Religion And "pornography Addiction", Reality And Perception Study.

[Kenngo1969]

There are different kinds of shame.  If one person has used another for the former's selfish purposes, the shame experienced by the victim serves no useful purpose, is counterproductive, and the former individual doubtless will be held accountable for his egregious victimization.  And if a person feels shame after having done nothing seriously wrong but has never been victimized in the manner of the person in the first example, that's usually a good indication that the person's psycho- and biochemistry is out of whack and needs attention.  (Been there, done that.)  Physical pain is a good signal that something is wrong in the body and needs attention; for the person sinning, spiritual pain (such as guilt and shame) is a good indication that something is wrong in the spirit and needs attention.  Moroni tells us that there is Godly sorrow unto repentance and sorrowing of the damned because sin is no longer enjoyable or fun (but we don't want to forsake it).  Guilt and shame that work Godly sorrow unto repentance aren't such bad things.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[3DOP]

I was exposed to some immodest material as a youth. I had never been to church in my life, had never heard of pornography addiction, but would have been deeply shamed for anyone to think I was kind of drawn to that kind of thing. It is natural to be ashamed of being unclothed, or to be seen gawking at strangers who are unclothed. It isn't going to help people who view pornography to assure them they are not addicted. Most will continue to be ashamed, and correctly so. Thank God for His grace, in any instance where sin is accompanied by shame. Shame is the healthy response to viewing pornography.

Edited February 15, 2014 by 3DOP

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

It is natural to be ashamed of being unclothed. 

I humbly dispute this. 

[Bernard Gui]

To anyone who doubts that porn/sexual addiction is real I recommend reading the works of Patrick Carnes.  For LDS, I recommend "He Restoreth My Soul" by Donald S Hilton, a neurosurgeon.  He cites ample clinical studies showing the addictive effects of pornography on the brain. 

 

For anyone who is or has been in the clutches of porn and/or sexual addiction, no studies are needed.  At the end of 2012 I was completely demoralized after over 5 years of fighting to overcome my porn addiction.  I was disfellowshipped (for the second time) due to sexual transgression.  Only when I realized "oh man I'm hosed!  I can't stop," did the Savior do for me what I couldn't do myself.  I now have 13 months of abstinence, and I know it WAS NOTHING I DID.  When I am tempted, I ask God to do what I cannot.  And He does...every time.

What you said. God bless.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[3DOP]

I humbly dispute this. 

Jeremy, very humbly, without so much as an argument. You are welcome to elaborate.

 

Allow me to clarify and to concede a little bit of ground. Hopefully not too much to end the discussion. For the record, I was speaking of post pubescent public nudity without some purpose.

 

When there are reasons for full or partial nudity, shame is unnatural. "Skinny dipping" would seem a reasonable activity where shame is usually lost. For heavy physical labor, it would not naturally be shameful to be partially stripped. For a medical exam it would not be shameful. In marriage it is not natural to be ashamed. But to bare the organs associated with our sexuality without some due cause, seems to me to arouse a healthy and natural shame. If anything, understand that I would insist that this phenomenon is because there is a sacredness about the body. It could not mean something about the body is wrong, rather that something about the body needs to be sanctified.

 

But before I continue, I think I should await your own position which may not be so far from my own. If you were to appeal to the story of Adam and Eve before the Fall as what is most perfectly natural, I will be hard-pressed to disagree. To be clear, I was suggesting that it is natural in our present state to be ashamed to be fully naked before strangers, or to be observed gazing at strangers who are fully naked for reasons that elicit a sexual response, as with pornography. I make exceptions where reason requires it. Doctors, babies, babysitters, coroners, and many others deal with naked humans for different good reasons. But without good reason, it is natural to be ashamed to be unclothed in public before strangers.

[Brian 2.0]

It is my imagination or has the church over the last decade hit hard against pornography but doesn't say as much anymore about masterbation?

Growing up it seemed they were always used in the same sentence. But not so much now.

I've always thought the two should be separated. Porn most always consists of the viewer masterbating, but masterbation doesn't need to include porn. In fact a good first step to overcoming a porn addiction is to break the link and masterbate without the use of porn so you don't always feel the need to use porn anytime you want to masterbate.

While I don't see porn becoming the "birth control" and not being talked about in the future. It seems masterbation has already done that.

[Bernard Gui]

I read "Truth Behind the Fantasy of Porn" by Shelly Lubben, a former adult entertainer.  It really unmasks the industry for what it is, and what it does to those who work in it.  In fact, in his book "Broken Things to Mend," Elder Holland quotes Shelly Lubben thus:

 

Not long ago a Protestant periodical gave an account of a woman, now a believing, practicing Christian, who at one time acted in the kind of films a generation ago were found only in back alley movie theaters and are now openly sold in stores and shown on cable TV.  She writes:

[Pornography is] one of the greatest deceptions of all time.  Trust me, I know.  I did it all the time, and I did it for the lust of power and the love of money.  I never liked [men or] sex…  In fact I was more apt to spend time with Jack Daniels than [any other man of my choosing.  Who wouldn’t] hate being touched by strangers who care nothing about [you.  Who wouldn’t] hate being degraded… Some women hate it so much you can hear them vomiting in the bathroom between scenes...  One of my friends went home after a long night of numbing her pain and put a pistol to her head and pulled the trigger.   That was her way out.

 

The truth is there is no fantasy in porn.  It’s all a lie.  A closer look into the scenes of a porn star’s life will show you a movie [that] industry doesn’t want you to see.  The real truth is [if] actresses want to end the shame and trauma of our lives [in that world] we can’t do it alone.  We need you... to fight for our freedom and give us back our honor. 

 

We [need] you to throw out our movies and help [us] piece together the shattered fragments of our lives.  We need you to pray for us... so God will hear and repair our ruined lives (Shelley Lubben,

www.blazingrace.org/thetruth.htm

).

Did you catch her references to money and power?  The industry we’re fighting is not about men or women or love or intimacy — it’s about money, and the power money supposedly brings.  The tragedy here is that the human soul is not a commodity of exchange, not a thing to be consumed and discarded, a thing one can buy for $19.99 plus tax and then, when tired or ashamed of it, throw in the trash bin.

What you said.

 

Jacob 2..."You have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds."

 

And the preamble to the Word of Wisdom...."In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I warn and forewarn you...."

[Bernard Gui]

The LDS Church has gone "all in" on the Pornography Addiction model, and as the article points out, this emphasis itself is perhaps one of the greatest factors in people thinking they have an "addiction"!  In other words, it seems most other "addictions" have some sort of criteria that help in identifying the addiction.  But since that implies there is some level of use that isn't "addiction", is this an unnecessary idea for LDS and "Porn Addiction"?

 

I've shared my observation that the Church's approach to fighting pornography viewing among church members is doomed to failure.  Frankly, I don't know if there any sort of viable solution.  

 

The only solution I can see is if God were to "curse" everyone who looked at porn with green ears.  Other than that, it's only a matter of time before some other approach is figured out.  But what that approach will be, I have no idea.  I will be fascinated to see it, and am totally happy that the problem isn't sitting on my desk to solve for the Church!

 

So I ask again, what does the future hold for the LDS Church and its attitude towards pornography? Will it the institution stay the course on its current approach?  Or will it be like Birth Control and other moral issues that changed over time to adapt to reality?

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you advocating another approach: give up and throw in the towel; a little bit doesn't hurt; don't be adamant, just give recommendations; make it ok under certain conditions or limited use? How do equate birth control with

pornography use?

[Bernard Gui]

I wish we were more careful with the use of the word addiction. It can be a sin without being an addiction. Many sins are non-addictive.

I do not wish to diminish real addictions and real porn addictions do exist. Anyone who has been around helping someone detox from an authentic porn addiction can see the real difference.

The man who watches porn once every few months to masturbate may have a habit but he is unlikely to be an addict. The man who skips work to watch porn and spends hours with it every day desperately chasing a new sexual high through more extreme porn is probably an addict. The former will miss it when he quits and may be tempted to go back. The latter will probably have the shakes for weeks and sink into deep depression and other withdrawal symptoms for who knows how long if he tries to quit.

One serious difference between sexual addiction and substance/behavioral addictions is the presence of triggers. In our society, one cannot function in life without constant exposure to sexual triggers. No addiction is fun or easy to overcome, but pornography pornography recovery is very difficult and a whole lot more than shakes (no pun intended) for several weeks and a bit of depression.

[Bikeemikey]

Society as a whole has not yet felt the full impact of pornographies negative influence.

The first generation to grow up with it as a free easy access ubiquitous entertainment is just now reaching adulthood.

These are two excellent TED talks on the subject:

http://new.ted.com/talks/zimchallenge

http://youtu.be/gRJ_QfP2mhU

Another link: http://www.yourbrainonporn.com

Edited February 15, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

3DOP - I apologize if that little quip came off as a serious point of disputation; I was mostly trying (in my sophomoric way) to be funny. I'm a bit of a prude, personally, though I don't think I draw the same lines as you do about what is "natural" (I see everything as "natural", since I don't think "naturalness" is indicative of morality -- ie, it's "natural" for primates to murder each other, but that doesn't mean it's right).

 

I'm actually something of a Dworkinite when it comes to the topic of this thread, heh. 

[The Nehor]

One serious difference between sexual addiction and substance/behavioral addictions is the presence of triggers. In our society, one cannot function in life without constant exposure to sexual triggers. No addiction is fun or easy to overcome, but pornography pornography recovery is very difficult and a whole lot more than shakes (no pun intended) for several weeks and a bit of depression.

 

I did not mean to diminish the effects of withdrawal. I have seen them and they are not pretty. While not as physically debilitating as substance withdrawal the mental and psychological pain are comparable.

[BCSpace]

After serving for 6 years as an LDS Social Services Addiction Recovery family support

group leader, I can call on my experience as evidence....call it what you wish, addiction or

bad habit, the use of pornography devastates spouses and families. See Jacob 2 for

how God feels about chastity and the abuse of women and the damage done to wives

and children by afflicted husbands and fathers. Pornography is gross

abuse of women, both those used to produce it and the victims of those who use it.

I cannot imagine any LDS person defending it in any way. Mrs. Gui

and I have sat in rooms with many women who have been destroyed by their husbands'

use of pornography.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

 

But is it because intrinsically that's what knowledge of porn use by a spouse does to women, or is it because we intentionally/unintentionally give women the impression that it's the same as the spouse committing adultery/fornication with another person? 

 

I think it's the latter.  Whenever I have talked with spouses about the issue, it's almost an automatic that the woman is thinking the marriage is over and divorce is a valid option and I think that is the absolute wrong way to handle it.

 

I can see why many would connect the dots that way, but the fact of the matter is that for most men, merely being out in the world and seeing women in it, modestly dressed or not, is a form of 'pornography'; probably a version God intended (hopefully no one misunderstands me on that).  'Real' pornography enhances that and allows men an opportunity to keep such things always in the forefront of their minds and then they become addicted, etc.

[why me]

But that begs the question.  How much of that "harm" is a result of the Church's teachings against porn (and the assumptions thus engendered), compared to actual intrinsic harm?  

Pornography was known to be harmful long before the church began to stress its harmful effects. And it is not just the church. Documentaries on the BBC for example have shown it to be addictive and harmful to human relationships.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enRRsl9PTpA

 

So, this is not just a lds position.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23700395

Edited February 15, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Society as a whole has not yet felt the full impact of pornographies negative influence.

 

Maybe this is true. But young teenage sexually active girls may be experiencing the effects of porn in an indirect way. If teenage boys learn sex from the porn industry, they may tend to treat the sex act like a porn act. Back in the day, it was learn as you go. Now, it is a little different.

[thesometimesaint]

Actually, I think that was Justice Potter Stewart.

 

You are right. No excuses I just got it wrong.

[mormonnewb]

But is it because intrinsically that's what knowledge of porn use by a spouse does to women, or is it because we intentionally/unintentionally give women the impression that it's the same as the spouse committing adultery/fornication with another person? 

 

I think it's the latter.  Whenever I have talked with spouses about the issue, it's almost an automatic that the woman is thinking the marriage is over and divorce is a valid option and I think that is the absolute wrong way to handle.

Agreed and I think this is somewhat unique to the Mormon culture. In my experience, other Christian couples don't get divorced solely over "intermittent" pornography usage, unless such usage morphs into adultery or some other form of offensive behavior. And this is true amongst similarly fundamentalist branches of Christians that have the same views about chastity that we do. They treat a transgression in this area the same way that they would treat a transgression with regards to, say, drinking alcohol. It would be a call to repentance, but unless it progressed to a stage of addiction or resulted in domestic violence or some other harm, most spouses would not even CONSIDER divorce. And those that do would almost certainly be counseled against it.

In fact, I Googled "grounds for divorce pornography" and it produced a number of essays from other Christian pastors. In skimming through the first dozen or so, I didn't find a single pastor who considered non-addicted and non-adulterous porn usage as a grounds for divorce. In every case, the porn viewer was called to repentance so they view it as a serious sin as well, They simply haven't elevated it to the point of adultery, abuse or leaving the toilet seat up.

[Alan]

Viewing pornography is addictive to many people. It's as addictive as any drug, perhaps more so. Some may be able to view and not become addicted, just as some can be very heavy drinkers but not alcoholics.

However, viewing porn is usually accompanied by masturbation and therefore becomes very entrenched in the individual.

Only God's grace can truly deliver.

[Kevin Christensen]

The first sex addiction recovery group was formed in 1979 in Tennessee by men who had done 12 step recovery for alcoholism and saw the connection between their sexual behavior and their behavior as alcoholics, hence, Sexaholics Anonymous.  Patrick Carnes began his work by interviewing these men and asking them how they succeeded.  Rather than a therapist with a theory saying, this is what I think you should do, he went in looking to understand how and why what they did works.  He started with over 800 recovered sexaholics back in 1982 for his first book, Don't Call It Love. In his more recent, Out of the Shadows of the Net, he talks about how and why the internet can be so addictive so quickly.

 

Shame is an essential part of the addiction.  However, notice that John Bradley in Healing the Shame that Binds You, describes two kinds of shame. Toxic shame, which means, "I am defective, I am a mistake" and healthy shame, which means, "I am a good person who made a mistake."  Bradshaw is against toxic shame, but in the lastest edition of Healing the Shame that Binds You, he declares that healthy shame should be the foundation of your spiritual life.  It is shame that provides a sense of healthy boundaries.  A shameless person has no boundaries. He has complaints about the ways in which misused religion can contribute to toxic shame, but also is wary of shamelessness. 

 

The current science of addiction uses a disease model.  That is Organ + Damage = Symptoms.  Heal the damage, the symptoms go away.

(See for instance, the recent, excellent DVD, Pleasure Unwoven: The Science of Addiction).

 

The damaged organ in addiction is the brain.  Addiction involves a combination of craving and impaired thinking.  The brain damage is an enlargement of the dopamine receptors and a corresponding shrinking in the frontal lobes associated with weighing costs and benefits.  This damage can be observed in brain scans.  The technology exists to count the molecules of dopamine, for example.  It also turns out that 12 Step Recovery has the effect of healing the brain damage.  Recovery is not about learning how to hang on by your fingertips, but to undergo a process of healing.  The group accountability provides a way to undergo a period of sobriety.  After 90 days, the neural pathways begin to heal.  The careful moral inventory, involving writing down, and analyzing one's actions and dismantling one's grievences has the effect of healing the impaired judgments that served the craving.  So there is a direct relationship between the original damage and the behavior, as well as between the 12 Step activities and the actual healing.

 

http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/z-Scholarly%20Articles/HiltonDL_UnderstandingTheAddictiveNatureOfPornography.html

 

The porn industry makes more money in the US than ABC, CBS, and NBC combined.  And 80% of internet users don't pay for it.  We have a large problem.

 

In a culture where "everyone does it" the consequences of use can be masked by the lack of control groups.  For instance, a researcher trying to study the effects of porn on college males initially couldn't find anyone who wasn't using.  Then it turned out that groups of students who realized that the porn was damaging their lives began forming support groups to help each other stop.  This provides control groups.

 

People who think, "this is just the way I am" have thereby blocked the path to healing.  People who object that sexuality cannot be an addiction because they are not putting foreign drugs into their body are overlooking the importance of the natural drugs produced by the body.  The endorphins, for instance are natural opiates.  Dr. Milton Magness says that crack cocaine addicts have consistently reported that it is harder to break sex/porn addictions than it is to break drug addiction.  The problem is that the addict carries around their own supply, and that a large portion of modern society is involved in enabling and exploiting sex addiction.  In sexual addictions, the behavior is not an end in itself, but a means to access the body's internal drug supply.

 

One of the ways that 12 Step recovery helps reduce shame is in the sharing.  In a church disciplinary council, a person comes in, tells their intimate history, answers extremelypersonal questions, is dismissed from deliberations, asked to come in for the conclusion, and is then dismissed and sent home to contemplate for the next year or more.   In a twelve step group, a person shows up for the first time, and everyone in that group tells their story, and the newcomer has the option of telling their story.  They are encouraged to keep coming back.  This acceptance, sharing, and fellowship is an important factor in healing toxic shame. The difference in present practice is obvious.

 

That is not to say that a church council has no function.  For the partner of a spouse, church action can have the important effect of validating their pain, which is an important part of their healing.  On the other hand, church inaction can leave a sense that no one takes their pain seriously.  That a men's club covers for their own.  I tell the men I work with that their recovery is a separate matter from their discipine, that they should just take discipline in stride, as part of their committment to "do whatever it takes."  I tell them to expect that if no one talks to them at church, it is probably because the men just don't know what to say to them.  Plus I make sure that they aren't left alone.  The church committment to the Addiction Recovery Program is, I think, extremely important and healthy.  I think it is one of the most important changes in the church since 1978 and the removal of the priesthood restriction.

 

One of the books I recommend to people is Your Sexually Addicted Spouse: How Partners Can Cope and Heal.  It describes two models for the way that sex addiction harms the partner.  One theory, imported directly from the A.A. experience is codependence.  The other proposes that the effect of disclosures is trauma.  While many of the symptoms are similar, the underlying cause, and therefore, the paths to healing, are different.  Trauma involves a need for safely, whereas codependence involves a need for control.  I also recommend the book for recovering addicts, as a way to better understand the real effect of their behavior on their partners.

 

A.A. came up with the observation that addicts are as sick as their secrets.  Full disclosure is important to recovery.  Addicts keep secrets for two reasons, the feeling of shame, that they would be rejected if people knew, and also the feeling that if they spill their secrets, they will have to stop.  For that reason, full disclosure is essential.  Dr. Magness makes the use of a polygraph part of the disclosure in his practice.  Sort of like a blood test for drug addicts.  Ultimately, it reduces shame by uncovering the secrets, and provides accountability to help stay sober.

 

Notice that when Laman and Lemuel see an angel, they soon begin to complain that Laban is a mighty man, and what can God do? Not even a first step insight, let alone second step.  On the other hand, Alma's conversion involves a whole range of event, insights, and decisions, that corrolate with 12 Step recovery.  His calling out to God, for instance, is steps 2 and 3.  His life review is step 4, his "searching moral inventory."  His activities after recovery involve his amends and spiritual awakening.  It shows why Alma's conversion involves a real mighty change of heart, true conversion.  It's not just because he saw an angel, and therefore, "knew."  There was a lot more to it and it makes good sense scientifically.  It was Colleen Harrison's book He Did Deliver Me From Bondage that first demonstrated that the Book of Mormon contains the 12 Steps of Addiction Recovery.  It was used as the pilot text for the church Addiction Recovery Program for 9 years.  It remains an excellent and important text.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited February 15, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Bikeemikey]

Maybe this is true. But young teenage sexually active girls may be experiencing the effects of porn in an indirect way. If teenage boys learn sex from the porn industry, they may tend to treat the sex act like a porn act. Back in the day, it was learn as you go. Now, it is a little different.

 

Watch this 10 min video from TEDx very informative.

 

Edited February 15, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Agreed and I think this is somewhat unique to the Mormon culture. In my experience, other Christian couples don't get divorced solely over "intermittent" pornography usage, unless such usage morphs into adultery or some other form of offensive behavior. And this is true amongst similarly fundamentalist branches of Christians that have the same views about chastity that we do. They treat a transgression in this area the same way that they would treat a transgression with regards to, say, drinking alcohol. It would be a call to repentance, but unless it progressed to a stage of addiction or resulted in domestic violence or some other harm, most spouses would not even CONSIDER divorce. And those that do would almost certainly be counseled against it.

In fact, I Googled "grounds for divorce pornography" and it produced a number of essays from other Christian pastors. In skimming through the first dozen or so, I didn't find a single pastor who considered non-addicted and non-adulterous porn usage as a grounds for divorce. In every case, the porn viewer was called to repentance so they view it as a serious sin as well, They simply haven't elevated it to the point of adultery, abuse or leaving the toilet seat up.

 

So im LDS and have never heard that if your spouse watches porn once you should consider divorce... it sounds like your response above is suggestive that the LDS church is doing this. Can you please CFR this.

[Bikeemikey]

The reason to not watch porn is that it impacts your brain and makes you dumb.

 

[teddyaware]

The first sex addiction recovery group was formed in 1979 in Tennessee by men who had done 12 step recovery for alcoholism and saw the connection between their sexual behavior and their behavior as alcoholics, hence, Sexaholics Anonymous.  Patrick Carnes began his work by interviewing these men and asking them how they succeeded.  Rather than a therapist with a theory saying, this is what I think you should do, he went in looking to understand how and why what they did works.  He started with over 800 recovered sexaholics back in 1982 for his first book, Don't Call It Love. In his more recent, Out of the Shadows of the Net, he talks about how and why the internet can be so addictive so quickly.

 

Shame is an essential part of the addiction.  However, notice that John Bradley in Healing the Shame that Binds You, he describes two kinds of shame. Toxic shame, which means, "I am defective, I am a mistake" and healthy shame, which means, "I am a good person who made a mistake."  Bradshaw is against toxic shame, but in the lastest edition of Healing the Shame that Binds You, he declares that healthy shame should be the foundation of your spiritual life.  It is shame that provides a sense of healthy boundaries.  A shameless person has no boundaries. He has complains about the ways in which misused religion can contribute to toxic shame, but also is wary of shamelessness. 

 

The current science of addiction uses a disease model.  That is Organ + Damage = Symptoms.  Heal the damage, the symptoms go away.

(See for instance, the recent, excellent DVD, Pleasure Unwoven: The Science of Addiction).

 

The damaged organ in addiction is the brain.  Addiction involves a combination of craving and impaired thinking.  The brain damage is an enlargement of the dopamine receptors and a corresponding shrinking in the frontal lobes associated with weighing costs and benefits.  This damage can be observed in brain scans.  The technology exists to count the molecules of dopamine, for example.  It also turns out that 12 Step Recovery has the effect of healing the brain damage.  Recovery is not about learning how to hang on by your fingertips, but to undergo a process of healing.  The group accountability provides a way to undergo a period of sobriety.  After 90 days, the neural pathways begin to heal.  The careful moral inventory, involving writing down, and analyzing one's actions and dismantling one's grievences has the effect of healing the impaired judgments that served the craving.  So there is a direct relationship between the original damage and the behavior, as well as between the 12 Step activities and the actual healing.

 

http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/z-Scholarly%20Articles/HiltonDL_UnderstandingTheAddictiveNatureOfPornography.html

 

The porn industry makes more money in the US than ABC, CBS, and NBC combined.  And 80% of internet users don't pay for it.  We have a large problem.

 

In a culture where "everyone does it" the consequences of use can be masked by the lack of control groups.  For instance, a researcher trying to study the effects of porn on college males initially couldn't find anyone who wasn't using.  Then it turned out that groups of students who realized that the porn was damaging their lives began forming support groups to help each other stop.  This provides control groups.

 

People who think, "this is just the way I am" have thereby blocked the path to healing.  People who object that sexuality cannot be an addiction because they are not putting foreign drugs into their body are overlooking the importance of the natural drugs produced by the body.  The endorphins, for instance are natural opiates.  Dr. Milton Magness says that crack cocaine addicts have consistently reported that it is harder to break sex/porn addictions than it is to break drug addiction.  The problem is that the addict carries around their own supply, and that a large portion of modern society is involved in enabling and exploiting sex addiction.  In sexual addictions, the behavior is not an end in itself, but a means to access the bodies internal drug supply.

 

One of the ways that 12 Step recovery helps reduce shame is in the sharing.  In a church disciplinary council, a person comes in, tells their intimate history, answers extremelypersonal questions, is dismissed from deliberations, asked to come in for the conclusion, and is then dismissed and sent home to contemplate for the next year or more.   In a twelve step group, a person shows up for the first time, and everyone in that group tells their story, and the newcomer has the option of telling their story.  They are encouraged to keep coming back.  This acceptance, sharing, and fellowship is an important factor in healing toxic shame. The difference in present practice is obvious.

 

That is not to say that a church council has no function.  For the partner of a spouse, church action can have the important effect of validating their pain, which is an important part of their healing.  On the other hand, church inaction can leave a sense that no one takes their pain seriously.  That a men's club covers for their own.  I tell the men I work with that their recovery is a separate matter from their discipine, that they should just take discipline in stride, as part of their committment to "do whatever it takes."  I tell them to expect that if no one talks to them at church, it is probably because the men just don't know what to say to them.  Plus I make sure that they aren't left alone.  The church committment to the Addiction Recovery Program is, I think, extremely important and healthy.  I think it is one of the most important changes in the church since 1978 and the removal of the priesthood restriction.

 

One of the books I recommend to people is Your Sexually Addicted Spouse: How Partners Can Cope and Heal.  It describes two models for the way that sex addiction harms the partner.  One theory, imported directly from the A.A. experience is codependence.  The other proposes that the effect of disclosures is trauma.  While many of the symptoms are similar, the underlying cause, and therefore, the paths to healing, are different.  Trauma involves a need for safely, whereas codependence involves a need for control.  I also recommend the book for recovering addicts, as a way to better understand the real effect of their behavior on their partners.

 

A.A. came up with the observation that addicts are as sick as their secrets.  Full disclosure is important to recovery.  Addicts keep secrets for two reasons, the feeling of shame, that they would be rejected if people knew, and also the feeling that if they spill their secrets, they will have to stop.  For that reason, full disclosure is essential.  Dr. Magness makes the use of a polygraph part of the disclosure in his practice.  Sort of like a blood test for drug addicts.  Ultimately, it reduces shame by uncovering the secrets, and provides accountability to help stay sober.

 

Notice that when Laman and Lemuel see an angel, they soon begin to complain that Laban is a mighty man, and what can God do? Not even a first step insight, let alone second step.  On the other hand, Alma's conversion involves a whole range of event, insights, and decisions, that corrolate with 12 Step recovery.  His calling out to God, for instance, is steps 2 and 3.  His life review is step 4, his "searching moral inventory."  His activities after recovery involve his amends and spiritual awakening.  It shows why Alma's conversion involves a real mighty change of heart, true conversion.  It's not just because he saw an angel, and therefore, "knew."  There was a lot more to it and it makes good sense scientifically.  It was Colleen Harrison's book He Did Deliver Me From Bondage that first demonstrated that the Book of Mormon contains the 12 Steps of Addiction Recovery.  It was used as the pilot text for the church Addiction Recovery Program for 9 years.  It remains an excellent and important text.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

This is such an excellent post. So much to think about and ponder. The fact that the brain can structurally change and chemically alter in operation, as a consequence of behavior, is deeply fascinating to me. The insights into the reasons why Alma's change of heart was so real and profound, while Laman's and Lemuel's experiences with the angel were ultimately so shallow, are also among some of the best things I've learned while on this board. Thank you, Kevin!

Edited February 15, 2014 by teddyaware

[why me]

Agreed and I think this is somewhat unique to the Mormon culture. In my experience, other Christian couples don't get divorced solely over "intermittent" pornography usage, unless such usage morphs into adultery or some other form of offensive behavior.

Are you sure that this is true? Most women may consider their husbands looking at porn  as adultery. For after all, most men do not just look at porn, they are also usually doing something when looking at porn. I think that many women would not appreciate that. Also, when men look at porn, they are actually a part of an illicit affair by proxy. It may not matter what protestant pastors think about it. It is up to the couple and what they think about it. I highly doubt that many protestant women would put up with a husband who views porn quite a lot.

Edited February 15, 2014 by why me

[Bikeemikey]

Are you sure that this is true? Most women may consider their husbands looking at porn  as adultery. For after all, most men do not just look at porn, they are also usually doing something when looking at porn. I think that many women would not appreciate that. Also, when men look at porn, they are actually a part of an illicit affair by proxy. It may not matter what protestant pastors think about it. It is up to the couple and what they think about it. I highly doubt that many protestant women would put up with a husband who views porn quite a lot.

 

Except the quote you are responding to was talking about intermittent porn use, not watching porn "quite a lot".

 

Are you suggesting it is better for a family to have a spouse insist on divorce because a partner viewed porn a couple of times? Also, are you suggesting this is what the church advocates?