a lifelong story. Of course the wife is going to see it this way. What really happened to cause the husband to be secretive, selfish and dishonest? I am going to assume that the wife had something to do with that as well.")

May I suggest you attend a family support group for victims of pornography addiction?

Bernard

You may of course suggest anything you want. Why you would suggest such a thing to one you do not know is odd....

[Questing Beast]

Actually, no it isn't.

"“I believe pornography is a drug in every sense of the word,” said Hilton, a Texas spine and brain surgeon who has written the book, “He Restoreth My Soul.” The book, written for an LDS audience, points out research indicating that pornography follows the same pathways to the brain as do any addictive chemical substances. "

And how would it happen that ANY chemical reaction in the brain could possibly follow any other "pathway"? This is also a non sequitur line of reasoning. It does not show addiction. Because the addict obtains his/her "fix" following exactly the same "pathways to the brain" as the normal or non addict person.

Again, pornography is merely "artful" manipulation of the imagination sexually. There is nothing drug-like about audio-visual media, not even so much as the atmosphere of a room. Imagination always causes chemical manifestations in the brain. And sexual stimulation of course is a palpably noticeable chemical reactionary state. Simple thinking can accomplish the very same thing. And "real" sex with another person: no difference. Frequency is absolutely nobody's business. If a guy thinks about sex every 15 seconds is he an addict? Or is he normal? If he engages in sexual fulfillment three times a day or a week or a year, how is this germane to the issue of addiction?

Also I point out that this author is using special pleading, already convinced of his hypothesis before saying a word....

[sweetpotatoh]

That is certainly very important, but for most people

recovery also requires other help, too.

Bernard

I think that it is important for LDS to rely on the Lord. It is what He wants us to do. I understand that some will need the companionship of a 12 step program. I also understand that the consequences of pornography addiction affect spouses and children. The addict is selfish and this can lead to selfishness in all areas of life that can destroy a once healthy marriage and there needs to be programs in place to help families and spouses heal from the pain inflicted on them by the addiction.

I also think many LDS may shortchange themselves by not seeking the blessings that come from fasting, regular scripture study and service. It took me over 40 years to figure out I can't do it on my own or with the help of the world, without the Lord involved.

Any one who has an addiction I urge them to put it in the hands of the Lord. Let him heal you. He loves us and wants us to be happy and more importantly, as Men, he wants us to be able to serve his Daughters the way they deserve to be served.

[Bernard Gui]

Are there any theorized effects of porn-usage that are shown to have increased over the last 15 years? What's happened to the divorce rate?

Are you claiming the increased access to more varieties of hard-core pornography is actually beneficial?

Bernard

[Ariarates]

As a side note for this Pro-Lifer, thank you for your observation. It gives me something more to chew on and research even if I don't necessarily agree with all of it...

Levitt & Dubner's research is not without its critics but they usually criticize the sociology rather than the numbers. Personally, I think the numbers are rather convincing but that doesn't mean one has to promote abortions (better prevention and birth control also do the trick).

[Bernard Gui]

]But there is an obvious and huge difference between sexual reactions and chemicals taken into the body that the body does not naturally manufacture or need, or worse, is harmed by. Pornography is none of these.

Yet the opposite is exactly what has been discovered by recent studies.

Images taken into the brain via audio-visual media are NO DIFFERENT than the "real thing". In other words, pornography is no different in its effects upon the chemistry of the brain than thinking about and imagining sexual activity. And this includes especially DREAMING, i.e. "wet dreams".

Call for reference, please.

The brain does not know the difference between the real life stimulation caused by engaging in sex with another person, and imagining the same; the effect upon the brain is identical. So it is fallacious reasoning to assert that pornography is addicting because it causes brain chemistry. If this brain chemistry that occurs via pornography is harmful to the brain, then so are so-called wet dreams, and even real sexual activity with another person. If you are going to assert that "too much sex" is damaging to the brain, I will start laughing right now.

This is a straw man you are setting up, but sexual addictions, whether you believe they exist or not, are no laughing matter.

Did you even notice that the inferred problem with that quote is not about sex? It is about being lazy, selfish and cowardly, and dishonest. The hypothetical husband does not "get enough" from his wife, so he "self-medicates" through pornography. This is usually going to happen in sexually dysfunctional marriages where one spouse wants sex and the other is disinterested or even worse, repelled by sex; and communication breaks down over the dichotomy.

That certainly can be the case in some instances.

In other words, sex is not the issue or the problem; "irreconcilable differences" is the problem, and anything (including sex) can form the issue for irreconcilable differences. And the spouse who takes to pornography as a substitute may be reacting to that disappointment: the equal or greater wrong may reside with the dysfunctional spouse.

Not when it comes to addiction.

As I already pointed out: problems that break up marriages can only occur when something fundamentally wrong with the relationship is happening

.

One thing that can be fundamentally wrong and devastating to the relationship is for one of the partners to be addicted to pornography.

And so it goes: the character flaw is the source of the addictive behavior; the expression merely the medium through which the addiction manifests. Pornography is merely sex in another form. The brain does not know the difference. So to blame pornography as a special "addictive stimulant" is ridiculously simplistic and false.

Call for reference, please.

Blaming sex on the broken marriage is likely scapegoating. Blaming pornography on the broken marriage is easy but is not the real complex of reasons why the marriage failed. (Years ago, when President Hinckley read that emotional letter in General Conferences, from the widow whose husband confessed on his deathbed that he had never stopped engaging in pornographic activities: my reaction then and afterward was, "This is one side to a lifelong story. Of course the wife is going to see it this way. What really happened to cause the husband to be secretive, selfish and dishonest? I am going to assume that the wife had something to do with that as well.")

An addict cannot blame their behavior on the behavior of another person and find sobriety. The only behavior one can control is one's own. An addict has lost the ability to control his behavior. In addiction, the first casualty is agency. Years ago (President Hinckley and before), addiction to pornography was not as well-studied as it is now. Sexual addictions have more recently been equated with any other kind of addiction, including

chemical and natural addictions such as drugs, over-eating, etc. Laying blame at the foot of the wife is a severe character defect.

You may of course suggest anything you want. Why you would suggest such a thing to one you do not know is odd....

I am not suggesting anyone visit a support group or recovery group because I suspect they are addicted or afflicted, but only to

become aware of the severity of the problem, and get out of denial. By using the same argument, one could assert that chemical addiction

can be blamed on a spouse and is not a cause for destruction.

Bernard

Edited August 2, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[keith_brian]

With the size of LDS families tend to be, I would say human sexuality is definitely embraced in the LDS culture. It's just that some things can easily be abused that wrecks the covenant of what a marriage is suppose to be. Pornography falls into that category of being something that can easily be abused by one party and be found offending by the other. Once one party is offended, pornography has already done its job in eroding a covenant that's suppose to be encouraged. LDS tend to be easily offended on this issue.

Under my definition of the word, I wouldn't say that the LDS culture "embraces" sexuality, even though they make extensive use of it for procreation. As a parallel, let's consider the hypothetical attitudes of two societies on the issue of sleep.

Society A: Sleep is a natural bodily function and is something to be enjoyed. Sleep should be tailored to the specific tastes of the individual. You should sleep as much or as little as you want. If you want to sleep alone, in pairs, in a group, or even with someone of the same gender, you should be allowed to because it's your sleep cycle. As long as you going to sleep isn't dangerous to you or others, sleep in the way that suits your personality.

Society B: The privilege of sleeping comes from a higher power. Sleep should be strictly regulated and only used in situations approved by the higher power. Sleep is only to be used to replenish the body for work and should not be used for any other purpose. People should only sleep alone or with a single partner of the opposite gender to whom they are committed to sleeping with for the rest of their lives. Deviations from this norm are frowned upon. Napping, day dreaming, hallucinating, and all other things like sleep should be avoided, lest the wrath of the supernatural being is provoked. Sleep disorders should be immediately reported to the religious leaders of the parties involved for immediate discipline.

To me, I would say that Society A embraces the culture of sleep and Society B is sleep repressed. Some people see this differently.

[Bernard Gui]

Here's where I stand:

1. There is such a disease as addiction to pornography.

2. In most ways it is the same as any other kind of addiction.

3. It is difficult to overcome because the triggers are ubiquitous and it is fixed in brain chemistry.

4. Not everyone who uses pornography is an addict.

5. The level of addiction can be quantified with information about frequency,

duration, intensity, and willingness to take risks.

6. Addiction to pornography is extremely destructive to normal marital and familial relationships.

7. There is powerful help for the addict in the form of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, professional treatment

and participation in a recovery program.

8. The LDS 12-step program for addicts and co-dependents is effective because it applies both remedies.

9. I hate addictions of all kinds with every fiber of my being. From my religious point of view, they are the

strongest tools Satan has to destroy the children of God because they rob the victims of their most precious

possession, agency. I believe the D&C when it says conspiring men will seek to do evil to others in

these days. There is no question that that is a true description of what is going on with pornography.

10. I love the Atonement of Jesus Christ, because it is the only way one escapes from addiction,

members or non-members, makes no difference.

11. From a non-religious point of view, I also believe pornography is an extremely serious social problem

that often brings great harm to society, family, and individuals. There is nothing redeeming, beneficial,

praiseworthy, or good about it. It's as evil as evil can get.

12. The best policy, as with drugs, is zero tolerance, whether you are religious or not. For LDS,

zero tolerance is the goal to shoot for. Anything less should invite repentance and change of heart.

Now back to the regular program.

Bernard

Edited August 2, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Ariarates]

I agree with all your points except the first half of 11. It is not "an extremely serious social problem" for society but it can be (and is) for a very small group of people. It does not "often bring great harm to society, family, and individuals" but it does so occasionallt for this small group of people and their loved ones.

If you want to convince me that porn is the life-threatening danger to all civilization that churches make it out to be, show me the numbers that quantify this "extremely serious social problem".

Edit: you seem to have added a point 12 after I wrote this. Obviously, I do not agree that zero tolerance is the answer to this marginal problem. If anything, zero tolerance only serves to exacerbate the problem. Remember prohibition?

Edited August 2, 2011 by Ariarates

[keith_brian]

Here's where I stand:

1. There is such a disease as addiction to pornography.

2. In most ways it is the same as any other kind of addiction.

3. It is difficult to overcome because the triggers are ubiquitous and it is fixed in brain chemistry.

4. Not everyone who uses pornography is an addict.

5. The level of addiction can be quantified with information about frequency,

duration, intensity, and willingness to take risks.

6. Addiction to pornography is extremely destructive to normal marital and familial relationships.

7. There is powerful help for the addict in the form of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, professional treatment

and participation in a recovery program.

8. The LDS 12-step program for addicts and co-dependents is effective because it applies both remedies.

9. I hate addictions of all kinds with every fiber of my being. From my religious point of view, they are the

strongest tools Satan has to destroy the children of God because they rob the victims of their most precious

possession, agency. I believe the D&C when it says conspiring men will seek to do evil to others in

these days. There is no question that that is a true description of what is going on with pornography.

10. I love the Atonement of Jesus Christ, because it is the only way one escapes from addiction,

members or non-members, makes no difference.

11. From a non-religious point of view, I also believe pornography is an extremely serious social problem

that often brings great harm to society, family, and individuals. There is nothing redeeming, beneficial,

praiseworthy, or good about it. It's as evil as evil can get.

Now back to the regular program.

Bernard

I strongly object to your point number 11. I have seen no objective evidence of the fact that pornography is an "extremely serious social problem", any more than I have seen that normal alcohol consumption is one either. Also, I have seen no objective evidence that it OFTEN brings harm to society, families and individuals. If anything, I would call the evidence for the harm caused by pornography in most cases to be extremely anecdotal, and it's not clear whether the porn caused problems or abuse of porn was symptomatic of deeper and already existing problems. Your last two sentences are your opinion, so I can't say anything there.

Again, if you want to claim that porn is bad because you believe that your god commanded you not to watch it, that's fine. I won't object any more or less to that than to a person that says their god commanded them to be a strict vegetarian or to fast during the daylight hours for a month straight. However, I think we need to make a distinction between your religious views and what the objective evidence says about viewing porn.

[Bernard Gui]

The best way to determine one's addiction to pornography is this question....

What are you willing to risk losing in order to continue your use of pornography?

Not in any particular order....

Your money?

Your reputation?

Your character?

Your health?

Your spouse?

Your job?

Your children?

Your peace of mind?

Your life?

Are any of those worth losing for another round of pornography viewing? If they are,

there is a problem and you should seek help. There is a remedy that can work for you.

If you are not addicted, but like to use pornography, could you go a month without it and

suffer no ill effects? If so, why bother with it?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

I strongly object to your point number 11. I have seen no objective evidence of the fact that pornography is an "extremely serious social problem", any more than I have seen that normal alcohol consumption is one either.

Then you are in a place of denial.

Bernard

Edited August 2, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[cinepro]

Are you claiming the increased access to more varieties of hard-core pornography is actually beneficial?

Bernard

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The more hard-core pornography a society has, the better. In fact, based on those rape statistics, I think it's safe to say that if we could just get enough people watching hard-core pornography (and the harder-corer, the better), we might be able to eliminate rape entirely from our society.

I think most people probably missed my point, but you picked right up on it.

Edited August 2, 2011 by cinepro

[cinepro]

This article seems pertinent to the discussion:

The Sunny Side of Smut

With access to pornography easier than ever before, politicians and scientists alike have renewed their interest in deciphering its psychological effects. Certainly pornography addiction or overconsumption seems to cause relationship problems [see “Sex in Bits and Bytes,” by Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld; Scientific American Mind, July/August 2010]. But what about the more casual exposure typical of most porn users? Contrary to what many people believe, recent research shows that moderate pornography consumption does not make users more aggressive, promote sexism or harm relationships. If anything, some researchers suggest, exposure to pornography might make some people less likely to commit sexual crimes.

I'm pretty sure the author of the article is addicted to pornography, though.

[Ariarates]

Then you are in a place of denial.

Denial of what? You have not given us any numbers to deny!