Pornography And Lds: 25 Years From Now...

[subgenius]

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.

"I don't need studies and statistics to tell me that there is a relationship between pornography and real violence against women. My body remembers." -- Woman's testimony, 1983.

Fortunately in the many decades since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Commission_on_Obscenity_and_Pornography and their subsequent opinion that pornography was not a "problem", evidence has shown that it is indeed.

"The 1986 Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography examined five different classes of material: (1) sexually violent material; (2) nonviolent materials depicting degradation, domination, subordination, or humiliation; (3) non-violent and non-degrading materials; (4) nudity; and (5) child pornography. The first two categories demonstrated negative effects on behavior, the third showed mixed results, the fourth was not found harmful but the commissioners agreed it was morally objectionable, and the fifth involved sexual exploitation and was already outlawed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meese_Report

Abstract: http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/9/4/518.abstract

"Male and female students and nonstudents were exposed to videotapes featuring common, nonviolent pornography or innocuous content. Exposure was in hourly sessions in six consecutive weeks. In the seventh week, subjects participated in an ostensibly unrelated study on societal institutions and personal gratifications. Marriage, cohabitational relationships, and related issues were judged on an especially created Value-of-Marriage questionnaire. The findings showed a consistent impact of pornography consumption. Exposure prompted, among other things, greater acceptance of pre- and extramarital sex and greater tolerance of nonexclusive sexual access to intimate partners. It enhanced the belief that male and female promiscuity are natural and that the repression of sexual inclinations poses a health risk. Exposure lowered the evaluation of marriage, making this institution appear less significant and less viable in the future. Exposure also reduced the desire to have children and promoted the acceptance of male dominance and female servitude. With few exceptions, these effects were uniform for male and female respondents as well as for students and nonstudents."

Also, read the studies by Edward Donnerstein, Dr. Dolf Zillman and Dr. Jennings Bryant, Diana Russell, Murray Straus and Larry Baron, etc. ad nausea

Perhaps now, for your next trick, you would like to dispute the fact that feelings of love and happiness cancel out violent feelings???

[Questing Beast]

...

Call for reference, please.

...

I am surprised you ask. http://www.jsu.edu/c...ellen_drugs.pdf Here is a random selection. The central point is that here, talking (as therapy) accomplishes the same kind of chemical changes to the brain as taking drugs.

http://www.rbc.org/q...57954#footnote3 This writer asserts that when you see pornographic images, "you are there." Again, no difference whatsoever between real sex and imagined sex where brain chemistry is concerned.

So the "straw man" question remains: is too much sex addicting? Okay, it is. But is it BAD for the body and brain? And if you think "too much sex" is damaging to the body and brain somehow, please humor me with a CFR.

There is a huge difference between substance abuse that damages the body and brain, and something completely natural like lots of sex. Sex is good, drugs and substances not natural to the body are bad.

From the above second link: "The more orgasms you have with porn, the more sexually and emotionally attached to it you’ll become."

And herein lies the problem of selfishness and dishonesty: It isn't that the porn is addicting; it is that it is a cheap, easy, substitute to the real life effort required to make a lasting, deep relationship work. The so-called porn addict is in actuality a shallow, cowardly, selfish, lazy and dishonest individual. By "giving it all to porn", s/he is denying their spouse not only their "precious bodily fluids", but also their emotional devotion, time, energy and love. They love an image/idol more than real, living passionate flesh!

If pornography is used as a stimulant instead of a fulfillment, then I fail to see how anyone viewing it could be said to be a pornography addict, no matter how many images they look at. It is the orgasmic culmination with pornography that is the failure. Anyone who chooses that over the real live person is a Narcissistic soul.

Money, food or material gain or popularity-seeking are all equally idolatrous vices that push out the spouse and supplant him or her with "the other" object of worship. Why we insist on concentrating so much on sex and the pornography industry over the far more common idols that we openly cram into our homes is a major annoyance to me....

[Bernard Gui]

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?

I reject your premise that one addiction is better or worse than another.

Please show proof that this is a valid assertion.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Incorrect. From the OP:

So my question is this:

What is the future of the Church and pornography? Meaning, do you see a day where the problem has been beat, and it becomes a problem only affecting a tiny percentage of Church members (on par with, say, alcohol abuse)? If you could take a time machine to the year 2036, what would the members then be thinking and doing about the issue?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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.

This argument from ignorance pretty much sums up your approach to the problem.

CFR that the author is pretending to be a scholar. Check his credentials and

prove that he is pretending. CFR that this paper is "bad science." Proof from

someone other than your opinion. CFR, or retract your statement.

Bernard

Edited August 3, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

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

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::

Bad science, people, bad science.

Um......where's the bad science here?

Bernard

[Ariarates]

Um......where's the bad science here?

Um, let me clarify: the science is so bad, that even a superficial random source-check reveals multiple errors.

Anyway, it has been an interesting topic but I feel I have clearly stated my position and have nothing more to contribute.

[Bernard Gui]

Isn't that what I suggested?

No.

I am describing and advocating common sense, and prudence.

You are describing and advocating self-emasculating behavior.

The behavior you advocate is spousal abuse, pure and simple.

An addiction can be hidden only so long before it's effects erupt with full destructive power.

Dishonesty + infidelitiy + deception + deviancy + divorce=abuse

Bernard

Edited August 3, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

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.

"So's your old man!" is a pathetic response. You have a peer reviewed scholarly article from a credentialed and respected PhD. Man up and deal with it.

Or, show a peer reviewed paper that supports your position (no earlier than 2009).

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Are you denying that there is such a phenomenon as sexual/porn addiction?

If so, you are arguing from total ignorance of the subject.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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.

And here we have the blind leading the blind. CFR that this is a politically driven article. It is a paper presented

by a credentialed and respected PhD at a major conference and published on the internet. Another argument from ignorance. Fail.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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

Such an idiotic action could result in undreamed of nightmares for both of you. Even accompanied by a smiley face.....

You want h*** on earth? Try this Jack*** trick.

Bernard

Edited August 3, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Questing Beast]

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?

Arousal is one thing, orgasm is a "whole 'nuther" matter. And if the habitual object of orgasm is NOT the spouse, then you have the problem. I suggest that anyone sincerely wanting to not be a pornography addict ought to go "cold turkey" on sex for as many days as it takes to go nearly bonkers, then get together with the spousal object of affection and achieve orgasm. Repeat as necessary. In time (probably not very long), the natural course of biology will find the activity habit-forming. Problem solved, happily ever-after. But obviously the key to success is sincere desire to be otherwise (than porn addicted), and honest with your spouse, and "on the same page" sexually....

[Pixelmonster]

I think this a boogyman to keep people worried the leadership is doing 'something'.

I have seen fine nude photos, paintings and sculpture done by active LDS members, including Bishops and Stake Presidents.

Pornography is an easy scapegoat. Few can define it or really know what it is in the context of LDS belief. It is a 'busy work' class of sinning, if it even rises that far.

[Bernard Gui]

I am surprised you ask. http://www.jsu.edu/c...ellen_drugs.pdf Here is a random selection. The central point is that here, talking (as therapy) accomplishes the same kind of chemical changes to the brain as taking drugs.

This article has no bearing on this discussion, other than it supports the notion of changes in brain chemistry.

http://www.rbc.org/q...57954#footnote3 This writer asserts that when you see pornographic images, "you are there." Again, no difference whatsoever between real sex and imagined sex where brain chemistry is concerned.

Which, if true as you interpret it, proves the point that pornography addiction is extremely harmful. And now, the rest of the quote in context:

“Studies have found that just by being exposed to graphic sexual material, males . . . and females [become sexually aroused]. The reactions are instinctual. Porn is so powerful as a sexual stimulant that the physiological changes can happen automatically even when the viewer doesn’t like the idea of porn or feels uncomfortable with some of its content. In terms of triggering a sexual response, our eyes see no difference between sex on the screen and sex in real life. So as far as your sexual arousal system goes, when you are watching porn, you are there. . . .

'Oh come on,' you’re probably thinking. 'How can porn be like a drug? I can’t smoke it, drink it, or shoot it up.' But the fact is that porn can have as powerful an effect on your body and brain as cocaine, methamphetamine, alcohol, and other drugs. It actually changes your brain chemistry. Porn stimulates and area of the brain known as the 'hedonic highway,' or median forebrain, which is filled with receptors for the neurotransmitter dopamine. Dopamine is released when you get sexually aroused. It is also released by other pleasurable activities, such as kissing, intercourse, smoking a cigarette, or taking other drugs. Porn causes the dopamine production in your system to spike. This dramatic increase in dopamine produces a drug-like high some researchers believe is most similar to the high caused by crack cocaine.”

So the "straw man" question remains: is too much sex addicting? Okay, it is. But is it BAD for the body and brain? And if you think "too much sex" is damaging to the body and brain somehow, please humor me with a CFR.

Being addicted to pornography is not the same as "too much sex," whatever that means. Yes, porn addiction is bad. From your article:

“As we mentioned earlier, watching porn stimulates the release of powerful chemicals, such as dopamine and testosterone. These chemicals not only relate to sexual arousal and pleasure, but also are released in real life when someone is sexually attracted to and falls in love with someone else. In addition, powerful human bonding hormones, such as oxytocin and vasopressin, are released with orgasm. They contribute to establishing a lasting emotional attachment with whomever, or whatever, you happen to be with or thinking about at the time. The more orgasms you have with porn, the more sexually and emotionally attached to it you’ll become.

“A relationship with porn can act like an affair. It can take time and energy away from an existing intimate relationship. People who use porn often operate with the same kind of secrecy and deception as someone having a sexual affair. When a porn user is confronted by a partner, there is often denial, lying and attempts to cover up the wrongdoing. Without realizing it, maintaining a “love affair” with porn can become more important than staying connected to someone in real life. Also, if you use porn regularly, the mental images and scenarios of porn can keep playing in your mind during sex, making it hard to feel connected and intimate with the real person in your life.

There is a huge difference between substance abuse that damages the body and brain, and something completely natural like lots of sex. Sex is good, drugs and substances not natural to the body are bad.

Not according to the article:

Porn causes the dopamine production in your system to spike. This dramatic increase in dopamine produces a drug-like high some researchers believe is most similar to the high caused by crack cocaine.

From the above second link: "The more orgasms you have with porn, the more sexually and emotionally attached to it you’ll become."

In other words, you become addicted.

And herein lies the problem of selfishness and dishonesty: It isn't that the porn is addicting; it is that it is a cheap, easy, substitute to the real life effort required to make a lasting, deep relationship work. The so-called porn addict is in actuality a shallow, cowardly, selfish, lazy and dishonest individual. By "giving it all to porn", s/he is denying their spouse not only their "precious bodily fluids", but also their emotional devotion, time, energy and love. They love an image/idol more than real, living passionate flesh!

Porn is addicting. According to the article you cited. Stated plain and simple for all to understand. Fail.

If pornography is used as a stimulant instead of a fulfillment, then I fail to see how anyone viewing it could be said to be a pornography addict, no matter how many images they look at. It is the orgasmic culmination with pornography that is the failure. Anyone who chooses that over the real live person is a Narcissistic soul.

No, they are addicts who have no will of their own. Selfishiness, dishonesty, Narcissism are only symptoms. The disease is addiction. But, there is hope for the addict.

Money, food or material gain or popularity-seeking are all equally idolatrous vices that push out the spouse and supplant him or her with "the other" object of worship. Why we insist on concentrating so much on sex and the pornography industry over the far more common idols that we openly cram into our homes is a major annoyance to me....

The answer is right there in your article:

The social and familial consequences of overstimulation and obsession with sexual pleasure are “coming home to roost”. Until recently “conventional wisdom” about pornography held that it was either harmless or beneficial as a means of overcoming “sexual repression.” Today many secular psychologists are acknowledging the escalating effects of rampant pornographic addiction and describing its symptoms and effects.

This ranks among the all time great Epic Fails in MADB history. Way to go!

Bernard

Edited August 3, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Um, let me clarify: the science is so bad, that even a superficial random source-check reveals multiple errors.

Anyway, it has been an interesting topic but I feel I have clearly stated my position and have nothing more to contribute.

Awwww...it was just starting to get productive. Seriously, I hope you inform yourself better on this important subject.

Don't forget you have a standing CFR!

Bernard

Edited August 3, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Arousal is one thing, orgasm is a "whole 'nuther" matter. And if the habitual object of orgasm is NOT the spouse, then you have the problem. I suggest that anyone sincerely wanting to not be a pornography addict ought to go "cold turkey" on sex for as many days as it takes to go nearly bonkers, then get together with the spousal object of affection and achieve orgasm. Repeat as necessary. In time (probably not very long), the natural course of biology will find the activity habit-forming. Problem solved, happily ever-after. But obviously the key to success is sincere desire to be otherwise (than porn addicted), and honest with your spouse, and "on the same page" sexually....

Wowzers, are you uninformed about addiction. These are some very dangerous ideas.

Don't try this at home!

Bernard

Edited August 3, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

I think this a boogyman to keep people worried the leadership is doing 'something'.

I have seen fine nude photos, paintings and sculpture done by active LDS members, including Bishops and Stake Presidents.

Pornography is an easy scapegoat. Few can define it or really know what it is in the context of LDS belief. It is a 'busy work' class of sinning, if it even rises that far.

These ideas are about 30 years behind the times. Get current, please.

Bernard

Edited August 3, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[OUmd]

I reject your premise that one addiction is better or worse than another.

Please show proof that this is a valid assertion.

Bernard

We already had this discussion. Go back to my post and read what I said about "addiction". I said nothing about comparing addictions (again, you are putting words in mouth?). I will explain my comment on "addiction" further, which I do not feel I need to do. There is NO addiction better/worse than another. Being "addicted" to ANYTHING is a problem. If I am "addicted" to M&Ms and it leads to selfish behaviors that cause me to ignore the needs of others this is, in reality, no different than if I am "addicted" to porn.

Yes, addiction is bad.

[Bernard Gui]

We already had this discussion. Go back to my post and read what I said about "addiction". I said nothing about comparing addictions (again, you are putting words in mouth?). I will explain my comment on "addiction" further, which I do not feel I need to do. There is NO addiction better/worse than another. Being "addicted" to ANYTHING is a problem. If I am "addicted" to M&Ms and it leads to selfish behaviors that cause me to ignore the needs of others this is, in reality, no different than if I am "addicted" to porn.

Yes, addiction is bad.

I'm glad we agree that addiction is bad.

Yet you asked me to choose which addiction I would rather my child had, which indicates that I should prefer the least damaging. I will assert that sexual and chemical addictions

are far more damaging than M&M addiction, which is one addiction I have.

Bernard

Edited August 3, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Gentle readers:

If anyone reading this discussion has problems with addiction of any kind, don't be ashamed.

There is powerful help available. Despair can be replaced with confidence and love.

Bernard

[OUmd]

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.

First, I did not bring up the comparison of porn and alcohol/drugs. My post made it clear that this was the comparison that many others have brought up about the process of addiction.

Second, any true "addiction" (even to coffee) can indeed destroy families because the ultimate process that leads to addiction is selfishness. Selfishness is the root of all sin and is what separates us from our Heavenly Father. I believe our greatest purpose in this life is to learn how to overcome selfishness, which the Savior was the greatest example of.

[OUmd]

I'm glad we agree that addiction is bad.

Yet you asked me to choose which addiction I would rather my child had, which indicates that I should prefer the least damaging. I will assert that sexual and chemical addictions

are far more damaging than M&M addiction, which is one addiction I have.

Bernard

No I didn't. I asked which choice (not addiction) destroys families more? The Church is not really preaching "don't become addicted to porn". The Church teaches avoid even LOOKING at porn or it will DESTROY your life. This may or may not be true (I believe it is true), but either way this approach can be viewed as a fear tactic and in my opinion the Church should (and hopefully will) do a better job about teaching about pornography (and sex) if we want to have a better viewpoint about this " problem" in 25 years.

[LeSellers]

in my opinion the Church should (and hopefully will) do a better job about teaching about pornography (and sex) if we want to have a better viewpoint about this " problem" in 25 years.

The Church teaches that pornography is bad. Unless anyone can show it is not bad, i.e., that it is "good", then how can the current teaching be improved?

As to sex, the Church teaches that any sex outside of marriage is bad. Unless anyone can show it is not bad, i.e., that it is "good", then how can the current teaching be improved?

"Fear", in your mind, may not be the best way to teach the evils of a given sin, but that does not mean there are better ones.

Lehi

[OUmd]

The Church teaches that pornography is bad. Unless anyone can show it is not bad, i.e., that it is "good", then how can the current teaching be improved?

As to sex, the Church teaches that any sex outside of marriage is bad. Unless anyone can show it is not bad, i.e., that it is "good", then how can the current teaching be improved?

"Fear", in your mind, may not be the best way to teach the evils of a given sin, but that does not mean there are better ones.

Lehi

So do you feel that in the past 10 years that the problem of pornography within the Church HAS gotten better as opposed to the original posters thoughts? As much as I hear it talked about the past few years it would seem to me that it has gotten worse and certainly not better.

If you do think it has gotten better, then I can see why (or how) you don't think it needs to be improved. If not, why wouldn't you think there could be a better way?