Jump to content

Mormons Release An Unusual Video With Advice On Pornography


JAHS

Recommended Posts

I thought  this one was well done.  I thought the video gave an interesting definition of pornography:  Images of people " wearing little or no clothing."  That's a little oversimplified but I guess its sufficient for a video directed towards kids.

Link to comment

"People 'wearing little or no clothing'" is NOT an accurate definition of pornography. There are plenty of photographic images and artistic depictions of people wearing little or no clothing that are not pornographic--including (but not limited to) many religiously-themed pieces.

It's misleading to teach children that it is, and causes problems by spreading false information to impressionable young minds. It can instill in them a sense of personal shame over their own bodies, as well as perceiving 'porn' boogeymen in all sorts of places where none actually exist.

I also note that the video opens by naming all sorts of body parts, both obvious, familiar ones, and obscure, internal ones (like one's spleen?!)--but doesn't mention obviously external sex organs. The omission reinforces the idea that a child's genitals are shameful or shouldn't be discussed, even in a seemingly relevant and apporopriate of a venue as a video educating about pornography.

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment

"People 'wearing little or no clothing'" is NOT an accurate definition of pornography. There are plenty of photographic images and artistic depictions of people wearing little or no clothing that are not pornographic--including (but not limited to) many religiously-themed pieces.

It's misleading to teach children that it is, and causes problems by spreading false information to impressionable young minds. It can instill in them a sense of perceiving 'porn' boogeymen where none exist.

 

Then I would certainly hope their parents would help them understand the difference; which is where the responibility lies anyway. The video gives them something to start the conversation with.

Link to comment

It's easy to criticize someone else for allegedly failing to tell the "truth" about something by avoiding the nuances.  It's far harder to demonstrate how one would teach young children effectively about it while accounting for those nuances in ways their young minds can comprehend.  Critics gonna criticize, I guess. :unknw:

Link to comment

It's easy to criticize someone else for allegedly failing to tell the "truth" about something by avoiding the nuances. It's far harder to demonstrate how one would teach young children effectively about it while accounting for those nuances in ways their young minds can comprehend. Critics gonna criticize, I guess. :unknw:

I'm happy to share a curriculum that effectively teaches children in age appropriate ways tailored to the nuances their young minds can comprehend.

It's called "Our Whole Lives," and is used by several different religions, including the UCCU and the UU (to which I converted):

http://www.uua.org/re/owl

I'm not tilting at windmills or just being hyper-crtitical here--I'm attempting to highlight a very real-world concrete problem.

The reason I am criticizing this video is because teachings like it have caused my children (who are being rasied by my LDS ex-wife) to falsely report to my ex-wife that I was exposing them to pornography. My ex-wife, who has constantly used my non-LDS-membership as a wedge issue between my kids and I, was all too eager to report me to Child Protective Services. Their full investigation completely exonerated me after finding out our kids simply saw some guys in swimsuits in (entirely non-sexual) magazine ads at my home. Because they'd been misled by their LDS teachers and my LDS ex-wife by inacurate and incomplete teachings like this--that 'porn is images of people with little or no clothing on'--it caused all sorts of unnecessary confusion, stress, and problems with my children and family.

I was raised in Europe, where non-sexual nudity is commonplace among families on the beach, and non-sexual partial-nudity is commom in advertisements and TV. I can only imagine the confusion this type of video would cause over there!

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment

"People 'wearing little or no clothing'" is NOT an accurate definition of pornography. There are plenty of photographic images and artistic depictions of people wearing little or no clothing that are not pornographic--including (but not limited to) many religiously-themed pieces.

It's misleading to teach children that it is, and causes problems by spreading false information to impressionable young minds. It can instill in them a sense of personal shame over their own bodies, as well as perceiving 'porn' boogeymen in all sorts of places where none actually exist.

I also note that the video opens by naming all sorts of body parts, both obvious, familiar ones, and obscure, internal ones (like one's spleen?!)--but doesn't mention obviously external sex organs. The omission reinforces the idea that a child's genitals are shameful or shouldn't be discussed, even in a seemingly relevant and apporopriate of a venue as a video educating about pornography.

You are right, it is not an accurate description, but I'm not sure the video makers have the stomach to expose children to an accurate explanation of what pornography is--LDS members would complain for sure.  This is such a difficult thing to try to discuss because to discuss it properly will make people very uncomfortable and some will be offended.  I think they are well intentioned in their efforts, though.

Link to comment

I'm happy to share a curriculum that effectively teaches children in age appropriate ways tailored to the nuances their young minds can comprehend.

It's called "Our Whole Lives," and is used by several different religions, including the UCCU and the UU (to which I converted):

http://www.uua.org/re/owl

I'm not tilting at windmills or just being hyper-crtitical here--I'm attempting to highlight a very real-world concrete problem.

The reason I am criticizing this video is because teachings like it have caused my children (who are being rasied by my LDS ex-wife) to falsely report to my ex-wife that I was exposing them to pornography. My ex-wife, who has constantly used my non-LDS-membership as a wedge issue between my kids and I, was all too eager to report me to Child Protective Services. Their full investigation completely exonerated me after finding out our kids simply saw some guys in swimsuits in (entirely non-sexual) magazine ads at my home. Because they'd been misled by their LDS teachers and my LDS ex-wife by inacurate and incomplete teachings like this--that 'porn is images of people with little or no clothing on'--it caused all sorts of unnecessary confusion, stress, and problems with my children and family.

I was raised in Europe, where non-sexual nudity is commonplace among families on the beach, and non-sexual partial-nudity is commom in advertisements and TV. I can only imagine the confusion this type of video would cause over there!

That's too bad you had that kind of experience. Were LDS teachers really discussing pornography with their child students? I don't think that's in the Primary curriculum.

The video is intended for very young children who have not yet developed sexually in a way that they might be arroused by pornographic images. They would not be able to relate to such a discussion yet.   That needs to happen a little later as they reach adolesence. A parent can further discuss the issue with them and explain things like how wearing swimsuits doesn't always represent pornography or about particular customs of their culture.  But like I said it helps get the conversation started and the parents take over.

Link to comment

Perhaps my previous post was too harsh.  Perhaps I stepped over the sometimes-indistinct line between forthrightness and offense. If so, I apologize.  I'm sorry for the difficulties this topic and its apparent handling by your ex-wife have caused you and your family. That said, if, indeed, those in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are responsible for this video missed the mark in their definition and discussion of pornography (so hypothesizing for purposes of this discussion only), perhaps you might consider that the sensitivity occasioned by this topic in the Church of Jesus Christ is not driven by mere prudishness, but, rather, by the fact that while the family is considered of paramount importance in many faiths, the Church of Jesus Christ stands virtually alone in holding to the idea that the family (in premortality, in time, and in eternity) is, in many ways, fundamental to our very existence, both as mortal beings and as ageless, Eternal Beings.

 

My $0.02.  Your mileage likely varies.  Any disagreement between us notwithstanding, I wish you well. :)

Link to comment

"People 'wearing little or no clothing'" is NOT an accurate definition of pornography. There are plenty of photographic images and artistic depictions of people wearing little or no clothing that are not pornographic--including (but not limited to) many religiously-themed pieces.

One person's porn is another person's religious art, especially in religions like Hinduism. Many Hindu temples are covered in porn.

Link to comment

I thought  this one was well done.  I thought the video gave an interesting definition of pornography:  Images of people " wearing little or no clothing."  That's a little oversimplified but I guess its sufficient for a video directed towards kids.

 

Technically the full quote is "bad pictures of people with little or no clothes on." It is definitely oversimplified, but bad pictures at least meant that there can be good pictures of people with little or no clothes on. 

 

Of course, as daniel noted, the cultural context can be extremely confining as to what would fall under "bad pictures" and where many LDS try to keep their kids away from any form of "immodesty," teaching what good pictures may be, could still fall in an area that's way too confined.

 

But in a lot of other ways, I really do like this video. 

Link to comment

I suppose no one sees the irony in complaining about the quality of an LDS video addressing a subject many LDS parents are afraid to address at all... Maybe it's not perfect, but it's at least better than the information vacuum in most homes right now as pertains to this issue.

 

I'd consider it one tool for the toolbox. Tailor the rest of your message to your children based on where their knowledge level is and what the Spirit directs.

Link to comment

Technically the full quote is "bad pictures of people with little or no clothes on." It is definitely oversimplified, but bad pictures at least meant that there can be good pictures of people with little or no clothes on. 

 

Of course, as daniel noted, the cultural context can be extremely confining as to what would fall under "bad pictures" and where many LDS try to keep their kids away from any form of "immodesty," teaching what good pictures may be, could still fall in an area that's way too confined.

 

But in a lot of other ways, I really do like this video. 

  I would agree with this.  I wish they wouldn't have put up the billboard as a place you can see pornography.  I have never seen porn on a billboard.  I think the message though about having feelings for a thing/picture instead of people is a good one.  Oddly what came to my mind was how quickly people 'fall' into certain internet relationships and how dangerous that is for kids.  

Link to comment

  I would agree with this.  I wish they wouldn't have put up the billboard as a place you can see pornography.  I have never seen porn on a billboard.  I think the message though about having feelings for a thing/picture instead of people is a good one.  Oddly what came to my mind was how quickly people 'fall' into certain internet relationships and how dangerous that is for kids.  

 

 "I have never seen porn on a billboard"

 

Not in the US. Perhaps you have never been to Europe. I saw it on billboard ads back in the early 70s while on my mission. 

Link to comment

One person's porn is another person's religious art, especially in religions like Hinduism. Many Hindu temples are covered in porn.

 

I guess this depends, again, on the definition.  I would define pornography as "the display of nudity or sexual acts in a manner intended to illicit sexual arousal."

Link to comment

Technically the full quote is "bad pictures of people with little or no clothes on." It is definitely oversimplified, but bad pictures at least meant that there can be good pictures of people with little or no clothes on.

Of course, as daniel noted, the cultural context can be extremely confining as to what would fall under "bad pictures" and where many LDS try to keep their kids away from any form of "immodesty," teaching what good pictures may be, could still fall in an area that's way too confined.

But in a lot of other ways, I really do like this video.

Oh thanks for the correction. That makes a difference.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

I think it's a great video.  The struggle I have is when and if to show (the OP's video) or talk about such things.  Will the child benefit from the inoculation or will it serve to inflame inappropriate curiosity?  Perhaps at least in the young child case, before such feelings develop strongly, it is a reasonably sure bet to inoculate.

 

?

Link to comment

I found it unusual that the video didn't mention demonic influences when it comes to

pornography.  Kind of like saying you're in a war but not identifying the enemy.  

 

If the video was geared toward Mormon children, does it presume they already know

the source of this evil? And if the video was also meant for non-Mormon children, why

omit the devil?  Is it politically incorrect or embarrassing to mention a belief in such a

person?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

Link to comment

I found it unusual that the video didn't mention demonic influences when it comes to

pornography.  Kind of like saying you're in a war but not identifying the enemy.  

 

If the video was geared toward Mormon children, does it presume they already know

the source of this evil? And if the video was also meant for non-Mormon children, why

omit the devil?  Is it politically incorrect or embarrassing to mention a belief in such a

person?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

No, but it can be unnecessarily shaming. Shame is a huge piece for driving a behavior underground and making what would have made a small problem a whole lot worse. There are plenty of behaviors we teach kids not to do without needed to elicit the devil in said conversation. I don't see why this video should be any different.

Link to comment

Pornography is a very difficult subject to bring up with kids, but mine were exposed by friends long before I thought it would be an issue.  Usually 5th or 6th grade.

 

After a long and frustrating effort to block access, I finally gave up on blocking internet sites and took the approach of discussing what the creative power should be used for, and what it should not be used for.  I also try to treat pornography as any other serious lapse, but not as a forbidden "icky" subject.

 

Goodness knows if it has worked better, but when the responsibility is placed back on my children to be chaste and save procreative power and physical intimacy for marriage, it seems to work better than making sex, and images of sex a forbidden, scary thing.

 

In short, sex is good.  It is one of the greatest powers God has given us.  To create life, and strengthen the bonds of attraction.  You shouldn't treat it as a leisure time activity, or use it at times when it is not condoned.  Kind of like the ability to take life.  A great power that comes with great responsibility.

 

This video does a good job of explaining an appropriate way to handle pornography to an audience of a very young age.  Getting knickers in a twist over what defines pornography is a distraction from the main message which is, if you are in conflict over what you saw get help from a trusted adult or parent.

 

What is or is not appropriate for children to see is not up to society to define, it is up to the parents.  If they disagree then its up to them to have a private discussion and set some mutually agreeable boundaries, not put the kids in the middle of an argument.

Edited by KevinG
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...