BYU Study on Pornography: "It’s not porn use, but rather the belief in porn addiction and the conflict with religion, which predict porn-related problems."

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

It would be more correct to say that P addiction is not recognized, at this time, as an official diagnosis.  It is not accurate to say that "there is no P addiction in the medical field", because some practitioners do recognize it and treat it as such...so in practice, yes, it does exist.  If your only argument is that there is not yet consensus or official designation, then we can agree.  The lack of classification does not diminish the negative and detrimental consequence it has personally had on me and others.  If it is not "technically" classified as an addiction, what do you technically call it when you want to stop something so bad because it is destroying your life, destroying your marriage, destroying your happiness, destroying your spirituality, shrinking your brain, and causes terrible withdrawals and mood swings; it causes you to lie to your loved ones and take unjustifiable risks in your marriage and work...yet trying to stop it literally causes you to curl up in a ball on the floor, crying for something to change - to make this go away!..and the only way that you know of to make it all go away is to turn to the old familiar numbness?  What is that called exactly?  Am I just so pathetic that I can't stop what I hate?

Nor did we evolve to have explicit sexual materiel constantly at our finger tips on the internet.  

Again, thank you for being willing to share such a very difficult personal situation. This takes great courage. Thank you!

My experience has mostly been in family support groups with wives, parents, and friends of people suffering from substance and P addiction, but we have also met a considerable number of men who affirm your statements.  

From the Family Support Guide I quote this list of ways addiction can damage loved ones. Our personal issues were with substance abuse. We affirm that we have felt every one of these negative effects. We have heard exactly the same thing from people who are dealing with loved ones who have P problems. It has not been easy to dispel these fears. From my experience, it appears to be harder for women who have to deal with their husbands because the feeling of loss and betrayal is at much deeper personal level. 

The old "if it quacks like a duck" fits. Whether there is a medical consensus on P addiction or not, the effects are the same. I really don't care. It's a difference without meaning. If  it "looks like a duck," I call it a duck, not a squirrel.

Quote

Addictions to harmful substances and harmful behaviors (such as viewing pornography) not only hurt our loved ones but also us as well. Below are some of the feelings that many spouses and family members or friends experience who have loved ones ensnared in addiction:

—Fear that our loved ones will never get better. [CHECK]

—Fear of the possibility that our loved ones may die physically as well as spiritually. [CHECK]

—Fear of the harm our loved ones might do to others around them, especially children. [CHECK]

—Physical weariness caused by sleeplessness, stress, and anxiety. [CHECK]

—Confusion about why our loved ones behave so irrationally and why nothing we say or do seems to make any difference. [CHECK]

—Loss of trust and confidence in our loved ones as a result of their lying, deception, and manipulation. [CHECK]

—Shame and hopelessness as we improperly assume responsibility for our loved ones’ choices. [CHECK]

—Anger that we have been betrayed and hurt by our loved ones. [CHECK]

—Loneliness and isolation as we try to keep our loved ones’ addictions a secret to protect others. [CHECK]

—Fear that baptismal and temple covenants may be irreparably broken and eternal family ties severed. [CHECK]

—Pain and hurt associated with a spouse’s physical or virtual infidelity. [CHECK]

—Bitterness over financial challenges as we deal with excessive spending, treatment programs, legal expenses, fines, or destruction of property. [CHECK]

—Fear that our loved ones’ continued addictions somehow reflect our own lack of faith or inability to access God’s help on their behalf. [CHECK]

—Fear of consequences resulting from our loved ones’ potential incarceration or other legal issues. [CHECK]

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Correlation is not causation. We human beings are very complex. Did you read "Hilton and Watts offered little, if any, convincing evidence to support their perspectives"? 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115160/

What are you saying?  What do you mean by "correlation is not causation" in relation to what I said?  It sounds like you are acknowledging an addiction but hesitant to say that P "caused it", but is simply correlated with it?  Is that what you are saying there?

Yes, I did read the opinion in the link.  Did you read ALL of the link, or did you just stop half way down?  The second half is the best part, where Dr. Hilton and Watts rebuttal the rebuttal. 

I am not going to argue with you any more about whether or not it is an addiction.  I have already acknowledged that it is not officially recognized as such.  But that doesn't change my experience with it.  It doesn't change how treating it as an addiction led to healing for me and for many. many others - including our newest poster here, Anonymous Mormon. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is silly, and I'm pretty certain no one on this board gives a rip about this minor squabble, so I'll make one comment and be done with it regardless of what you have to say later.

My position is that it is not a policy. I cannot prove a negative. I asked you for a reference on your claim that youth are not permitted to participate in LDS ARP meetings. Your response, that your regional guy told you youth aren't allowed, is not a reference. I'm pretty certain you understand what is and isn't a reference, right?

So giving me a CFR, asking me to prove that it is a regional policy makes no sense since I never claimed it was (I was merely giving you the benefit of the doubt by believing that your regional guy said it was a policy in your area). I don't demand that you provide a policy that shows it is only for your region. I'm asking you to provide evidence of a church-wide policy as you seem to be claiming by issuing the silly CFR. You're the one making the claim that what your regional LDSFS guy says is policy for the church. I reject that your guy has that authority, and since it is in direct conflict with what my "professional director of LDSFS" in my region told me, and what I see in my group meetings, I think you are incorrectly stating the policy for LDS ARP meetings. I've got no problem if your region does things differently than mine. What bugs me is when you claim your way is THE way when you can't prove it is. Don't misstate policy and then fail to back it up. If you can't back up the CFR, simply remove your claim that youth cannot participate in ARP. Not being able to participate in your area is not the same thing as saying they can't participate in LDS ARP (because that implies they can't participate anywhere). Just be accurate. That's all I'm asking. It's not hard.

Nice job on the smiley faces. If you are making a joke, it can help. You're learning  

This confirms the disingenuousness of your position, which is indeed silly. The Seattle area director confirmed to me that group participants must be 18 years or older. He confirmed this is the Church-wide policy of LDS Family Services. That is an adequate and appropriate response to your CFR. Unless you are accusing him of incompetence or mendacity. I already got your accusation that I am lying. It would be inappropriate to contact him again and ask him to provide written documentation for the policy. His word is sufficient.

Quote

You're the one making the claim that what your regional LDSFS guy says is policy for the church.

Since you refuse to provide evidence that this is just regional policy, one must assume you have nothing other than "I've seen it." I'll stand by my CFR that what our director and I have said is just a regional policy. Let's see your proof. Otherwise, withdraw your accusations. 

 Condescension does not strengthen your argument. Haven't you learned that yet? 

I'm willing to smoke the peace pipe with you because I believe we share concerns about addiction and are involved with those who suffer from it. I will gladly contact your regional director asking about the policy using my real name and my official calling and not mentioning you because I want to know the truth of the matter. Please PM me his name and email address.

If this is your experience, are you questioning the policy or trying to change it?

Quote

Youth can and do participate on occasion. I'm a group leader. I see it. They are assigned by their bishops to come. The poor kids have deer in the headlights looks and just look mortified to be there.

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

What are you saying?  What do you mean by "correlation is not causation" in relation to what I said?  It sounds like you are acknowledging an addiction but hesitant to say that P "caused it", but is simply correlated with it?  Is that what you are saying there?

Yes, I did read the opinion in the link.  Did you read ALL of the link, or did you just stop half way down?  The second half is the best part, where Dr. Hilton and Watts rebuttal the rebuttal. 

I am not going to argue with you any more about whether or not it is an addiction.  I have already acknowledged that it is not officially recognized as such.  But that doesn't change my experience with it.  It doesn't change how treating it as an addiction led to healing for me and for many. many others - including our newest poster here, Anonymous Mormon. 

I wish this could drive a stake in the vampire's heart. (Not saying VGJ is a vampire, but the continuing defense of porn is)

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I have read this thread with interest, as I am a Mormon who had a Pornography 'habit' of using 1 - 3 times every month or two for years, who then decided to call it addiction and attended the ARP program. So I wanted to give an opinion on this topic.

Here is a brief on my story. I am in my mid-30s and like most men my age, when the internet came to our house my parents had no idea and no filters. Although I can actually trace the roots of it much earlier, the Internet is where the access to pornography really took off for me. I continually felt bad about my usage and swore it off or repented of it repeatedly with every bishop I ever had and before my mission. Then once I got back the habit picked back up. I had dropped the habit for 6 months when I got married and I openly discussed it with my leaders during the process of preparing for my marriage and everyone had the same advice of "Great, glad that is over with. Now don't do it again."

But once married it kept happening off and on. Once early on in our marriage I tried working with my Bishop and telling my wife, but it broke my wife's heart and caused so much friction, that I decided to continue working on my own with God when a "relapse" occurred.

At that time I hated the word "addiction" because of the stigma and shame and because I had read all of the literature on addiction and I didn't fit the qualification. I only used pornography once in a while (sometimes I'd go months between using it) and it never impacted any day to day life or had negative consequences. At least that was what I thought.

The truth was though, now that I look back on it, that it did have major impacts. One major problem is that I objectified and lusted after every woman I saw. I couldn't see a woman without making a judgement call in my head of whether or not she was 'hot.' And if she was 'hot' then that is all I thought about when I saw her. Second, is that I was actively using pornography at work and wasting a lot of time for which I was being paid. Third, I was also actively deceiving and lying to my wife about it. And the saddest of all is even though I didn't think it impacted my relationship with my wife at all, it was actually devastating in ways I couldn't see. I felt like I had to have sex or else I would have a 'need' to 'self-medicate' and I had told my wife this when I first came forward about my addiction, so she felt a guilty obligation to have frequent sex. If she wasn't in the mood I would whine and pout like a child and be passive-aggressive until she was in tears and would consent to being intimate. I am ashamed to say that my desire for sex was more important than my wife's feelings and that just because she cried before, after, or during, I was always insistent that my 'needs' be met. So although I wasn't abusive physically or sexually, our sex life became just about my getting my 'needs' met and had no true emotional union.

Fast forward 10 years in our marriage, when I was on a business trip in Vegas and at 1 AM I was bored of just watching pornography in the hotel, so I decided to wander the streets of Vegas hoping that I could find some of the 'action' in real life. Thankfully, I just wandered around too nervous really go make any major mistakes, but it scared me. I realized that after 20 years of watching people act it out on the internet, I was ready to throw away my life in pursuit in real life. I had been planning how to go do it in real life in my head and was wanting to take the action. So I confessed to my wife and my bishop the WHOLE TRUTH. It was the hardest decision I ever made. And the fallout from it was the worst 9 months of my life.

My wife decided that I was an addict for me. I hated the term 'addict' but went to ARP, as well as sexaholics anonymous (even though I felt like I couldn't be a sexaholic because I had only ever had sex with my wife in my entire life). I did this because I was stuck and scared at how close I was to throwing everything away in pursuit of the fantasy. It was the best decision of my life. After attending those meetings, I changed my life, my views, and my definition of addiction. I am now 4 years clean and able to face life head on. 

There are a few key things that made the difference for me: 1) Honesty - the lying was what drove it into hiding and my thinking I could do it by myself. Having a group and a sponsor to whom I had to be honest and accountable on a daily basis (not just a bi-monthly basis like my bishop) was critical.  2) Surrender - this is a concept I learned in the group - that I could surrender the lust and bad feelings to God.  3) Feelings and Emotions Drive Addiction - I had no clue that the reason I was seeking out pornography was to escape my real life. I just thought it was a bad compulsive habit. Going to group, talking with others, and seeing a therapist helped me identify this.

A few thoughts on other topics people have discussed:

Powerlessness - A number of you are not fans of the term powerlessness. If by powerlessness you mean that you must attend a group every week for the rest of your life or you are going to relapse, I agree. However, I go by the step 1 of sexaholics anonymous which says:

1. We admitted that we were powerless over lust—that our lives had become unmanageable.

What I am powerless over is lust! It's not that I am a powerless person or unable to use free will. It's that I have trained and conditioned my brain that if I let lust into my life, that I will quickly spiral out of control. It's like an allergy. If I let myself indulge in lust, then I will very quickly keep indulging until I'm back to where I was with an unmanageable life. This is a truth I know from experience and I expect to be powerless over lust until I die. So I am okay accepting this fact and moving on, just like someone who is diabetic or allergic to bees just knows it and deals with it and moves on. It's okay to be powerless over things. In fact, it is required to let your faith in God grow.

What is Lustful - In an earlier post someone mentioned the old excuse of "Olympic Beach Volleyball isn't bad," but for me it has been and still can be an avenue for lust. If I am watching any woman's sporting event with my wife and watching it out of interest in what is happening in the game, this isn't bad. But if I am alone at my computer wanting to escape and decide to close the door to my office and pull up a beach volleyball video just to ogle the players and I don't know the teams, the score, or where the ball is, then that is straight up lust and for me would be crossing the line. It's not what I see, but how I am reacting to it. And only I know and God knows how I am doing on this.

Shame in the ARP - I don't believe that the ARP or calling it addiction causes shame in the least. In fact, going to a group of people who all shared the same issue I did and seeing that they were quality people made me feel less shame and more self-esteem.

Definition of Addiction - I don't know where the line crosses from frequent compulsive behavior to addiction. And I know that many professionals would say for me it was not an addiction and that I misdiagnosed myself. But for me calling it an addiction and dealing with it as such made all the difference. I spent 20 years calling it other names and pretending it wasn't a big deal and it never went away. So for me, it was positive to call it such and treat it as such, because I am now free of it (in that I am not doing so - I am not free of being powerless over lust)

Youth and Addiction - I disagree with using the term addiction for anyone before their mission, unless they can be clearly clinically diagnosed with it (I have met college students who fit this category). I have met high schoolers in ARP meetings and feel it is inappropriate for them to be there. I actually agree with this study that using the term addiction when discussing pornography habits of our young men and even those in college can cause damage.

12 Step Groups - I think you can definitely overcome addiction without a 12-step group - because that is the point of the gospel. I don't think you should have to attend a 12 step group for life. However, I attend a group every week and have for 4 years, just like I go to church weekly. And I will continue to both go to church and to a 12 step group weekly for the foreseeable future. 

ARP Program - There are lots of little things I'd like to see change the ARP program - just like things I'd like to see change with church on Sundays (starting with 2 hours instead of 3). Neither of them is perfect and both of them could improve. In fact, I prefer the SAL (Sex Addiction Lifeline) program over ARP and attend this one now instead. But I am still grateful the church has a program and for all those who helped me when I was attending.

Thank you for putting up with a long and semi-rambling first post.

Thank you for sharing, for the time and effort.  The details help make it very real and very clear how you have both struggled and survived.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is silly, and I'm pretty certain no one on this board gives a rip about this minor squabble, so I'll make one comment and be done with it regardless of what you have to say later.

My position is that it is not a policy. I cannot prove a negative. I asked you for a reference on your claim that youth are not permitted to participate in LDS ARP meetings. Your response, that your regional guy told you youth aren't allowed, is not a reference. I'm pretty certain you understand what is and isn't a reference, right?

So giving me a CFR, asking me to prove that it is a regional policy makes no sense since I never claimed it was (I was merely giving you the benefit of the doubt by believing that your regional guy said it was a policy in your area). I don't demand that you provide a policy that shows it is only for your region. I'm asking you to provide evidence of a church-wide policy as you seem to be claiming by issuing the silly CFR. You're the one making the claim that what your regional LDSFS guy says is policy for the church. I reject that your guy has that authority, and since it is in direct conflict with what my "professional director of LDSFS" in my region told me, and what I see in my group meetings, I think you are incorrectly stating the policy for LDS ARP meetings. I've got no problem if your region does things differently than mine. What bugs me is when you claim your way is THE way when you can't prove it is. Don't misstate policy and then fail to back it up. If you can't back up the CFR, simply remove your claim that youth cannot participate in ARP. Not being able to participate in your area is not the same thing as saying they can't participate in LDS ARP (because that implies they can't participate anywhere). Just be accurate. That's all I'm asking. It's not hard.

Nice job on the smiley faces. If you are making a joke, it can help. You're learning  

HJW, it is possible that your regional rep is not following Church policy and allowing stuff to happen that shouldn't.  (Thinking of the two deep policy and how it wasn't followed in my old ward under one of the bishops even after it was pointed out to him it was Church policy).

Since BG has made the effort to get clarification from his regional rep, it seems appropriate imo for you to do as well if possible.

If not, will you be satisfied if BG's post and if not, what would satisfy you?

Edited May 4, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

I just called up Provo LDS Family Services and asked them if there was a policy.  She stated there was and only youth who were almost 18 might be given an exception.  I asked if if this was word of mouth instruction in training or if it was documented and she gave me the number of the reps for our area.

I would rather not bother them.  Will this be accepted as confirmation of the policy as Church wide?

I think it is an important point to be made.  If youth are attending meetings they shouldn't, this could cause significant harm.  It might also limit the openness of those attending.  Even if I knew youth had been exposed to porn, I think I would be reluctant on sharing experiences that might give them new ways to access porn in moments of weakness or expose them to stuff they shouldn't be.

Since this is happening in HJ's region, I think it would be very important for him in some fashion to let higher ups know so this can be corrected so youth won't be put in harm's way, even when thinking it will be helpful.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

HJW, it is possible that your regional rep is not following Church policy and allowing stuff to happen that shouldn't.  (Thinking of the two deep policy and how it wasn't followed in my old ward under one of the bishops even after it was pointed out to him it was Church policy).

Since BG has made the effort to get clarification from his regional rep, it seems appropriate imo for you to do as well if possible.

If not, will you be satisfied if BG's post and if not, what would satisfy you?

I don't know if I agree.  I really like both posters here so I've been following their interaction.

I think it's pretty clear that when someone makes a claim that something is a churchwide policy, they should answer a CFR with something in writing stating that policy.

I completely trust Bernard's word that his regional leader told him that's what they do for the group participants in their area, but that's not the claim (unless I missed it, I thought he said churchwide).

Just simply provide a source (not just that someone told me for "our area") for the churchwide policy for age guidelines (if you can find one).

HJW, you lead one of these groups, were you given the church guidelines in any written materials?

You both are great guys...got to say...

ETA:

Reading your post above now that you posted while I was typing mine, Calm.... 

Edited May 4, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

Julie, if you don't live in either the Provo area or the Seattle, could you look up your LDS family services office and give them a call and ask about the policy?  

[MormonVideoGame]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not going to argue with you any more about whether or not it is an addiction.  I have already acknowledged that it is not officially recognized as such.  But that doesn't change my experience with it.  It doesn't change how treating it as an addiction led to healing for me and for many. many others - including our newest poster here, Anonymous Mormon. 

So my honest question is: what makes porn "addiction" different? You can be addicted to the internet, video games, ancient scripture studies credit cards, work. What makes addiction to porn worst?  

It is okay to have religious reasons to believe porn is worst, just please let me know it is that. 

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you read your quotes?  That some couples benefit does not mean it can't be harmful for others.  She goes on to say it may indeed be harmful for some relationships.

She said, "it's not clear". Even if porn itself hurts some relationships, it would only speed up the process. Why? Dr. Christopher Ryan wrote, " for most men in long-term sexually monogamous relationships, a steady decrease in libido has everything to do with biology and hormones and would be the same regardless of the particular woman in their lives. That’s right. The sexually-monogamous husband of the hottest woman on earth will start to lose interest at a certain point. Uma, Selma, it’s not your fault! As for the men’s anger noted in the article, it’s more likely to be the result of our society’s unwillingness to face this biological reality – preferring to tell men there’s something wrong with them. You want an inconvenient truth? Try this one: human beings are clearly evolved for sex lives featuring multiple simultaneous sexual relationships. Men, especially, are designed by evolution to be attracted to sexual novelty and to gradually lose sexual attraction to the same partner in the absence of such novelty. The so-called Coolidge Effect is well demonstrated in social mammals of all sorts, and is old news to anyone knowledgeable about reproductive biology" 

"An Inconvenient Truth: Sexual Monogamy Kills Male Libid0"  Christopher Ryan, Ph.D. in Psychology

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/200805/inconvenient-truth-sexual-monogamy-kills-male-libido

 So does porn really deserve all the blame?  To me it is just secular freedom. 

Edited May 4, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Calm]

Found this:

"There are recovery meetings for individuals who struggle, as well as support meetings for family or friends of those who struggle. Meetings are focused on either general addiction or on pornography and sexual addiction. Meetings are 60 to 90 minutes long, ongoing, and are held year-round. No referral is necessary. Youth 16 to 18 years of age can come with a parent or guardian. Dress is casual and modest"

https://addictionrecovery.lds.org/help?lang=eng

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

HJW, it is possible that your regional rep is not following Church policy and allowing stuff to happen that shouldn't.  (Thinking of the two deep policy and how it wasn't followed in my old ward under one of the bishops even after it was pointed out to him it was Church policy).

Since BG has made the effort to get clarification from his regional rep, it seems appropriate imo for you to do as well if possible.

If not, will you be satisfied if BG's post and if not, what would satisfy you?

A reference. I'd like to see the policy. If there is a policy for LDS ARP program it will be in writing. It's not in the ARP Administration guide, which I've reviewed and referenced previously. If the policy is hiding somewhere else I would happily accept it. But I need to see it, and not rely on the word of an internet poster. While I don't doubt that his region has that policy, it is not reasonable to expect me to believe it applies to my region as well when he can't provide any evidence that it does.

Bernard says there is a policy. I say there isn't. We can both appeal to our personal experience and private conversations. That accomplishes nothing, which is why CFR's must be answered with a reference that can be reviewed. Am I wrong about that? It seems pretty basic to me.

If a policy is provided and I see that I am wrong I will contact my LDSFS Regional Rep to let him know. I had this conversation with him when I first started the calling but I see no reason to bother him again with a question about a non-existent policy.

I think the board CFR policy is a good one and I hope it is enforced.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Julie, if you don't live in either the Provo area or the Seattle, could you look up your LDS family services office and give them a call and ask about the policy?  

I don't understand what you are doing, Calm.

If there is a policy Bernard can have his guy provide the written policy for us to review. Why hand out assignments for others to prove Bernard's point?

[Calm]

There is a policy...I posted it above.  BG is right and you appear to be as well if your region is insisting an adult comes along and they are 16 or older.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't understand what you are doing, Calm.

If there is a policy Bernard can have his guy provide the written policy for us to review. Why hand out assignments for others to prove Bernard's point?

Because sometimes manuals are not made accessible to everyone and some people therefore do not like to quote any of the manual in order to abide by confidentiality requirements.

It took two minutes to do it, though I should have googled search first. 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Calm

[MormonVideoGame]

On 5/1/2017 at 2:26 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

In my mind p0rn is more problematic because of the way it objectifies people.

Read  "Objectification Is a Basic Aspect of Male Sexuality" https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201607/objectification-is-basic-aspect-male-sexuality

and read "An Inconvenient Truth: Sexual Monogamy Kills Male Libido" https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/200805/inconvenient-truth-sexual-monogamy-kills-male-libido

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I just called up Provo LDS Family Services and asked them if there was a policy.  She stated there was and only youth who were almost 18 might be given an exception.  I asked if if this was word of mouth instruction in training or if it was documented and she gave me the number of the reps for our area.

I would rather not bother them.  Will this be accepted as confirmation of the policy as Church wide?

I think it is an important point to be made.  If youth are attending meetings they shouldn't, this could cause significant harm.  It might also limit the openness of those attending.  Even if I knew youth had been exposed to porn, I think I would be reluctant on sharing experiences that might give them new ways to access porn in moments of weakness or expose them to stuff they shouldn't be.

Since this is happening in HJ's region, I think it would be very important for him in some fashion to let higher ups know so this can be corrected so youth won't be put in harm's way, even when thinking it will be helpful.

IF there is a policy I'd be happy to let them know...as I've stated numerous times.

I don't know why it is unreasonable to expect to see this policy before doing such. I'm just not buying this and the way heels are being dug in on this is really frustrating me.

There's a CFR. It should be answered. Problem solved.

 

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Found this:

"There are recovery meetings for individuals who struggle, as well as support meetings for family or friends of those who struggle. Meetings are focused on either general addiction or on pornography and sexual addiction. Meetings are 60 to 90 minutes long, ongoing, and are held year-round. No referral is necessary. Youth 16 to 18 years of age can come with a parent or guardian. Dress is casual and modest"

https://addictionrecovery.lds.org/help?lang=eng

Oh good!

So youth under 18 are actually allowed to attend (if they have a parent or leader with them.)

Is that how it works in your area HJW?

(Maybe Bernard's leader is more of a hardliner type who restricts the attendance for anyone under 18? He might want to let him know that they can attend, since he is communicating with him about this right now...)

Edited May 4, 2017 by JulieM

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is a policy...I posted it above.  BG is right and you appear to be as well if your region is insisting an adult comes along and they are 16 or older.

Yes, I am right. Youth may attend LDS ARP meetings. You have proven this to be true.

Bernard is not, because he said they are not permitted. This is not proven to be true.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, I am right. Youth may attend LDS ARP meetings. You have proven this to be true.

Bernard is not, because he said they are not permitted. This is not proven to be true.

I think I will wait for BG's comment to clarify his point as I waited for yours.

[Calm]

PS to HJW...

Whether or not your intent, I picked up from your comments there were no limitations on youth, neither age nor attending with an adult.  If you were not aware of those restrictions and were presenting it in the way I understood it, then you were wrong.  I don't recall these limitations in your comments, so at best your claim was incomplete.

If BG intended to convey there were no exceptions ever to be made for youth, he also was wrong.

He was right in that only above 18 can attended without restriction.

You were right in that youth, if they are 16-18 and with an adult they can attend.

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

So my honest question is: what makes porn "addiction" different? You can be addicted to the internet, video games, ancient scripture studies credit cards, work. What makes addiction to porn worst?  

It is okay to have religious reasons to believe porn is worst, just please let me know it is that. 

Addiction is addiction, it all sucks!  I am not claiming that P addiction is "worst", it is simply one potential manifestation of the same etiology - toxic shame (according to Dr. Bradshaw).  What makes it more challenging than some other "addictions" is multi-fold.  1) There are moral and religious implications with P.  It is much easier to beat oneself up over P use than "ancient scripture studies" for example.   This can lead to a terrible cycle of toxic shame, which tightens the grip of addiction.  We use it to numb, we then become ashamed for doing what we hate and what hurts our loved ones, which causes more pain...so how do you numb the pain?...and on and on it goes.............  This is why treating it as an "addiction", rather than a moral weakness, can be the first step out of the shame cycle and toward healing.

Anything that someone does to numb the pain that arises from living a life behind the mask of the "false-self" that Dr. Bradshaw talks about, could become a pathological problem in my opinion.  It keeps one from having to address the pain head on, heal, and move on...it keeps us stuck in a state of false security and numbness.  It artificially fills the void of authentic intimacy (I am not talking physical here) in our life.

2) Anonymous Mormon is right, lust is at the core of the addiction, so unlike alcoholics who can avoid bars etc, P addicts cannot realistically avoid the opposite sex.  It is like being an alcoholic who is constantly presented with alcohol on a daily basis. You add that to an emotional trigger like stress or boredom and BOOM, it becomes almost unbearable.  The problem with P is that the more you view it, your reaction to it is increased - meaning the more aroused you become by the opposite sex (this is even acknowledged in one of your studies you linked to).  So, not only can we not avoid the opposite sex, but our physiological reaction to them is heightened beyond what the healthy person experiences.  

3) It is free, easily accessible at any time of the day, easy to hide.

4) It is associated with what should be a healthy normal behavior and basic human need, further complicating the issue.  

 

 

 

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Even if porn addiction is real (many experts don't think it is), it would not be a serious problem for society because the vast majority of viewers are clearly not addicted (hours every day). Almost all men watch porn, but no evidence that a significant number of them watch it for hours every day.  Anything can be "addictive" including food, ancient scripture studies, video games, work. 

This doesn't really make coherent sense. What you're saying in inconsistent. You first talk about real, feasibly clinical addiction and end by using the common vernacular definition for addiction to cast shade on a potential clinical or therapeutic use that does not equate it the same. 

Here's an odd fact when I meet couples where the wife is seriously struggling with sex for one reason or another (anxiety, sexual pain, etc) at usually the beginning of their marriage. I am always particularly grateful/relieved when I find out the husband's porn exposure was minimal (as in never purposely or only a handful of times as a teen) and he was a virgin prior to marriage. They are more capable of using the value of patience and compassion toward their spouse and generally have more flexibility to accept other forms of sexual play as equally if not more so rewarding than intercourse. They're more likely to see their sex life as truly relational as opposed to need-based and self-oriented. And when they're not, they're more easy to confront and less likely to have rigid value structures around sex that lead them to be anxious and irritable about being unable to have intercourse. And in the end of the experience, they're more likely to have higher satisfaction sexually with their spouse that is more capable to change and grow as demands in their relationship change as well.

You are right-ish. Almost all men have viewed some form of porn in their lives. It's currently unavoidable. But just because most aren't "addicted" doesn't mean that this is a good or even neutral thing. It's like added sugar. Just because most people who consume it aren't addicts doesn't mean that the average sugar consumption in the US doesn't have poor effects on people. The way and rate we view porn in this society does have consequences and effects how we view and think of sex. Sometimes I see people talk about sex as though its projectory, drive, and experience is set in stone for us. It's not. It's extremely malleable and value laden. Its role and function change. The experience changes. The expectations changes. All by how we structure sex as being. I'm not a fan by what porn generally teaches/emphasizes about sex for both men and women.  

Quote

Doesn't that apply to almost anything? like food, ancient scripture studies, video games, work, MDDB?

No.   
 

Quote

 

Let me tell you something very interesting that you probably haven't heard before. In large porn theaters almost no one watches the porn, they go for other stuff, not for the porn. If porn was very powerful everyone would be paying attention to it, that is not what happens. The reality is that porn gets boring after a few minutes, that is why the average visit duration to adult websites is like 5 minutes.

There are some studies that conclude many occasional (like once a week) porn viewers think they have an addiction. So how do you detect a real porn addiction?

 

I'm not seeing how this is all that interesting. I mean seriously, I talk to men everyday about porn, their use, and what it looks like. I'm well aware that most aren't viewing it half their day. 

And you can't go on common perception to assume addiction. Like I said there isn't a universally accepted definition for this as there is for, say depression (though even the criteria for depression has changed over the years). What I look for is frequency, life effect, co-morbid concerns, emotional affect, fixations, inability to stop, effects on relationships, heavy binges, history with porn and sexual history (heavy porn users and porn addicts often have some sexual tells such as sexual anxiety, ED in the 20s, and difficulty connecting in partner sex), etc.

 

With luv,

BD  

Edited May 4, 2017 by BlueDreams

[MormonVideoGame]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 we then become ashamed for doing what we hate and what hurts our loved ones, which causes more pain...so how do you numb the pain?...and on and on it goes.............  This is why treating it as an "addiction", rather than a moral weakness, can be the first step out of the shame cycle and toward healing.

I have one more question for you two, see below 

57 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

And you can't go on common perception to assume addiction. Like I said there isn't a universally accepted definition for this as there is for, say depression (though even the criteria for depression has changed over the years). What I look for is frequency, life effect, co-morbid concerns, emotional affect, fixations, inability to stop, effects on relationships, heavy binges, history with porn and sexual history (heavy porn users and porn addicts often have some sexual tells such as sexual anxiety

Dr. Christopher Ryan wrote, " for most men in long-term sexually monogamous relationships, a steady decrease in libido has everything to do with biology and hormones and would be the same regardless of the particular woman in their lives. That’s right. The sexually-monogamous husband of the hottest woman on earth will start to lose interest at a certain point. Uma, Selma, it’s not your fault! As for the men’s anger noted in the article, it’s more likely to be the result of our society’s unwillingness to face this biological reality – preferring to tell men there’s something wrong with them. You want an inconvenient truth? Try this one: human beings are clearly evolved for sex lives featuring multiple simultaneous sexual relationships. Men, especially, are designed by evolution to be attracted to sexual novelty and to gradually lose sexual attraction to the same partner in the absence of such novelty. The so-called Coolidge Effect is well demonstrated in social mammals of all sorts, and is old news to anyone knowledgeable about reproductive biology" "An Inconvenient Truth: Sexual Monogamy Kills Male Libid0"  Christopher Ryan, Ph.D. in Psychology

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/200805/inconvenient-truth-sexual-monogamy-kills-male-libido

So my question is: Can we conclude that porn really destroys families? or is the root of the problem in our evolutionary history? 

57 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

ED in the 20s

Other sex therapists don't believe porn causes ED, and some peer-reviewed research agrees.  

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsm.12853/abstract 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26185674

Edited May 5, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Calm]

http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/6/3/17

This review also considers evidence that Internet pornography’s unique properties (limitless novelty, potential for easy escalation to more extreme material, video format, etc.) may be potent enough to condition sexual arousal to aspects of Internet pornography use that do not readily transition to real-life partners, such that sex with desired partners may not register as meeting expectations and arousal declines. Clinical reports suggest that terminating Internet pornography use is sometimes sufficient to reverse negative effects, underscoring the need for extensive investigation using methodologies that have subjects remove the variable of Internet pornography use. In the interim, a simple diagnostic protocol for assessing patients with porn-induced sexual dysfunction is put forth. View Full-Text

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317117.php?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Medical_News_Today_TrendMD_0

However, the younger the age of the male when they begin to regularly watch porn, the greater the chance of it becoming their preference over partnered sex, and the less overall enjoyment they get.

PIED can also lead to other health problems. Many men recognize that there is a problem but are unable to break the cycle. They can become embarrassed or depressed when unable to perform with their partner, which can cause them to watch porn more.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Calm