Pornography And Lds: 25 Years From Now...

[LeSellers]

Sure, but how healthy can it be to a man's ego to suppress his natural (God given) instinct to look, or in this instance click, out of fear of getting caught by your wife.

Quite healthy indeed, I assure you.

Overcoming any appetite is ego-boosting.

Lehi

Edited August 3, 2011 by LeSellers

[keith_brian]

You seem to be unable to address the issue of addiction.

Read this paper. Do some online study and get yourself

up to date.

http://www.frc.org/s...seudo-sexuality

Bernard

Yes, the Family Research Council is really an objective, peer reviewed source of information . . .

Do you have any papers published in Sociology or Psychology journals to support your position?

[keith_brian]

Nor will you, even if its made available to you. Forget the studies already presented they don't exist.

CFR to an article published in a scientific journal that has been previously cited in this thread in support of your position. Articles from partisan political entities don't count as objective support in my book.

[Bernard Gui]

Yes, the Family Research Council is really an objective, peer reviewed source of information . . .

Do you have any papers published in Sociology or Psychology journals to support your position?

Deal with the paper. The footnotes will keep you busy for a while.

You are pretending to be scholarly.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Sure, but how healthy can it be to a man's ego to suppress his natural (God given) instinct to look, or in this instance click, out of fear of getting caught by your wife.

How about loving her enough not to cause trauma?

You are describing and advocating addictive and abusive behavior.

Bernard

[Jeff K.]

Don't confuse porn as somehow being a separate entity from human sexuality. That is a gross misunderstanding of both porn and human sexuality.

Don't confuse heroin from being a separate entity from strong analgesic. That is a gross misunderstanding of both.

No one is confusing porn as being separate from human sexuality. It would be incredibly ignorant to presume they are the same also. What porn is reflects an unhealthy addiction with one aspect of human sexuality. Your blanket statement is both uninformed and illogical, as I have clearly shown.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Jeff K.

[OUmd]

This discussion is fascinating. A couple of questions. The numerous examples in this "addiction" debate (which I still find fascinating, since the original post was actually directed at how will the Church will look at the "problem" of pornography 25 years from now and not really if pornography is an addiction) has been comparing porn addiction to the chemical addiction of alcohol and drugs.

What would you say is more "damaging" to society (or the family) consuming (not being addicted - being "addicted" to ANYTHING can be damaging) alcohol and/or drugs or viewing porn? What do we hear more about from the Church at this time? Is this because there is no one in the Church that drinks or does drugs? What bothers you more, the thought of your son or daughter getting high or drinking on a Friday night, or sitting in their room viewing porn? Both happen within the walls of thousands (if not millions) of active Mormon homes. What would be more effective to emphasize on Sundays or at General Conference?

[MorningStar]

Just as I suspected. Per your link:

The obvious less to men, don't get caught looking at porn.

Ah, that is the key to marital bliss. Hide your shady behavior from your spouse.

[LeSellers]

Sure, but how healthy can it be to a man's ego to suppress his natural (God given) instinct to look, or in this instance click, out of fear of getting caught by your wife.

This presupposes that anything "natural" is "God-given". 'Tain't necessarily so.

We are here, among other reasons, to overcome the "natural man", who is, after all, "an enemy to God". Ergo, the common desire among men, i.e., to look at (images of) scantily clad (or wholly unclad) women of obvious child-bearing capacity, is not God-given. It derives from the God-given impulse/command to "multiply and replenish the earth", but it is a perversion of His gift.

Lehi

[Ariarates]

http://www.frc.org/s...seudo-sexuality

This is bad science. As an example, let me just superficially source-check the one sentence Jaybear quotes in post # 169:

“Women commonly report feelings of betrayal, loss, mistrust, devastation, and anger as responses to the discovery or disclosure of a partner’s pornography use and/or online sexual activity,” (58) and they are often repulsed by it. (59)

58. Bergner, R.M., & Bridges, A.J., “The Significance of Heavy Pornography Involvement for Romantic Partners: Research and Clinical Implications,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, vol. 28 (2002): 193-206; Schneider, J.P., “Effects of Cybersex Addiction on the Family: Results of a Survey,” Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, vol. 7 (2000): 31-58; Bridges, A.J., Bergner, R.M., & Hesson-McInnis, M., “Romantic Partners’ Use of Pornography: Its Significance for Women,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 29 (2003): 1-14.

59. Schneider, J.P., “Effects of Cybersex Addiction on the Family: Results of a Survey,” Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, vol. 7 (2000): 31-58.

Now, without looking up the sources themselves, it’s seems that the first two references are about “heavy pornography involvement” and “cyber sex addiction”. These references probably do not support the blanket statement that “women commonly report…”. It might support the statement that "women with partners heavily involved in pornography commonly report..." or "women with partners who suffer from cybersex addiction commonly report..." but that's not what the author is saying. He is overstating the problem.

The abstract of the third reference seems to imply that the quoted article is about women with sexual dysfunction, not about what women feel when their partners look at porn::

There are limited hemodynamic data in women with arousal or orgasmic disorders and even fewer normative control hemodynamic data in women without sexual dysfunction. In addition, there is limited experience with topical vasoactive agents (used to maximize genital smooth muscle relaxation) applied to the external genitalia during hemodynamic evaluations. The aim of this study was to report duplex Doppler ultrasound clitoral cavernosal arterial changes before and after topical PGE-1 (Alprostadil) administration in control women and in patients with arousal and orgasmic sexual disorders. We found that women with sexual arousal and orgasmic disorders had significantly (p < 0.05) diminished clitoral peak systolic and end diastolic velocity responses compared to controls. Further research is needed to establish the diagnostic role of topical vasoactive agents in the hemodynamic evaluation of women with sexual dysfunction.

And the fourth reference, well, that’s the same as the second, isn’t it? If you gloss over the 172 footnotes, you’ll find a lot of that going on.

Bad science, people, bad science.

[MorningStar]

For those of you claiming it's not that big of a deal, how do you explain it when a man needs Viagra to have sex with his wife, but becomes aroused just fine looking at porn? The cause of his problem obviously isn't medical, so what is it?

[Ariarates]

Deal with the paper. The footnotes will keep you busy for a while. You are pretending to be scholarly.

Just did. Took about 10 minutes. I'm not going to waste more time on it. It's obviously bad science. The author is pretending to be scholarly and his audience is gullible enough to swallow it.

[Jaybear]

Ah, that is the key to marital bliss. Hide your shady behavior from your spouse.

Just like a woman to consider what comes natural to a man, ... looking at porn ... to be "shady behavior."

[Ariarates]

For those of you claiming it's not that big of a deal, how do you explain it when a man needs Viagra to have sex with his wife, but becomes aroused just fine looking at porn? The cause of his problem obviously isn't medical, so what is it?

Based on the amount of details you supply, my best guess would be cell phone radiation ;-)

[Jaybear]

How about loving her enough not to cause trauma?

Isn't that what I suggested?

You are describing and advocating addictive and abusive behavior.

Bernard

I am describing and advocating common sense, and prudence.

You are describing and advocating self-emasculating behavior.

[LeSellers]

What bothers you more, the thought of your son or daughter getting high or drinking on a Friday night, or sitting in their room viewing porn? Both happen within the walls of thousands (if not millions) of active Mormon homes. What would be more effective to emphasize on Sundays or at General Conference?

It's not "either/or". It can be, and is, both.

As to my son or daughter (going back a decade or more), if he is doing one, he's probably doing the other, too. I hate either about equally, but I'd say the porn is more pernicious because, while you can control your environment in regards to drugs, legal or otherwise, there is no barrier we can erect to eliminate porn from our lives—it's ubiquitous: billboards, newspapers, television, car cards, magazines, postal mail inserts, movies: the list goes on and on, and on, and on, an... .

CFR, btw, on your bald assertion that "both happen within the walls of ... millions of active Mormon [sic] homes." "Thousands", I'll give you; "millions" is stretching well beyond any natural limit.

Lehi

Edited August 3, 2011 by LeSellers

[MorningStar]

Just like a woman to consider what comes natural to a man, ... looking at porn ... to be "shady behavior."

OK, what do you consider shady behavior? Would it be "natural" for a man to sit in his car on a dark street while looking at porn on his laptop/masturbating? Or maybe at work? Or maybe in the restroom at work? Where is the best place to hide this "natural" behavior? Can't do it at home because there's no way you'll be able to hide it from your wife forever. Eventually you'll do something stupid.

[OUmd]

It's not "either/or". It can be, and is, both.

As to my son or daughter (going back a decade or more), if he is doing one, he's probably doing the other, too. I hate either about equally, but I'd say the porn is more pernicious because, while you can' control your environemnt in regards to drugs, legal or otherwise, there is no parrier we can erect to eliminate porn from our lives—it's ubiquitous: billboards, newspapers, television, car cards, magazines, postal mail inserts, movies: the list goes on and on, and on, and on, an... .

CFR, btw, on your bald assertion that "both happen within the walls of ... millions of active Mormon [sic] homes." "Thousands", I'll give you; "millions" is stretching well beyond any natural limit.

Lehi

I think it is both too. I asked what bothers you more and what do we hear more about. We have a church of 14+ million members. Say only 10% are young men between the ages of 14 to 25 that is 1.4 million. If you do not think that every young man in the church has not viewed porn, drank alcohol, or smoked a joint at least once in their lifetime you do not live in reality.

I would prefer my son to never do either. However, I can teach my son myself about sexuality and the normal curiosity that comes from the desire to view porn and pleasure himself without fearing him into the fantasy that he is going to burn in h*** to have this normal curiosity. What I can't do is bring him back to life after choosing to consume an alcoholic beverage or smoke weed to the point that his brain chemistry is altered and he crashes his car and dies.

My opinion is that the Church should teach both equally (although I think using fear is NEVER the correct way to teach ANY gospel principle).

Edited August 3, 2011 by OUmd

[LeSellers]

If you do not think that every young man in the church has not viewed porn, drank alcohol, or smoked a joint at least once in their lifetime you do not live in reality.

Then I guess I'm not living in reality.

I know five young men who have not done any of them, and know thirteen (so far) more who will not do them.

But then, my sons and grandsons are educated in their families, not in some governmental concentration/indoctrination camp for children.

Lehi

[Senator]

If you do not think that every young man in the church has not viewed porn, drank alcohol, or smoked a joint at least once in their lifetime you do not live in reality.

I hate to shatter your reality, but I can vouche for having not done two out of the three you mention. Ever.

[keith_brian]

Deal with the paper. The footnotes will keep you busy for a while.

You are pretending to be scholarly.

Bernard

Show me a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal supporting your position. The Google Scholar literature search will keep you busy for a while.

You are pretending to be scholarly.

[keith_brian]

Don't confuse heroin from being a separate entity from strong analgesic. That is a gross misunderstanding of both.

No one is confusing porn as being separate from human sexuality. It would be incredibly ignorant to presume they are the same also. What porn is reflects an unhealthy addiction with one aspect of human sexuality. Your blanket statement is both uninformed and illogical, as I have clearly shown.

You again continue to assert that porn is reflective of an unhealthy addiction with human sexuality while providing no objective, scientific evidence to support your view. This is puzzling as you admitted, finally, in the same post that porn is indeed a part of human sexuality.

Until you can provide objective evidence that porn is what you say it is -- an unhealthy addiction -- then I don't think we have much more to discuss.

[subgenius]

..... What bothers you more, the thought of your son or daughter getting high or drinking on a Friday night, or sitting in their room viewing porn?...

The thought of my son or daughter drinking alcohol, doing drugs, and making porn all at once bothers me most.

Porn may have a more deviant influence due to the often non-social aspect of its consumption. Becoming addicted to coffee or marijuana is less likely to destroy the sacred nature of the family when compared to pornography.

[keith_brian]

This is bad science. As an example, let me just superficially source-check the one sentence Jaybear quotes in post # 169:

“Women commonly report feelings of betrayal, loss, mistrust, devastation, and anger as responses to the discovery or disclosure of a partner’s pornography use and/or online sexual activity,” (58) and they are often repulsed by it. (59)

58. Bergner, R.M., & Bridges, A.J., “The Significance of Heavy Pornography Involvement for Romantic Partners: Research and Clinical Implications,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, vol. 28 (2002): 193-206; Schneider, J.P., “Effects of Cybersex Addiction on the Family: Results of a Survey,” Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, vol. 7 (2000): 31-58; Bridges, A.J., Bergner, R.M., & Hesson-McInnis, M., “Romantic Partners’ Use of Pornography: Its Significance for Women,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 29 (2003): 1-14.

59. Schneider, J.P., “Effects of Cybersex Addiction on the Family: Results of a Survey,” Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, vol. 7 (2000): 31-58.

Now, without looking up the sources themselves, it’s seems that the first two references are about “heavy pornography involvement” and “cyber sex addiction”. These references probably do not support the blanket statement that “women commonly report…”. It might support the statement that "women with partners heavily involved in pornography commonly report..." or "women with partners who suffer from cybersex addiction commonly report..." but that's not what the author is saying. He is overstating the problem.

The abstract of the third reference seems to imply that the quoted article is about women with sexual dysfunction, not about what women feel when their partners look at porn::

There are limited hemodynamic data in women with arousal or orgasmic disorders and even fewer normative control hemodynamic data in women without sexual dysfunction. In addition, there is limited experience with topical vasoactive agents (used to maximize genital smooth muscle relaxation) applied to the external genitalia during hemodynamic evaluations. The aim of this study was to report duplex Doppler ultrasound clitoral cavernosal arterial changes before and after topical PGE-1 (Alprostadil) administration in control women and in patients with arousal and orgasmic sexual disorders. We found that women with sexual arousal and orgasmic disorders had significantly (p < 0.05) diminished clitoral peak systolic and end diastolic velocity responses compared to controls. Further research is needed to establish the diagnostic role of topical vasoactive agents in the hemodynamic evaluation of women with sexual dysfunction.

And the fourth reference, well, that’s the same as the second, isn’t it? If you gloss over the 172 footnotes, you’ll find a lot of that going on.

Bad science, people, bad science.

This is exactly the reason why I keep calling for articles from a scientific journal to support the claims made about porn in this thread. Politically driven articles from an internet website do not count as good science.

[keith_brian]

OK, what do you consider shady behavior? Would it be "natural" for a man to sit in his car on a dark street while looking at porn on his laptop/masturbating? Or maybe at work? Or maybe in the restroom at work? Where is the best place to hide this "natural" behavior? Can't do it at home because there's no way you'll be able to hide it from your wife forever. Eventually you'll do something stupid.

Is it appropriate for a man or a couple to engage in sexual behavior in a car parked in the street, at work, or in a restroom WITHOUT porn being present? I think the answer to my question should also answer your question.

Also, why hide it from your wife? Maybe she likes to look at porn more than you do. You never know until you ask