"rethinking Mormons And Porn"

[BlueDreams]

If they didn't get that religion has limited impact on porn usage it in a report that said, "religious belief has limited impact on porn usage" the first time I have limited hope in them getting it the second.

 

I don't know, Mormons have been statistically exceptional on a number of behavioral points (I'm going off of random studies I've read over the years, nothing particular). It wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't an exceptional case there as well. 

 

With luv,

BD

[canard78]

It isn't a "hardcore" website. It is apparently very similar to youtube with user uploaded videos that range from soft to hard and it appears to be used as a portal to many sites that are both paid or free. It is also is one of the largest porn sites. So I would think that its sampling is fairly broad.

In addition, we have no idea if the 2009 study was "hardcore" or "softcore". Considering that they were paid websites, I would expect free/paid blocking services to block them.

 

It's only "similar to youtube" insofar as many users can upload content. That actually means the range is going to be even more extreme and unpleasant.

 

From wikipedia

 

(Website name) is a free, ad-supported website, which allows its users to view professional pornography, in addition to amateur pornography. 

 

 

I'm not saying the 2009 study was on hard/soft. The fact that it's based on a very small incidence (0.2 to 0.5% of population) who are willing to use credit cards to pay for content would suggest that filtering software doesn't come into the equation.

Edited April 20, 2014 by canard78

[why me]

Mormons can't have sex before marriage so I definitely believe Utah has a huge porn problem.

If only people who can't have sex outside of marriage were watching porn, it wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry. But we humans do have a sex fixation. I think that we are the only species that can enjoy watching other members of our species having sex, when married or otherwise.

[california boy]

Could someone clarify something for me.  If my memory is correct, the first study showed porn usage across the United States.  Utah was just one of the states that had a very high percentage of porn usage.  It was not a study on Utah specifically.  Am I wrong?  Because some of these posts are sounding like the study targeted Utah specifically as a means to embarrass the church.  A little clarification would help set me straight if I am wrong on what the study actaully covered.  If it was a study on the entire country, it is really hard to make the claim that the study was prejudice against the church specifically.  Thanks.

[frank_jessop]

california boy, the study was done by a Professor of Economics at Harvard. The study reveal that per captia Utah had a one of the highest rates of subscriptions to pornographic material. Among the highest per-captia subscriptions based on zip codes are 3 zip codes with less than 200 people and the zip code for the University of Utah.

Anyone who claims the intent of the Harvard Professor was to defame Utah, is paranoid. I think where people are attempting (perhaps rather poorly) to convey is that OTHERS use the study to defame Utah and its people.

In 2009 Deseretnews published an article on the study, and quotes an email exchange with the Deseretnews writer and the Professor.

Call me biased, but I hardly think some random blogger compiled the quality and quantity of information that the published Harvard Professor did.

[Thinking]

I found this in a link from Daniel Peterson's blog.

 

It exposes another case of bad or dubious statistics being used to defame Utah and Mormonism, in this case on the topic of porn consumption.

 

Turns out that the instance in Utah is very probably not nearly as bad as earlier thought, notwithstanding the ruminations of Joanna Brooks and other bloggers. In fact, these new numbers point to an opposite conclusion from the earlier study: that Utah and other states with large percentages of Mormons have abnormally low rates of porn use.

 

I read the article, and from the data cited, nothing can be inferred except for that particular website, Utah is among the lowest.

 

In rebuttal to the first article, Stringham notes, "seldom reported is the fact that the data in the 2009 study was from an unnamed vendor, whose users may or may not be representative of the US population." In other words, the conclusions from that study cannot be transferred to other demographics. For example, if I conduct a survey, and only talk to people in Arizona, I cannot make any conclusions about anybody except Arizonans. Unfortunately, Stringham then cites the data from just one website and uses it to infer that Utah may not be as bad as the other report suggested. He breaks the very same rule that he hinted at when he said "whose users may or may not be representative of the US population." In other words, we cannot infer that the other websites would have the same patterns.

 

At the end of his article, Stringham admits as much.

In fairness, we cannot be sure that ----------- users are representative of the industry overall.

 

In other words, we now have two articles that tell us nothing more than there are some Utahns who download porn.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Thinking

[Bikeemikey]

I don't know what the deal with porn is... I live in Provo and am your average guy, I don't really have any callings, but my bishop and I have been friends since we were in seventh grade and on a recent fishing trip he told me that our ward had a huge porn problem.... he said the deacon's quorum was ok, but pretty much 90% of the males age 14 and up were looking at porn, and that about half the girls 16 and up looked at porn, and that 6 or 7 couples in the ward admitted to looking at porn whilst having sex and using sex toys, he told me who they were but made me promise not to tell anybody, at least anybody in the ward so you guys don't count. But yea I'd say porn is a huge problem.

Well he should be fired...

Bishops should never divulge specifics (names in particular) they receive via a "confession". Even generalized sharing can lead to people figuring out who did what and where.

That said, that does sound like a big porn problem.

Also, since when is a sex you used with a spouse the same as porn? Or are you not suggesting it is?

[Bikeemikey]

When the original porn story came out I didn't believe it then, either. The one I'm referring to actually posted the top ten zip codes for porn in Utah. I never saw any article about it that wasn't negative, implying Utah has a huge porn problem, so I actually looked up the zip codes.

My memory is a bit hazy about it, but the top zip code for porn was for a small town of 134 people. The next one was for the University of Utah student housing, approx 18,000. If you leave out the U, all the other zip codes had a combined population of about 1000, hardly a huge porn problem. The study was bogus and contrived to make Utah look as bad as possible, but no one appeared to look into it, simply accepting the results as fact.

The published report is linked in the blog that the OP links to. Edited April 20, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

california boy, the study was done by a Professor of Economics at Harvard. The study reveal that per captia Utah had a one of the highest rates of subscriptions to pornographic material. Among the highest per-captia subscriptions based on zip codes are 3 zip codes with less than 200 people and the zip code for the University of Utah.

Anyone who claims the intent of the Harvard Professor was to defame Utah, is paranoid. I think where people are attempting (perhaps rather poorly) to convey is that OTHERS use the study to defame Utah and its people.

In 2009 Deseretnews published an article on the study, and quotes an email exchange with the Deseretnews writer and the Professor.

Call me biased, but I hardly think some random blogger compiled the quality and quantity of information that the published Harvard Professor did.

That seems to be a different report to the one linked to from the OP blog link.

Can you share the link to the report you are referring to.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

I read the article, and from the data cited, nothing can be inferred except for that particular website, Utah is among the lowest.

In rebuttal to the first article, Stringham notes, "seldom reported is the fact that the data in the 2009 study was from an unnamed vendor, whose users may or may not be representative of the US population." In other words, the conclusions from that study cannot be transferred to other demographics. For example, if I conduct a survey, and only talk to people in Arizona, I cannot make any conclusions about anybody except Arizonans. Unfortunately, Stringham then cites the data from just one website and uses it to infer that Utah may not be as bad as the other report suggested. He breaks the very same rule that he hinted at when he said "whose users may or may not be representative of the US population." In other words, we cannot infer that the other websites would have the same patterns.

At the end of his article, Stringham admits as much.

In other words, we now have two articles that tell us nothing more than there are some Utahns who download porn.

Couldn't agree more, well stated.

[Pahoran]

"In fairness, we cannot be sure that Pornhub.com users are representative of the industry overall."

 

Both sides see what they want to see. That's pretty much what I am saying.

And why are there even "sides" about this question?

Because there is a "side" who was all too willing to exploit the 2009 study for polemical purposes.

And that exploitation became a nasty group stereotype not particularly distinguishable from the more nasty racist stereotypes that abound.

And the targets of that stereotype don't like being saddled with it.

And the manufacturers thereof don't want to give it up because it remains polemically useful.

Not true.

Just useful.

That's why there are "sides."

And, as usual, the accusers are not on the side of the angels.

They're on the side of the Accuser.

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

I heard that when you look at porn it changes your brain somehow and that it is addictive as cocaine and heroin.

Someone that I knew who knew the porn business well said to me way back in the 70s that once porn gets into the blood it never leaves. And the guy who told me this knew what he was talking about.

[Bikeemikey]

I heard that when you look at porn it changes your brain somehow and that it is addictive as cocaine and heroin.

There are a few really good TED talks about porns impact on the brain. A good way to get some good info in a 10 mins video.

The younger you are the worse the impacts and more time it takes to reverse them.

[Tacenda]

I don't know what the deal with porn is... I live in Provo and am your average guy, I don't really have any callings, but my bishop and I have been friends since we were in seventh grade and on a recent fishing trip he told me that our ward had a huge porn problem.... he said the deacon's quorum was ok, but pretty much 90% of the males age 14 and up were looking at porn, and that about half the girls 16 and up looked at porn, and that 6 or 7 couples in the ward admitted to looking at porn whilst having sex and using sex toys, he told me who they were but made me promise not to tell anybody, at least anybody in the ward so you guys don't count. But yea I'd say porn is a huge problem.

Are you kidding me? That doesn't sound like a bishop, telling names. I don't want to call you out, but it's hard to believe. He colored your view of those people forever, and broke confidences.

[Tacenda]

Well he should be fired...

Bishops should never divulge specifics (names in particular) they receive via a "confession". Even generalized sharing can lead to people figuring out who did what and where.

That said, that does sound like a big porn problem.

Also, since when is a sex you used with a spouse the same as porn? Or are you not suggesting it is?

Read it again, he said porn used with sex as couples. Which IMO, may help, if it is needed. But not recommending it.

[Bikeemikey]

Read it again, he said porn used with sex as couples. Which IMO, may help, if it is needed. But not recommending it.

Opps, I meant to write sex toy, not sex you...

I was intending to ask if the poster believed use of a sex toy between married couple was comparable to porn.

As for porn use as a couple, that doesn't seem as bad as porn use behind a partners back but still doesn't seem like a good idea.

[Calm]

Are you kidding me? That doesn't sound like a bishop, telling names. I don't want to call you out, but it's hard to believe. He colored your view of those people forever, and broke confidences.

Apparently the mods concluded he was a troll. So chances are there was no bishop. Edited April 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

Apparently the mods concluded he was a troll. So chances are there was no bishop.

Sounds about right.

[sdc999]

So, would it be appropriate for a bishop to stand before a congregation and cite that there is a huge porn/sin problem and quote statistics but no names?    A little public shaming minus the details.

[Bikeemikey]

So, would it be appropriate for a bishop to stand before a congregation and cite that there is a huge porn/sin problem and quote statistics but no names? A little public shaming minus the details.

Context and inspiration dependent, it would still be hard to do it and not expose anyone.

[frank_jessop]

That seems to be a different report to the one linked to from the OP blog link.

Can you share the link to the report you are referring to.

Utah No. 1 in online porn subscriptions, report says by Elaine Jarvik

[why me]

So, would it be appropriate for a bishop to stand before a congregation and cite that there is a huge porn/sin problem and quote statistics but no names?    A little public shaming minus the details.

I would think that when the kids were put to bed, the wife would have a long talk with her husband to flush him out. No bishop could ever make such a claim. The most that he could do would be to make it a general society problem and give warnings about porn.

[frank_jessop]

I would think that when the kids were put to bed, the wife would have a long talk with her husband to flush him out. No bishop could ever make such a claim. The most that he could do would be to make it a general society problem and give warnings about porn.

Do you believe that LDS woman view pornography?

[why me]

Context and inspiration dependent, it would still be hard to do it and not expose anyone.

Wives would be on a witch hunt and tongues would wag about who may be the porn addict. A bishop would be in hot water making such announcement from the pulpit.

This is why the story seems too hyperbolic. With that much porn use in the ward, it would be hard to keep it a secret. Friends talk with one another etc ane the spiritual level of the ward would be very low.

[why me]

Do you believe that LDS woman view pornography?

Yes. But the women's tastes are mild when compared to men's tastes in porn. This is why there is porn geared toward women. Either way, it is more of a male problem since porn is basically catering to the male fantasy. Suspicion always falls on the male.

Edited April 20, 2014 by why me