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

[Kevin Christensen]

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!

Thanks Teddy.  I'm the Addiction Recovery Representative in my Stake. I've been involved in recovery for more than 10 years.

 

One of the money quotes in the Donald Hilton article I linked is "Why is it important to understand that compulsive pornography use is an actual addiction? By recognizing this, we will treat it with the respect required to overcome an addiction."

 

One of the biggest problems in sexuality relationships comes from the sense that "this is just the way I am, it's natural.  I'm not nearly as bad off as some extreme example out there.  What's the harm?  Blah blah blah..." 

 

Maybe David Carradine only intermittently went into a closest with a cord around his neck to masturbate.  What's the harm?  Okay, at least, what's the harm if it doesn't accidentally kill you?  Or if no one has gotten pregnant yet, or contracted an STD, or just been caught.  Suppose its only R rated stuff, or the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue or Baywatch, or Game of Thrones or whatever.  Sex addiction is a progressive disease.  If you think it's a good idea to enjoy intermittent porn use until the direct consequences get bad enough to take seriously, you are simply demonstrating the impeded judgment that characterizes the disease. Suppose it takes 20 years for it to escalate to actual adultery, or to experience potency issues, or pass herpes or AIDS or genital warts or syphillis or gonorreah on to your wife?  Is it better to stop now, or wait 19 years?  Will stopping be easier later?

 

And regarding divorce, many years ago on a TV show called Barney Miller, Sgt. Yamada made the comment that "A marriage in trouble is like a horse with a broken leg.  You can shoot it.  But that doesn't fix the broken leg."  Telling the wife that the problem is not that serious does not fix the damage any more than shooting the horse does. 

 

Healing is available.  That is worth taking very seriously indeed.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Duncan]

I am against pornography and such but one question I have. If your brain releases all these chemicals when you see certain x-rated stimulus and your body has certain physiological reactions is their a different set of chemicals released when you are actually how do I say this about to make love with your spouse? You have the same physiological reactions either way but one stimulus is real and in front of you and the other is not but we don't say in the Church that sex is addictive but x-rated is. I was just wondering if x-rated is addictive is sex as addictive? So, two similar stimuli? but the same physiological reactions yet one is bad and other isn't? what's the difference?

[Bikeemikey]

I am against pornography and such but one question I have. If your brain releases all these chemicals when you see certain x-rated stimulus and your body has certain physiological reactions is their a different set of chemicals released when you are actually how do I say this about to make love with your spouse? You have the same physiological reactions either way but one stimulus is real and in front of you and the other is not but we don't say in the Church that sex is addictive but x-rated is. I was just wondering if x-rated is addictive is sex as addictive? So, two similar stimuli? but the same physiological reactions yet one is bad and other isn't? what's the difference?

 

It appears to be the same. The issue is one of frequency. Sex is addictive. Anything that produces dopamine could be highly addictive.

 

Watch the Ted talk I posted a few posts previous.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[BCSpace]

I am against pornography and such but one question I have. If your brain releases all these chemicals when you see certain x-rated stimulus and your body has certain physiological reactions is their a different set of chemicals released when you are actually how do I say this about to make love with your spouse? You have the same physiological reactions either way but one stimulus is real and in front of you and the other is not but we don't say in the Church that sex is addictive but x-rated is. I was just wondering if x-rated is addictive is sex as addictive? So, two similar stimuli? but the same physiological reactions yet one is bad and other isn't? what's the difference?

 

If I had to guess, the chemical reactions are the same until one has become addicted to porn.  So merely reacting to an inappropriate bit of media flashing by is not going to institute a change unless one pursues it.

 

I don't think any physiological reaction in either case is intrinsically bad.  It's the natural man and God created us this way.  The whole point of existence is to harness these reactions in the bounds the Lord has set.  Even without religion, most men are able to ignore or handle the impulse to have sex with every woman they meet and a religious (Christian) man is often even better equipped to be able to divert his attention from this impulse and not become entangled or endure to the end.  But I would agree that once entrapped (in any sexual indiscretion, not just porn), a religious man may have a harder time dealing with it because of shame and taboo.  That doesn't mean religion is wrong to place taboo and shame on these things.

Edited February 15, 2014 by BCSpace

[Kevin Christensen]

I am against pornography and such but one question I have. If your brain releases all these chemicals when you see certain x-rated stimulus and your body has certain physiological reactions is their a different set of chemicals released when you are actually how do I say this about to make love with your spouse? You have the same physiological reactions either way but one stimulus is real and in front of you and the other is not but we don't say in the Church that sex is addictive but x-rated is. I was just wondering if x-rated is addictive is sex as addictive? So, two similar stimuli? but the same physiological reactions yet one is bad and other isn't? what's the difference?

Good question.  There happens to be a good answer and it has to do with courtship, bonding, and body chemistry.  I'm referring to work by Patrick Carnes in Facing the Shadow: Starting Sexual and Relationship Recovery, pages 66-76.

 

Our bodies are designed for normal courtship and bonding.  A sequence of Noticing, Attraction, Flirtation, Demonstration, Romance, Individuation, Intimacy, Touching, Foreplay, Intercourse, Committment and Renewal.  Carnes makes the point that each of the stages involves its own biochemistry, and that the end result ought to be a bonded couple.  He correlates various kinds of compulsions to people essentially getting stuck with trying to re-experience the chemistry at a particular stage.  Fantasy, Voyeurism, Exhibitionism, Seducitve Role, Trading, Intrusive, Paying, Anonymous, Pain Exchange, or Exploitive.

 

In marriage, intimacy should increase the bond.  Addictive sex goes out of bonds and bounds.  Such things can happen in marriage.  The difference between lust and love is in taking versus giving.  I know a man whose wife realized that his sexual treatment of her within the bounds of marriage was causing her to experience the symptoms associated with child abuse.  She had never been abused as a child.  So, she cut off sex.  His initial response was not to self reflect and repent, but to try to find an authority who would overrule her decision so that he would not have to go without.   Her response was "I finally got his attention."

 

One of the things recovery from sex addiction should do for couples is to allow them to finally experience true intimacy in their sexuality.  Where addiction is present in one partner or the other, or both, true intimacy and successful bonding and renewal cannot truely occur.  Addictive sex is aimed at providing the addict with a specific chemical high, and the partner (or media) is a means to that end.  It is self-directed, inwardly focused, and therefore, the opposite of true intimacy.  Normal sexuality should be a mutual giving and bonding.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited February 15, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[mormonnewb]

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.

I don't know if leaving your spouse for porn is considered doctrinal, but it MIGHT be cultural (which can be just as binding for us). Here is one of the many blog posts that indicates such an attitude may be prevalent among the saints.

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/mormoninquiry/2009/03/a-nice-little-chat-about-porn.html

"I agree that there is often a complete failure to understand what is going on. Part of it is because most males are either incapable of putting their feelings into words, or are afraid to. And with many LDS women thinking that porn use is almost automatic grounds for a divorce, that fear is not misplaced."

That being said, you can't trust everything you read on the Internet. In fact, I very sincerely hope that I am wrong and that LDS couples do whatever they can to work through these problems.

[mormonnewb]

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.

Given the prevalence of porn viewing among American men, most Protestant women don't have a choice but to deal with it. It's currently estimated that 77% of American men view porn at least once a month.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2979722/posts

While some of this 77% would constitute those "craven secularists," the vast majority of them are Christians. Therefore, if most Christians divorced over this issue alone, the divorce rate would likely approach 100% when you factor in all of the other causes for marital discontent (eg, money concerns, difference in child-rearing strategies, drugs, alcohol, abuse, in-laws, etc.).

[Kenngo1969]

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

No worries.  I wouldn't expect anyone who's not an inveterate "court watcher" to know such an esoteric, insignificant detail.

[Kenngo1969]

I don't know if leaving your spouse for porn is considered doctrinal, but it MIGHT be cultural (which can be just as binding for us). Here is one of the many blog posts that indicates such an attitude may be prevalent among the saints.

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/mormoninquiry/2009/03/a-nice-little-chat-about-porn.html

"I agree that there is often a complete failure to understand what is going on. Part of it is because most males are either incapable of putting their feelings into words, or are afraid to. And with many LDS women thinking that porn use is almost automatic grounds for a divorce, that fear is not misplaced."

That being said, you can't trust everything you read on the Internet. In fact, I very sincerely hope that I am wrong and that LDS couples do whatever they can to work through these problems. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

Here's one example of how that can be done. http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/07/to-the-tender-wives-what-i-have-learned-from-my-husbands-addiction-to-pornography?lang=eng&query=pornography

[BCSpace]

Maybe this is true. But young teenage sexually active girls may be experiencing the effects of porn in an indirect way.

 

I have a hypothesis. 

 

We seem to know now that pheromones are given off by the sexes and that may affect things like attraction.  I can't help but wonder if, in our highly sexualized society, that because we are being sexually stimulated on a daily basis in the media, in conversation, pornography use, in our ever increasing promiscuity as a society, the pheromones we give off is producing effects like the early sexual maturation in girls.  Perhaps such also fuels the tempo of promiscuity in both sexes.

Edited February 17, 2014 by BCSpace

[Bernard Gui]

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.

 

The women should speak for themselves about that, but my observations are that there is little if any difference between the reaction to and impact of physical adultery and the discovery of serial imaginative adultery. At least with the first you are dealing with an actual human rival, not hundreds of rivals all more attractive than you and involved in acts that you would find repulsive, or so it seems.

 

As far as divorce, in my experience that has been considered an option by LDS women only after love is lost and the user can't or won't stop. Some of the sisters have lived with the problem for decades.

 

I understand your point. Sexual imagery has permeated the fabric of our society. An alcoholic can avoid situations where alcohol may become an issue, but a person struggling with sexual addiction really has no refuge. 

Edited February 17, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Perhaps, the problem is that we are once again treating the symptom instead of looking to the root cause. For example, we decry that a man would retreat into his office and stay up half the night watching porn instead of retiring to his maritslmbed. Yet, what about the man who works late into the evening (or spends that time on this board)? Aren't both men spending time that could be better spent in the company of their wives? Is there any less intimacy between the couple because the one man is writing a legal brief (or constructing a model train set)?

Likewise, we decry that pornography viewers support an industry that does grievious harm to the participants. And this is undoubtedly true. However, boxing viewers support an industry that causes crippling brain damage to its participants. In both cases, the underlying problem seems to be a callous disregard for the well-being of others in pursuit of our own pleasure, whether it is the pleasure of sexual arousal or the pleasure of watching one man punch another man in the head until he is unable to stand.

Interestingly, I can freely admit on this board that I have watched professional boxing on two occasions this year and still keep my temple recommend. I don't have to enter a 12-step program for boxing "addiction." Nor is my wife considering leaving me for my "deviant" behavior. Why? Because my form of sin is within the proper bounds of acceptable Mormon behavior.

And, by the way, my point isn't that we're all sinners, so porn viewers should be free to have at it. Rather, my point is that we stigmatize and demonize the evils of porn while giving wide berth to equally unrighteousness behavior. In doing so, we exacerbate the negative consequences of porn and fail to even recognize the far more common forms of lust, greed and selfishness that threaten our progress towards being true saints.

The difference is the intimacy involved. And that is a huge difference.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

It can be hidden more easily than substance abuse, but the inner turmoil caused by the secrecy is as devastating as substance abuse, maybe more so.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

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.

I am dismayed that you would equate sexual addiction to leaving the toilet seat up. 

[Bernard Gui]

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

Thank you for posting this. Mrs. Gui and I have been leading LDS family support groups (12 Step) for six years. Prior to that

we attended as participants because of a child in severe addiction. It has saved our lives and given us knowledge and experience

we could have gained in no other way. Although it has not been happy, it has been richly rewarding. The LDS 12 Step is essentially Repentance on Steroids....the deep down process of the Atonement that we only skim by on the surface in Church classes.

 

We have been waiting 7 1/2 years for the Church to produce a manual for family support, and Family Services keeps saying it's just around the corner.  I'd say - around the corner and around the block a few times. The ARP manual for addicts is wonderful, but it handicaps the support groups to try to adapt it. We supplement with conference talks and scriptures that are relevant. 

[Bernard Gui]

 

Where addiction is present in one partner or the other, or both, true intimacy and successful bonding and renewal cannot truely occur.  Addictive sex is aimed at providing the addict with a specific chemical high, and the partner (or media) is a means to that end.  It is self-directed, inwardly focused, and therefore, the opposite of true intimacy.  Normal sexuality should be a mutual giving and bonding.

 

The spouse has a deep sense of betrayal....as a spouse, a woman, a partner, a lover, and a covenant maker.

Restoring the trust that was destroyed is the most difficult part of the tragedy.

[Bernard Gui]

Here's one example of how that can be done. http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/07/to-the-tender-wives-what-i-have-learned-from-my-husbands-addiction-to-pornography?lang=eng&query=pornography

This article reflects the experiences of many people in our family support group. However, this sentence is troubling:

 

".....and their marriage is better than ever."

 

Unfortunately, this seems to be the exception, not the rule. We always have hope, but not every ending is happy.

[frank_jessop]

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.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

 

Wouldn't your the religiuos context of your experience tend to support the theory proposed in the first post?  Particularly the last sentence?  Why were the women devasted? Because their religious teachings were such that they should be OR that, as asked by Bcspace, looking at a naked person of the opposite gender is just devasting in and of itself? 

 

If you have addressed the first question I posed - the religious context of your experience, would you kindly direct me to your response.  I believe their is something to the religious aspect of body image and shame. For example, how many "native" peoples were unashamed of their nudeness until religious folk showed up?

[AndyDnom]

FWIW - the only time i used porn was as a believing mormon. Once I stopped believing in mormonism, I no longer felt guilt for my occasional (5-10 minutes per month with wife's  consent and presence ) that i used to feel from LDS bishops that wanted to know.

 

Once the guilt was gone, I realized I no longer needed anything to soothe my guilt. And i stopped needing or using pornography. So, at least for me personally, the LDS religion made me feel like crap and an addict and use porn. Agnosticism has made me porn free.

 

Ditto these same remarks for alcohol and marijuana. I now choose to be sober. a lack of man made LDS guilt has removed any desire for drinking.

[Bernard Gui]

FWIW - the only time i used porn was as a believing mormon. Once I stopped believing in mormonism, I no longer felt guilt for my occasional (5-10 minutes per month with wife's  consent and presence ) that i used to feel from LDS bishops that wanted to know.

 

Once the guilt was gone, I realized I no longer needed anything to soothe my guilt. And i stopped needing or using pornography. So, at least for me personally, the LDS religion made me feel like crap and an addict and use porn. Agnosticism has made me porn free.

 

Ditto these same remarks for alcohol and marijuana. I now choose to be sober. a lack of man made LDS guilt has removed any desire for drinking.

With all due respect, your argument is circular and illogical. No outside entity makes you drink, view porn, or whatever. It's a choice you make. Blaming someone or something for your addiction is a cop-out. Accepting responsibility for your own actions is the only true remedy. Spouse abusers make the same argument....she made me do it. 

Edited February 17, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Wouldn't your the religiuos context of your experience tend to support the theory proposed in the first post?  Particularly the last sentence?  Why were the women devasted? Because their religious teachings were such that they should be OR that, as asked by Bcspace, looking at a naked person of the opposite gender is just devasting in and of itself? 

 

If you have addressed the first question I posed - the religious context of your experience, would you kindly direct me to your response.  I believe their is something to the religious aspect of body image and shame. For example, how many "native" peoples were unashamed of their nudeness until religious folk showed up?

The "natives do it all the time and they seem to be happy" argument is not a productive course to pursue. We must deal with the reality of our own situation. 

 

That said, we all have certain expectations in a relationship, whether we are LDS or not. Those expectations are better defined for us as Mormons than for many, but unless one is into open marriage or free sex, most people expect a high level of fidelity in marriage. The problem is, IMO, we LDS are not well-equipped to deal with deviations from the course that is frequently and plainly laid out in our teachings. When a child or a spouse goes astray, the betrayal is akin to a death and the grieving process is very similar. I have known enough non-LDS victims and attended enough non-LDS meetings to assert that AA, Al Anon, Sex Anon, and other such groups are full of non-Mormons, and their loved ones suffer just as much as LDS victims. 

Edited February 17, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

This article reflects the experiences of many people in our family support group. However, this sentence is troubling:

 

".....and their marriage is better than ever."

 

Unfortunately, this seems to be the exception, not the rule. We always have hope, but not every ending is happy.

That's fair enough.  I'm apt to defer to you since your experience has been more personal, while my only experience in addiction recovery is in a support capacity rather than in a treatment capacity.   It's true that both parties need to be fully committed to their partners' repentance and healing processes, respectively, to know that such processes are going to be anything but easy, and to be fully committed to doing whatever's healthy to save the relationship.  However, I don't think the point of that statement is to gloss over any of these things or to encourage "pie-in-the-sky" thinking: rather, if a husband and wife find themselves at rock bottom of the darkest abyss before the repentance and healing processes have begun, they might not even believe that it's possible to save the relationship, to repent, or to heal.  Thus, I think the point of that remark is to give a couple who has lost almost all hope a reason to hang on, because if nobody who's at that point believes there's still a reason to hang on, then everyone will end their marriages right then and there, rather than finding out if they're the "rule" or the "exception."  While it's only one example (and anecdotal evidence isn't empirical evidence, and one example does not an entire rigorous, valid study make) I know a couple who found themselves in that exact situation, he serves in the leadership of his Elders Quorum, and their bishop is interviewing them for temple recommends next week. 

[Tacenda]

FWIW - the only time i used porn was as a believing mormon. Once I stopped believing in mormonism, I no longer felt guilt for my occasional (5-10 minutes per month with wife's consent and presence ) that i used to feel from LDS bishops that wanted to know.

Once the guilt was gone, I realized I no longer needed anything to soothe my guilt. And i stopped needing or using pornography. So, at least for me personally, the LDS religion made me feel like crap and an addict and use porn. Agnosticism has made me porn free.

Ditto these same remarks for alcohol and marijuana. I now choose to be sober. a lack of man made LDS guilt has removed any desire for drinking.

Makes me wonder why it's a huge problem with LDS. So you say it's a guilt thing? I hadn't heard it was from guilt before.

I wonder if it's ok with church leaders if it's not porn per se, but a guide more or less, but still with pics, to help things get moving between a couple, especially if one of them is a little frigid and taught sex was wrong for so long.

[MorningStar]

Blech.  This reeks of, "If women weren't taught to feel so bad about pornography, this wouldn't be such a huge problem."  Most women are upset by porn by nature.  And then we get to hear crap about it being men's nature to look at porn.  Even if it didn't make us feel bad, it would still be wrong.  Sex is supposed to be a private act.

 

This isn't just looking at naked women.  With the Internet, there are countless pictures and videos that a lot of married people wouldn't have even imagined. 

[Tacenda]

Blech. This reeks of, "If women weren't taught to feel so bad about pornography, this wouldn't be such a huge problem." Most women are upset by porn by nature. And then we get to hear crap about it being men's nature to look at porn. Even if it didn't make us feel bad, it would still be wrong. Sex is supposed to be a private act.

This isn't just looking at naked women. With the Internet, there are countless pictures and videos that a lot of married people wouldn't have even imagined.

I know, it's dehumanizing.