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

[salgare]

Sorry, was hoping to get smile out of ya.

Edited March 17, 2016 by salgare

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, salgare said:

 

Please do not quote my other personality without permission from me.

[TheSkepticChristian]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

An addict won't be watching porn everyday and every hour for just one minute. So if my assumption is crazy, then please present a better theory that fits the data. 

and please don't forget about the forbidden fruit theory.   

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

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. 

With the exception of Hawaii, all other "less religious" states spend less time watching porn, and are better than Utah. However, I am glad Utah is the only religious state that is at the bottom of the list. 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

and please don't forget about the forbidden fruit theory.  

It was disproven with the anti-smoking campaigns. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

It was disproven with the anti-smoking campaigns. 

I though correlation was not causation. There is a difference, the Catholic Church and other Christian religions don't see cigarettes as a forbidding fruit, they allow them. 

There are mostly secular anti-smoking campaigns, not religious anti-smoking campaigns.  However, even secular anti-smoking campaigns do very little. There are other reasons that contribute to the decline

1. Smoking has declined in areas where taxes have been raised. 

2. Smoking is expensive, and many people can no longer afford that, especially in a weaker economy. 

3. The evidence is overwhelming that smoking causes cancer and other health problems. 

4. People smell. 

5. Dr. Glantz says, "School education programs, for example, don’t appear to be very effective, most likely because schools are difficult places to change social norms and it is hard to do the programs well given all the other demands in the school day... But educating people about the tobacco industry’s marketing efforts can have a big impact. “We now have empirical evidence that people who don’t like the tobacco industry are about five times as likely to quit, and a third to a fifth as likely to start" 

It is different with pornography, today it is very easy to access pornography. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

An addict won't be watching porn everyday and every hour for just one minute. So if my assumption is crazy, then please present a better theory that fits the data. 

and please don't forget about the forbidden fruit theory.   

I assume you imagine that if you put your ubiquitous chart into every post it will somehow convince everyone by osmosis or something?

An addict might if they are working and feel they need it but then have to get back to what they were doing. Change it to five minutes if that makes you feel better. Or note that this is limited to just one site. What if the non-religious surf multiple sites and only show up at that site for a minute at a time.

The forbidden fruit theory is usually about alcohol and illegal consumption of drugs. It has a mild effect. It even has an effect on other laws. I still remember the thrill when me and some neighborhood kids when trespassing through a barbed wire fence with the rumored rancher with a salt-rock rifle (a local legend amongst the neighborhood kids) waiting to shoot trespassing young hooligans. The thrill was real.

That thrill leads people to forbidden partners, experimenting in fetishes, and the like. It does hit and it does exist.

It does not have as much power as you seem to want to suggest. Few people break real taboos over it. We do have a few murderers who kill for the thrill but they are rare. By your logic murder rates would drop if we legalized it and as a conscientious citizen you should begin advocating.

Porn has also universally become more accessible in the western world and less shaming. By your logic that the taboo nature is the main draw and a huge contributor porn consumption should have dropped across the board with the non-religious and the religious should all be porn fiends. Religious teens should be more sexually active then the non-religious. Mormons should be coffee and tea junkies. Mormons should be flooding stores on the Sabbath buying non-essential items for that naughty naughty thrill. They are not. You just want this to be true because for some reason you want to imagine the Church calling porn a sin is increasing porn consumption so that you can blame it for something.

Let me allow a lawyer to give my reaction to your theory:

 

[cinepro]

24 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

4. People smell. 

 

I've often wished that President Monson would curse those who view pornography with green ears.  At the very least, it would bring hats back into fashion at Church.

Edited March 18, 2016 by cinepro

[ksfisher]

6 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

 

 

You told me you found the study this graphic is taken from as biased.  I asked you how it was biased.  Still waiting for your answer.

[TheSkepticChristian]

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Porn has also universally become more accessible in the western world and less shaming. 

and perhaps that is why less religious states see it for less time? There is more shaming in religious/anti-sex states.  

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

An addict might if they are working and feel they need it but then have to get back to what they were doing.

Yea yea, but what is the evidence for that assumption? Why less religious states spend less time watching porn? and why more religious states spend more time? evidence please. 

It makes sense with the forbidding fruit theory, so I did present evidence to back up my assumption. 

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You told me you found the study this graphic is taken from as biased.  I asked you how it was biased.  Still waiting for your answer.

No, I was talking about the website. The link it is an apologetic website. 

Edited March 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

An addict won't be watching porn everyday and every hour for just one minute. So if my assumption is crazy, then please present a better theory that fits the data. 

and please don't forget about the forbidden fruit theory.   

With the exception of Hawaii, all other "less religious" states spend less time watching porn, and are better than Utah. However, I am glad Utah is the only religious state that is at the bottom of the list. 

 

 

I think all this proves is that Utah Porn users get off...the porn sight faster than those states listed above them

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

and perhaps that is why less religious states see it for less time? There is more shaming in religious/anti-sex states.  

Perhaps....perhaps the Illuminati also planted microchips in their brains to pump them full of hormones. Too bad there is no evidence for either theory.

Here is what you are demanding of me:

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Yea yea, but what is the evidence for that assumption? Why less religious states spend less time watching porn? and why more religious states spend more time? evidence please. 

You are demanding evidence to back up my theory. I don't have a theory. I have presented numerous possible scenarios to explain the data. There is no evidence for any of them including yours. You just think it makes sense.

No wait!!!! You did say you have evidence and here it is:

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

It makes sense with the forbidding fruit theory, so I did present evidence to back up my assumption. 

So your theory makes sense to you and that is evidence.

Okay, I have two theories now.

1. The increased porn use is due to the gravitational pull of the family bible's inadvertently sucking porn into the house. Since non-religious families do not have bibles their gravitational porn attraction is more erratic and they get it for shorter periods of time.

2. From your point of view the Scientific Revolution and the advances in logic that came with it were something that just happened to other people.

Both of these theories make sense to me which in SkepticChristian's bizarro logic constitutes evidence. I demand you refute them with genuine evidence. And remember you cannot trump a theory that makes sense with another possible theory that also explains the data and makes sense as you rejected mine when I did that. Arguing that the data is inconclusive and more information is needed is also prohibited.

I await your response.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

1. The increased porn use is due to the gravitational pull of the family bible's inadvertently sucking porn into the house. Since non-religious families do not have bibles their gravitational porn attraction is more erratic and they get it for shorter periods of time.

This is why my family uses only e-scriptures.

[TheSkepticChristian]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No wait!!!! You did say you have evidence and here it is:.

The evidence is the forbidden fruit theory which explains the data I presented. There is more, read the Paper, it is a new study on Google. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25277691

So now I just presented more evidence. How about you? Where is the evidence that confirms your assumption? 

Edited March 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

The evidence is the forbidden fruit theory which explains the data I presented. There is more, read the Paper, it is a new study on Google. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25277691

So now I just presented more evidence. How about you? Where is the evidence that confirms your assumption? 

That is not evidence. It just makes your theory plausible. Note that even in the abstract that paper acknowledges the possibility of other alternative explanations. You have a shoddy grasp of what evidence is.

[Mystery Meat]

I have found it not uncommon in my observation of the Bloggernacle that porn, as much as history and social issues, has become a large reason for people despising the church and ultimately leaving it. Some men get addicted to porn, can't overcome their addiction and then blame the Church for making their addiction worse (with things like forbidden fruit theory). Ironically, these same people often come full circle, declare there is nothing wrong with porn, and then continue looking at porn so as to not be forced to treat their addiction. I have seen this play out many, many times. Rather than change behavior, they justify themselves out of the Church. Interestingly, many of them use history or social issues as the prime reason they left, so they can disprove the theory of "He only left the Church so he can sin." 

Edited March 18, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[pogi]

16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I though correlation was not causation. There is a difference, the Catholic Church and other Christian religions don't see cigarettes as a forbidding fruit, they allow them. 

There are mostly secular anti-smoking campaigns, not religious anti-smoking campaigns.  However, even secular anti-smoking campaigns do very little. There are other reasons that contribute to the decline

1. Smoking has declined in areas where taxes have been raised. 

2. Smoking is expensive, and many people can no longer afford that, especially in a weaker economy. 

3. The evidence is overwhelming that smoking causes cancer and other health problems. 

4. People smell. 

5. Dr. Glantz says, "School education programs, for example, don’t appear to be very effective, most likely because schools are difficult places to change social norms and it is hard to do the programs well given all the other demands in the school day... But educating people about the tobacco industry’s marketing efforts can have a big impact. “We now have empirical evidence that people who don’t like the tobacco industry are about five times as likely to quit, and a third to a fifth as likely to start" 

It is different with pornography, today it is very easy to access pornography. 

I think you missed my point, I was not trying to prove causation.  My point was this - if the "forbidden fruit" theory is correct, than the anti-smoking campaign would have resulted in increased rates of smoking.  That didn't happen.  If it was correct, we would see increased rates of alcohol, coffee, and cigarette use among Mormons as compared to non-mormons, we would see higher rates of premarital sex as compared to others.  But, in fact, it has been found that weekly church attendance by youths is a major predictor of sexual abstinence, and that the numbers are "well below the national rate" for Mormons as opposed to non-Mormons.  It appears to me that teaching that something is wrong actually helps. 

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is not evidence. It just makes your theory plausible. Note that even in the abstract that paper acknowledges the possibility of other alternative explanations. You have a shoddy grasp of what evidence is.

but I don't agree with that alternative explanation because it is not very easy (21st century) to access ad ult content online, no need for ad ult stores. Just like Netflix killed Hollywood and Blockbuster stores. As for non-traditional sex, I am not sure what they mean by that since I haven't read the entire paper. Even if the religious and nonreligious states have the same porn rates, it is just so sad that religious states are not doing much better. 

I can point to a problem with your assumption, you said, "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 problem is that addiction is rare, and probably doesn't exists, Read article 

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/if-porn-addiction-isnt-real-why-do-very-religious-people-think-theyre-hooked

" That is not evidence. "
I presented a psychology theory, data, and more data (an independent study). What did you present? Just your ideas? 

Edited March 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think you missed my point, I was not trying to prove causation.  My point was this - if the "forbidden fruit" theory is correct, than the anti-smoking campaign would have resulted in increased rates of smoking.  That didn't happen.  If it was correct, we would see increased rates of alcohol, coffee, and cigarette use among Mormons as compared to non-mormons, we would see higher rates of premarital sex as compared to others.  But, in fact, it has been found that weekly church attendance by youths is a major predictor of sexual abstinence, and that the numbers are "well below the national rate" for Mormons as opposed to non-Mormons.  It appears to me that teaching that something is wrong actually helps. 

Smoking is not in our genes, we did not evolve to need smoking. Smoking is seen as normal by most people (for decades), it is now becoming unpopular.

Secular Anti-smoking campaigns are not the law or a religious commandment, so it is easy to see why they don't make the forbidding fruit effect.

You said, " it has been found that weekly church attendance by youths is a major predictor of sexual abstinence"

Of course it helps the very very religious, but it probably makes it worst for those church members who don't have a strong testimony.

You said, " It appears to me that teaching that something is wrong actually helps"

I am not saying anti-porn words increases the number, I am saying that anti-porn words make it more attractive to many, and it affects religious people.

Anti-porn words backfire, it make it more tempting and attractive, especially for those church members who don't have a strong testimony.

you said, "If it was correct, we would see increased rates of alcohol, coffee, and cigarette use among Mormons as compared to non-mormons, we would see higher rates of premarital sex as compared to others"

"Teens: Drug and alcohol problems rising among Utah's youths"

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595074205/Drug-and-alcohol-problems-rising-among-Utahs-youths.html?pg=all

Not only that, there is a pretty interesting argument

"Forbidden Fruit: Why the drinking age should be lowered"  https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/17465

You said, "we would see higher rates of premarital sex as compared to others"

"Utah has a high teenage birthrate but a very low abortion rate so if you add births and abortions to estimate pregnancies you get about average teenage pregnancy rate."

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2002-fair-conference/2002-dealing-with-demographics

 

Edited March 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

The problem is that addiction is rare, and probably doesn't exists

1. Addiction is rare

2. Addiction probably doesn't exist

Does anybody else see the paradox?  Which is it?

Here is a good definition of addiction: http://www.asam.org/quality-practice/definition-of-addiction The anatomical and physiological effects are well documented, so are all of the other characterizations of addiction. What am I missing here, how does it "probably not exist"?

Attend a 12 step meeting for porn, and you will find that most people fit this criteria perfectly.  Non-religious people seek out treatment for porn addiction as well.  I will submit to you that it is not as rare as you would think.  I am not a psychologist, but I am a recovering addict and trust me, I know a thing or 2 about it.  Porn addiction is real and it is prevalent. 

Edited March 18, 2016 by pogi

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

I have found it not uncommon in my observation of the Bloggernacle that porn, as much as history and social issues, has become a large reason for people despising the church and ultimately leaving it. Some men get addicted to porn, can't overcome their addiction and then blame the Church for making their addiction worse (with things like forbidden fruit theory). Ironically, these same people often come full circle, declare there is nothing wrong with porn, and then continue looking at porn so as to not be forced to treat their addiction. I have seen this play out many, many times. Rather than change behavior, they justify themselves out of the Church. Interestingly, many of them use history or social issues as the prime reason they left, so they can disprove the theory of "He only left the Church so he can sin." 

Seen this as well.

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but I don't agree with that alternative explanation because it is not very easy (21st century) to access ad ult content online, no need for ad ult stores. As for non-traditional sex, I am not sure what they mean by that since I haven't read the entire paper. Even if the religious and nonreligious states have the same porn rates, it is just so sad that religious states are not doing much better.

Just like Netflix killed Hollywood and Blockbuster stores.   

I can point to a problem with your assumption, you said, "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 problem is that addiction is rare, and probably doesn't exists, Read article 

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/if-porn-addiction-isnt-real-why-do-very-religious-people-think-theyre-hooked

" That is not evidence. "
I presented a psychology theory, data, and more data (an independent study). What did you present? Just your ideas? 

You have now reached a point where you have abandoned coherency and basic grammar. Due to this I have reached the point of it being too painful to attempt to continue this conversation. To any who wish to continue:

Good luck. You are braver then I.

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

1. Addiction is rare

2. Addiction probably doesn't exist

Does anybody else see the paradox?  Which is it?

Here is a good definition of addiction: http://www.asam.org/quality-practice/definition-of-addiction

Attend a 12 step meeting for porn, and you will find that most people fit this criteria perfectly.  Non-religious people seek out treatment for porn addiction as well.  I will submit to you that it is not as rare as you would think.  I am not a psychologist, but I am a recovering addict and trust me, I know a thing or 2 about it.  Porn addiction is real and it is prevalent. 

I am not saying it is entirely impossible, it is rare if it even exists.

Why should I trust your word? There are  Papers. Do you have other Papers that challenge them?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051115300107

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-013-0257-z

However, it is a topic that I am just learning about, so there is a possibility I could be wrong.

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Smoking is not in our genes, we did not evolve to need smoking. Smoking is seen as normal by most people (for decades), it is now becoming unpopular.

Not sure what you are getting at here.  What is your point?

33 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Of course it helps the very very religious, but it probably makes it worst for those church members who don't have a strong testimony.

That logic goes against your theory.  Your theory is that the less religious a person is, the less likely they are to look at porn.

33 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

"Teens: Drug and alcohol problems rising among Utah's youths"

But are still lower than national average.  Sorry, the evidence suggests that teaching that something is wrong, works. 

33 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Secular Anti-smoking campaigns are not the law or a religious commandment, so it is easy to see why they don't make the forbidding fruit effect.

Mormons have always had lower smoking rates, even back when smoking was cool. It was a religious campaign before it was a secular one.  Both campaigns seemed to work.

 

Edited March 18, 2016 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That logic goes against your theory.  Your theory is that the less religious a person is, the less likely they are to look at porn.

When I say less religious states, I am talking about the states that have a lot of people that don't believe in God or religion. 

That is different from people that do believe in their religion, but are not strongly converted with a strong testimony.  

and I didn't say the non-religious will not look at porn, I said it is less likely for them to have problems because of it, or to watch it for a long time.  

In other words, an Atheist individual is not likely to see it very often.  In other words, a religious person will have more fun watching porn. 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You have now reached a point where you have abandoned coherency and basic grammar. Due to this I have reached the point of it being too painful to attempt to continue this conversation. To any who wish to continue:

Good luck. You are braver then I.

LOL or perhaps you don't have a scientific theory or data to confirm your assumptions? 

Edited March 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

When I say less religious states, I am talking about the states that have a lot of people that don't believe in God or religion. 

That is different from people that do believe in their religion, but are not strongly converted with a strong testimony.  

I am trying to figure out exactly what your theory is.

Are you saying that the forbidden fruit theory only applies to religious people, because non-religious people would never find it alluring to indulge in something they felt was bad or wrong?  

Are you suggesting that it is ok to teach non-religious people the difference between right and wrong because non-religious people have more will-power?  Are you therefore suggesting that it is not ok to teach religious people the difference between right and wrong because religious people (at least those with weak testimonies) will have an adverse effect from the teaching because they have less will-power?

The forbidden fruit is only attractive if God says it is wrong?

Edited March 18, 2016 by pogi