Pornography declared 'public health crisis'; Elder Holland calls it an 'infectious, fatal epidemic'

[Bernard Gui]

44 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

No offense, but if that's what you think addiction is about, then neither do you. I do think disease and evil language can play an effect on both shame/maintaining behaviors  and spousal reactions. But i have yet to meet someone who went to porn after hearing it was bad and they got a little extra kick from knowing it was wrong. I have more to say about the article but I'm about to start another client (ironically whose past divorce was partially brought on by a porn addiction of the ex-partner and current problems are also tied to the sexual/identity problems surrounding that)

 

with luv, 

bd

Indeed. It destroys relationships. I have yet to meet any addict or loved one of an addict that thinks pornography is "fun." It would be prudent to listen to Elder Holland.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

18 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Addiction is always a problem, I was not asking about addiction, it is obvious. 

However,  I wonder if anti-porn words make it more addictive and more attractive? 

 

I guess I misunderstood, I thought you were asking for evidence as to why it should be considered a public health crisis.  I guess we both agree that it should be considered as such?

As to your question regarding "anti-porn words" making it more "addictive" and "attractive", there simply is no evidence for that silly idea.  All evidence suggests that increased public awareness and speaking out about specific addictions or public health concerns, only leads to increased prevention and treatment.  

What you are suggesting is like saying that anti-smoking words makes smoking more addictive and attractive.  We both know that the anti-smoking campaigns are perhaps the biggest public health successes that the US has ever experienced. 

Having said that, "anti-porn words" or other preventative addiction campaigns need to be crafted in a way that is not shaming to the addict.  Deepening an addicts shame will often cause the addict to turn to their addiction, isolate, and numb out even further. 

Guilt is good, shame is bad.  Guilt says "I have done a bad thing", shame says "I am bad", I think it is clear why healthy guilt can lead to recovery and why toxic shame can lead to the chains of hell.  

Edited March 16, 2016 by pogi

[Raingirl]

14 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Atheists don't think pornography is evil. As for the stats, no, I don't have them. However, the available data that we have says, "Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds" 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers/

The study doesn't prove anti-porn campaigns backfire, it is true pornography is harder to access in religious states, but the available data is the available data, it doesn't do any favors to anti-porn campaigns. 

In other words - as in all your threads - you make declarations of "fact", and then when asked to back up your statements, you resort to your usual tactics - dodging the questions, changing the subject/your statements, making things up out of thin air, insulting people, etc.

It is a good thing that your answers are of no importance whatsoever, as they will never be forthcoming. To put it simply - they don't exist.

[pogi]

14 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Atheists don't think pornography is evil. As for the stats, no, I don't have them. However, the available data that we have says, "Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds" 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers/

The study doesn't prove anti-porn campaigns backfire, it is true pornography is harder to access in religious states, but the available data is the available data, it doesn't do any favors to anti-porn campaigns. 

Skeptic, you know as well as I do that correlation does not imply causation.  You simply cannot make such conclusions from this evidence, there are far, far to many variables to consider.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I don't think porn is the real problem that the church sees. I think they see the dreaded M word that comes with porn looking that is their real concern, but they can't say the M word because it's forbidden so they just say porn addiction and porn viewing.

[BlueDreams]

On 3/15/2016 at 2:57 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Pornography is now a health-crisis in Utah, but what is the evidence that it is? Is pornography our biggest threat? Will it destroy humanity as we know it? 

Pornography declared 'public health crisis'; Elder Holland calls it an 'infectious, fatal epidemic'

The evidence is mixed and easily swayed by pre-existing biases. There's also a problem that it's sometimes difficult to do brain studies and such, because there are very few who haven't had at least some active exposure. Here's a video about some of the difficulties with exploring porn addiction and/or porn use.

 

That said I don't think porn is out biggest threat...the article didn't even say that. I don't think it would "destroy humanity"...the article also didn't say that. It said that it wants to help prevent the destruction/break-up of families.

 What I do disagree with is plague and disease language. If you were going to go for health related analogies I would probably go with the obesity epidemic. It's had a drastic increase in prevalence in a very short period of time. Several of its causes and issues are at a point that it's considered normal with communities that celebrate both. It can have major indirect effects. There are some (but not as many as people assume there would be) who may have had similar problems with obesity correlated problems but aren't tied in with behavior choices. And several of the underlying practices that are maintaining the problem are exploiting resources, workers, etc to maintain a system that is benefiting them while drastically short-changing coming generations and distorting information for their benefits.

But I probably wouldn't have said as strong language. Porn is generally bad. Yes. But I have seen enough problems become exacerbated because of shaming messages based on the belief porn is bad. Going with the obesity trend, it's not helpful to question a friend eating a cheese burger or simplify the struggle for them to change their diet. We're not good at separating "porn effects us badly and is evil" from "porn users are bad and becoming evil." So these messages can become internalized, lead to more hiding behaviors, and leading to more explosive and traumatic responses from partners because they believe this and porn addiction are generalized so broadly. Women who view porn are likely to feel doubly shamed because women who enjoy sex in general are given derogatory terms and women who view porn aren't really visible for the most part in church dialogue. So they're not just partaking in evil they're somehow an anomaly (even though they're not). There are more universal experiences with partners of people who have a porn addiction (their label), no matter however well they take it. They worry about being compared, may sense that they're living out a fantasy, and they may struggle with a sense of inadequacy. There's a reduced sense of sexual satisfaction as well. But the sense of trauma, betrayal, marital disillusionment, and grief are not as expectant. Those are more based on the extent of the porn use, how they found out, how their concerns are addressed, pre-existing exposure and problem relationships connected with porn, and pre-existing beliefs about porn use in general. If they saw it as pure evil dirtiness that is a plague that will destroy their family....then yeah, there's a good chance they're not going to take it super well. 

Beyond porn addiction, porn is still a problem (just like too much junk food is still a problem whether or not you're a certain size). It's cementing unhealthy sexual beliefs that are terrible for relational sex. It can play into women's body image issues and sense of inadequacy. It's likely to give false images and expectations for both male and female sexuality (but especially female). It can lead to an object-orientation to sexuality and reiterates messages of sex as a need and expectation. That may not seem like a bad thing, but it means that there may be added pressure on partners for sex or specific acts that they may not want. Porn can also be triangulated into relationships and sexual intimacy. By that I mean problems in the relationship are avoided by one partner by turning to porn. This can exacerbate the problems and make the relationship more fractured.   

 

So though I may disagree with the extreme language....porn is definitely a problem. I would just wish the many ways it can be a problem were more fleshed and an discussed rather than using blanket phrases such as epidemic and evil to explain it.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited March 17, 2016 by BlueDreams

[TheSkepticChristian]

10 hours ago, Raingirl said:

In other words - as in all your threads - you make declarations of "fact", and then when asked to back up your statements, you resort to your usual tactics - dodging the questions, changing the subject/your statements, making things up out of thin air, insulting people, etc.

It is a good thing that your answers are of no importance whatsoever, as they will never be forthcoming. To put it simply - they don't exist.

I didn't say it was a solid fact. However, it is the best theory. If you disagree, please challenge it with a new theory. 

So how do you explain the fact that religious states have higher porn views?

10 hours ago, pogi said:

Skeptic, you know as well as I do that correlation does not imply causation.  You simply cannot make such conclusions from this evidence, there are far, far to many variables to consider.

What variables? So why not present a better theory that challenges the theory I presented? 

Like I said, of course the available data doesn't conclusively prove that anti-porn backfires, but it does seem to be reasonable .

11 hours ago, pogi said:

 

I guess I misunderstood, I thought you were asking for evidence as to why it should be considered a public health crisis.  I guess we both agree that it should be considered as such?

That was another question. I asked what is the evidence that porn is harmful? Of course addiction is harmful, but addiction can apply to anything, including addiction to MDDB. 

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[deli_llama]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

So though I may disagree with the extreme language....porn is definitely a problem. I would just wish the many ways it can be a problem were more fleshed and an discussed rather than using blanket phrases such as epidemic and evil to explain it.

I really like what you said here. I am curious though, it has been my observation that we are somewhat reluctant to have adult conversations about sexuality, and for some reason the topic of porn makes everyone squirm, so I am wondering if you have any insight as to how prompt us to move past the "it fills your mind with smut and garbage" or the "it is a plague upon marriage" or "it is our doom" talking points. It seems to me it is already something uncomfortable to hear or talk about, but if we are going to have a more fleshed out discussion, it means we are going to also have to consider talking about lots of other things that make us just as uncomfortable—more so I am thinking. I could take a highlighter to your last reply and mark all kinds of things we should be talking about.  Women's body image issues, object-orientation, need and expectations, sense of inadequacy, false expectations, so on and so on, right? I wish we would have this topic all nice and aired out. I just don't see it happening, not as long as we have the option of hiding behind concepts like fear, and doom, and judgment. 

So, how?

 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I don't think porn is the real problem that the church sees. I think they see the dreaded M word that comes with porn looking that is their real concern, but they can't say the M word because it's forbidden so they just say porn addiction and porn viewing.

I'm very concerned that you are laboring under a great deal of potentially harmful misinformation. While it is often associated with pornography use, "M" is one of the lesser concerns for those unfortunate victims of porn addiction. If that were all there were to it, the Church - among others - would not be sounding the alarms. I suggest you get permission from a group to attend an addiction recovery meeting and find out how seriously soul-destroying this world-wide scourge is (with all due respect to BlueDreams, for whom I have great respect).

I believe we would be wise to at least give an ear to the warnings our prophets are giving us on this issue.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

From the OP article...

Quote

Pamela Atkinson is a community advocate who chairs UCAP. She wants people attending the conference leave with one thing — hope.

"People leave here with the hope that they can heal their loved ones, heal their marriages and prevent the destruction and break-up of families," Atkinson said.

From my experience with addiction recovery, we cannot "heal" our loved ones. Only they and the Savior can do that.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I don't think porn is the real problem that the church sees. I think they see the dreaded M word that comes with porn looking that is their real concern, but they can't say the M word because it's forbidden so they just say porn addiction and porn viewing.

Why would they be terrified of that word? Forbidden by who?

Edited March 17, 2016 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I didn't say it was a solid fact. However, it is the best theory. If you disagree, please challenge it with a new theory.

The best theory that you thought up while thinking about the issue for less then five minutes. Forgive me if I do not stop the presses.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

So how do you explain the fact that religious states have higher porn views?

You are assuming correlation is causation. Do you also believe that ice cream consumption increases the rate of criminal acts because there are more criminal acts in the summer and people eat more ice cream in the summer?

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

What variables? So why not present a better theory that challenges the theory I presented? 

Like I said, of course the available data doesn't conclusively prove that anti-porn backfires, but it does seem to be reasonable .

If we were the ancient Greeks who based their conclusions on what seemed to make sense you might have a point.

Based on surveys the rate of porn use among religious and non-religious men is almost the same. Religious women have about 50% of the rate of porn consumption as non-religious women.

So how do you factor that into your theory?

Let's look at the facts. This is based on Google searches. This could mean something as simple as religious people are less like to have bookmarked porn on their computers and have to search for it more often or that they are more likely to use searches then links or any number of things. Did you consider these at all when coming up with this brilliant theory that must be masterfully refuted in detail before another can be suggested?

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

That was another question. I asked what is the evidence that porn is harmful? Of course addiction is harmful, but addiction can apply to anything, including addiction to MDDB. 

Yes, addictions are possible. Addiction to MDDB might be possible but it is much less likely. You can argue that there are addictions to doughnuts but would you then say they are as dangerous as heroin?

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, deli_llama said:

I really like what you said here. I am curious though, it has been my observation that we are somewhat reluctant to have adult conversations about sexuality, and for some reason the topic of porn makes everyone squirm, so I am wondering if you have any insight as to how prompt us to move past the "it fills your mind with smut and garbage" or the "it is a plague upon marriage" or "it is our doom" talking points. It seems to me it is already something uncomfortable to hear or talk about, but if we are going to have a more fleshed out discussion, it means we are going to also have to consider talking about lots of other things that make us just as uncomfortable—more so I am thinking. I could take a highlighter to your last reply and mark all kinds of things we should be talking about.  Women's body image issues, object-orientation, need and expectations, sense of inadequacy, false expectations, so on and so on, right? I wish we would have this topic all nice and aired out. I just don't see it happening, not as long as we have the option of hiding behind concepts like fear, and doom, and judgment. 

So, how?

 

 

Porn treats the human body and real people as objects to be used and exploited for sexual gratification. Objectifying a person denies their own identity as a child of God and betrays our duty to treat them as a child of God.

Pornography tends to treat sex more as a show and a performance rather than a mutual, loving exchange between loving spouses. When the sexual appetite is met with pornographic stimulation, the focus is taken away from relationship building. The lessons of tenderness and grace that can be learned in a healthy sexual encounter are swept to the side in favour of manipulating the sexual response itself.

All these mean that the consumption of porn devalues healthy relationship-building and makes it much harder for have a healthy including healthy sexual relationship. 

[Kevin Christensen]

Between the work of Patrick Carnes, Dr. Donald Hilton, and a DVD I own called "Pleasure Unwoven: The Science of Addiction," I'm convinced that the disease model of addition is correct and important for recovery.  The disease model is Organ + Damage = Symptoms.  The damaged organ is the brain, with the enlargement of the dopamine receptors in the midbrain, contributing to increased craving, and the related shrinking of areas of the cerebral cortex, contributing to impeded judgment. 

Shaming does nothing to treat the actual damage, and therefore, has no good effect on the symptoms and associated behaviors.  Why pelt a broken leg or a flu virus with shaming language?  What good does it do?  John Bradshaw distinguishes between toxic shame (the belief that you are defective), and healthy shame (the recognition that you are human, make mistakes, and need boundaries).  The point of confession and disclosure in 12 step groups is to reduce shame, not to inflict it.  Dr. Milton Magness uses polygraphs as part of his practice, the intent being to release the shame that is part of all addictive systems, and promote healing.

12 Step recovery addresses both the cravings the impeded judgment that define addiction.  The group accountability, life changes to make and enforce boundaries stop feeding the craving, and over time, (1.5 to 2.5 years) promotes healing.  The careful self-examination, the stories shared, the progress made, heals the damage to judgment. 

Treating the behavior as simply "the way I am" or "a matter of taste" or "being true to myself" or "not being an uptight, self-righteous blue nose" or whatever, simply plays into addiction.  Addiction resists diagnosis as such because diagnosis becomes a threat to the supply of dopamine and the endorphins, which are the end goal of the addictive behavior.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[sjdawg]

On 3/15/2016 at 11:57 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Pornography is now a health-crisis in Utah, but what is the evidence that it is? Is pornography our biggest threat? Will it destroy humanity as we know it? 

Pornography declared 'public health crisis'; Elder Holland calls it an 'infectious, fatal epidemic'

So if pornography is like an infectious disease, does that mean that spongebob is like infected? 

 

for all the time spent in Utah railing against pornography you would think they would have lower rates of pornography usage that other areas but it doesn't seem to be the case

[ksfisher]

On 3/16/2016 at 11:01 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Atheists don't think pornography is evil. As for the stats, no, I don't have them. However, the available data that we have says, "Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds" 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers/

The study doesn't prove anti-porn campaigns backfire, it is true pornography is harder to access in religious states, but the available data is the available data, it doesn't do any favors to anti-porn campaigns. 

The study that you are citing here has been discredited, as was discussed in an earlier thread.

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You are assuming correlation is causation. Do you also believe that ice cream consumption increases the rate of criminal acts because there are more criminal acts in the summer and people eat more ice cream in the summer?

Of course correlation is not causation, but only when it is convenient.  So  Book of Mormon prayers don't cause conversion and baptism? 

Your example is not a good one, but let me give you another one. Let's say there was a study that ice cream addicts tended to be more violent than non-ice cream addicts.  You have to present another explanation that challenges the obvious.  No one is doing that here, just saying "correlation is not causation" is not enough. 

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Based on surveys the rate of porn use among religious and non-religious men is almost the same. Religious women have about 50% of the rate of porn consumption as non-religious women.

CFR

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The study that you are citing here has been discredited, as was discussed in an earlier thread.

Sure, a biased blog debunked the new scientist, that is news. Data actually shows that religious states are more addicted to porn. Maine, New York, Washington, New Jersey, Connecticut, Mass, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island are not very religious. Sure, less religious states may have more porn views/visits, but they are less addicted. See 

It is the Average Visit duration. 

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mystery Meat]

4 hours ago, sjdawg said:

for all the time spent in Utah railing against pornography you would think they would have lower rates of pornography usage that other areas but it doesn't seem to be the case

CFR.

 

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Sure, a biased blog debunked the new scientist, that is news.

 

 

 

Please explain the bias you see.

[TheSkepticChristian]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Please explain the bias you see.

WOW just look at the porn addiction, just look at the time of the average visit per state. Mississippi is the most religious state in the country, New Hampshire is the less religious state in the country according to Gall up, but Mississippi is also the state with more porn addiction, and New Hampshire is the third state with less addiction. 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/189038/new-hampshire-least-religious-state.aspx

There is now little doubt that anti-porn campaigns make porn visitors addicted

 

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Between the work of Patrick Carnes, Dr. Donald Hilton, and a DVD I own called "Pleasure Unwoven: The Science of Addiction," I'm convinced that the disease model of addition is correct and important for recovery.  The disease model is Organ + Damage = Symptoms.  The damaged organ is the brain, with the enlargement of the dopamine receptors in the midbrain, contributing to increased craving, and the related shrinking of areas of the cerebral cortex, contributing to impeded judgment. 

Shaming does nothing to treat the actual damage, and therefore, has no good effect on the symptoms and associated behaviors.  Why pelt a broken leg or a flu virus with shaming language?  What good does it do?  John Bradshaw distinguishes between toxic shame (the belief that you are defective), and healthy shame (the recognition that you are human, make mistakes, and need boundaries).  The point of confession and disclosure in 12 step groups is to reduce shame, not to inflict it.  Dr. Milton Magness uses polygraphs as part of his practice, the intent being to release the shame that is part of all addictive systems, and promote healing.

12 Step recovery addresses both the cravings the impeded judgment that define addiction.  The group accountability, life changes to make and enforce boundaries stop feeding the craving, and over time, (1.5 to 2.5 years) promotes healing.  The careful self-examination, the stories shared, the progress made, heals the damage to judgment. 

Treating the behavior as simply "the way I am" or "a matter of taste" or "being true to myself" or "not being an uptight, self-righteous blue nose" or whatever, simply plays into addiction.  Addiction resists diagnosis as such because diagnosis becomes a threat to the supply of dopamine and the endorphins, which are the end goal of the addictive behavior.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

In regards to language that could sound like shaming, that might be intended more for prevention, before addiction has occured.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

WOW just look at the porn addiction, just look at the time of the average visit per state. Mississippi is the most religious state in the country, New Hampshire is the less religious state in the country according to Gall up, but Mississippi is also the state with more porn addiction, and New Hampshire is the third state with less addiction. 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/189038/new-hampshire-least-religious-state.aspx

There is now little doubt that anti-porn campaigns make porn visitors addicted

 

 

Why do you insist that duration of viewing somehow indicates addiction more then number of different views? Personal taste? You keep going way beyond the data with your wild inferences and presuppositions.

[Duncan]

it could just be that there is nothing to do in Mississipi

[TheSkepticChristian]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why do you insist that duration of viewing somehow indicates addiction more then number of different views? 

because it is the average. The higher the average per visit suggest more addiction. 

Anti-pornography campaigns simply make porn more attractive, the forbidding is more attractive, people like to misbehave. 

Look up the forbidden fruit theory. Forbidden fruit theory is " a psychology-based one that refers to the frequency, amount used, or the actual use and/or abuse of a substance merely, because it is illegal and/or whilst it has been mandated, or by use of coercion, to not use. "Some psychology research suggests restricting junk food may have the paradoxical effect of making kids like it even more than they already do." https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bad-appetite/200910/forbidden-fruit

The evidence is clear, so I hope our church stops the disease porn campaign, it will only make it worst. 

 

 

 

 

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

because it is the average. The higher the average per visit suggest more addiction. 

Anti-pornography campaigns simply make porn more attractive, the forbidding is more attractive, people like to misbehave. 

Look up the forbidden fruit theory. Forbidden fruit theory is " a psychology-based one that refers to the frequency, amount used, or the actual use and/or abuse of a substance merely, because it is illegal and/or whilst it has been mandated, or by use of coercion, to not use. "Some psychology research suggests restricting junk food may have the paradoxical effect of making kids like it even more than they already do." https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bad-appetite/200910/forbidden-fruit

The evidence is clear, so I hope our church stops the disease porn campaign, it will only make it worst. 

 

 

 

 

Wrong, the average time per visit means nothing unless we also know how many visits. Who is more likely to be an addict? A guy watching an hour every other month or a guy who watches a minute every waking hour of every day? Again, you make crazy assumptions.

The data we have is clear but the conclusions you draw from it are insane and your prescription is insane and you are possibly insane for prescribing it on such shoddy grounds. What personal stake do you have in this that leads you to this lunacy?