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]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

That is a very interesting critique which makes a lot of really good points, but he also makes some bad arguments, contradicting himself.  One way he contradicts himself is by making the argument that the level of P use is not linearly related to P addiction (I think I agree with him there), but at the same time he tries to argue that religious people are less likely to view P and therefore are less likely to become P addicts.  Well, if there is no linear relation to addiction, how can he make that argument?

He does make a fairly good argument that the BYU study is a little misleading in that it tries to correlate the "perception" of addiction with P related problems such as relationship anxiety, when in fact the questionnaire they used to determine "perception" of addiction may be a better assessment tool to determine actual addiction rather than just "perception" of addiction.  The argument is that it is not just "perceived" addiction that causes relationship anxiety, but actual addiction.   

These are the 5 questions they used to determine "perception" of addiction:

1) “My thoughts about pornography are causing problems in my life,”
2) ”My desires to view pornography disrupt my daily life,”
3) “I sometimes fail to meet my commitments and responsibilities because of my pornography use,”
4) “Sometimes my desire to view pornography is so great I lose control,”
5) “I have to struggle to not view pornography.”

If you replaced "P" with "alcohol" in these questions, it becomes clear that they may be a fairly good indicator of actual addiction and not just perception of addiction:

1) “My thoughts about using alcohol are causing problems in my life,”
2) ”My desire to use alcohol disrupts my daily life,”
3) “I sometimes fail to meet my commitments and responsibilities because of my alcohol use,”
4) “Sometimes my desire to drink alcohol is so great I lose control,”
5) “I have to struggle to not use alcohol.”

If you replace substances with "P" in any list of criteria used to determine the presence of addiction, there is a clear indicator that "P" can be addictive. That has been noted several times here, but no one has responded. I would like someone who knows to explain why that is not acceptable. 

Quote

Signs and symptoms of substance addiction may include:

• The person takes the substance and cannot stop - in many cases, such as nicotine, alcohol or drug dependence, at least one serious attempt was made to give up, but unsuccessfully.
• Withdrawal symptoms - when body levels of that substance go below a certain level the patient has physical and mood-related symptoms. There are cravings, bouts of moodiness, bad temper, poor focus, a feeling of being depressed and empty, frustration, anger, bitterness and resentment.
• There may suddenly be increased appetite. Insomnia is a common symptom of withdrawal. In some cases the individual may have constipation or diarrhea. With some substances, withdrawal can trigger violence, trembling, seizures, hallucinations, and sweats.
• Addiction continues despite health problem awareness - the individual continues taking the substance regularly, even though they have developed illnesses linked to it. For example, a smoker may continue smoking even after a lung or heart condition develops.
• Social and/or recreational sacrifices - some activities are given up because of an addiction to something. For example, an alcoholic may turn down an invitation to go camping or spend a day out on a boat if no alcohol is available, a smoker may decide not to meet up with friends in a smoke-free pub or restaurant.
• Maintaining a good supply - people who are addicted to a substance will always make sure they have a good supply of it, even if they do not have much money. Sacrifices may be made in the house budget to make sure the substance is as plentiful as possible.
• Taking risks (1) - in some cases the addicted individual make take risks to make sure he/she can obtain his/her substance, such as stealing or trading sex for money/drugs.
• Taking risks (2) - while under the influence of some substances the addict may engage in risky activities, such as driving fast.
• Dealing with problems - an addicted person commonly feels they need their drug to deal with their problems.
• Obsession - an addicted person may spend more and more time and energy focusing on ways of getting hold of their substance, and in some cases how to use it.
• Secrecy and solitude - in many cases the addict may take their substance alone, and even in secret.
• Denial - a significant number of people who are addicted to a substance are in denial. They are not aware (or refuse to acknowledge) that they have a problem.
• Excess consumption - in some addictions, such as alcohol, some drugs and even nicotine, the individual consumes it to excess. The consequence can be blackouts (cannot remember chunks of time) or physical symptoms, such as a sore throat and bad persistent cough (heavy smokers).
• Dropping hobbies and activities - as the addiction progresses the individual may stop doing things he/she used to enjoy a lot. This may even be the case with smokers who find they cannot physically cope with taking part in their favorite sport.
• Having stashes - the addicted individual may have small stocks of their substance hidden away in different parts of the house or car; often in unlikely places.
• Taking an initial large dose - this is common with alcoholism. The individual may gulp drinks down in order to get drunk and then feel good.
• Having problems with the law - this is more a characteristic of some drug and alcohol addictions (not nicotine, for example). This may be either because the substance impairs judgment and the individual takes risks they would not take if they were sober, or in order to get hold of the substance they break the law.
• Financial difficulties - if the substance is expensive the addicted individual may sacrifice a lot to make sure its supply is secured. Even cigarettes, which in some countries, such as the UK, parts of Europe and the USA cost over $11 dollars for a packet of twenty - a 40-a-day smoker in such an area will need to put aside $660 per month, nearly $8,000 per year.
• Relationship problems - these are more common in drug/alcohol addiction.

 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Same reason BG's personal conversations with a guy weren't good enough. It wasn't official and so I didn't give it that weight. Now that it states what is and isn't acceptable on the website, it is a policy that can be followed. Before that it was merely speculation and good intentions.

Yes, it was official.  I posted a link to the official website with the change having taken place and quoted it.

I also mentioned, without quoting iirc, my conversation with the website person, which in part led to it being changed.  Perhaps you confused the one with the other.

am posting a link so easy to check that I included a link showing the website quote.  

 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

The response from lds.org to my inquiry:
 

Almost identical to the second one I got after the change, the first one explaining she hadn't heard of the update and would try to confirm.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, it was official.  I posted a link to the official website with the change having taken place and quoted it.

I also mentioned, without quoting iirc, my conversation with the website person, which in part led to it being changed.  Perhaps you confused the one with the other.

Why do you care which one I liked? This is weird. You posted something and I liked it once the incorrect line was removed and it was complete. Seems like a good time to like something.

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, it was official.  I posted a link to the official website with the change having taken place and quoted it.

I also mentioned, without quoting iirc, my conversation with the website person, which in part led to it being changed.  Perhaps you confused the one with the other.

am posting a link so easy to check that I included a link showing the website quote.  

 

I am still showing the misspell at that link.  It also still says this:

How often do groups meet?
Meetings are held every week year round and are 60 to 90 minutes long. No referral is necessary. Youth 16 to 18 years of age can come with a parent or guardian. Dress is casual and modest.

Do I need to refresh my cookies or something?

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am still showing the misspell at that link.  It also still says this:

How often do groups meet?
Meetings are held every week year round and are 60 to 90 minutes long. No referral is necessary. Youth 16 to 18 years of age can come with a parent or guardian. Dress is casual and modest.

Do I need to refresh my cookies or something?

I am guessing that must be it, but no tech guy.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why do you care which one I liked? This is weird. You posted something and I liked it once the incorrect line was removed and it was complete. Seems like a good time to like something.

Because I am confused because it appears to be contradictory and I try hard to understand people's POV.  It is why .I hang out here and read almost every thread. Sometimes I am sure my questions come across as nitpicking or worse, but since I have learned nuance is important in understanding positions, I make the effort when I feel someone generally has intelligent and thoughtful comments to try and understand when I do not.

No big deal if you do not want to unweave where my lack of understanding is occurring.  I will drop it.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Almost identical to the second one I got after the change, the first one explaining she hadn't heard of the update and would try to confirm.

Actually, my manager in the Seattle office got the change made based on our conversations. Getting these questions from multiple sources may have prompted some action!! Thanks for your follow-through.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Actually, my manager in the Seattle office got the change made based on our conversations. Getting these questions from multiple sources may have prompted some action!! Thanks for your follow-through.

My tech person wouldn't have known the conversation, but only the directions passed down, so I am happy to have him take the role of primary earth shaker.

I pushed on the youth stuff so hopefully that will help speed up figuring out what to do there.  Many of the youth attending may have found it helpful and it would be a shame to have the youth groups stopped even for a short time.

It occurs to me perhaps they didn't push for a change on LDS.org because they wanted to wait for a decision on youth groups.  Ah well, that is pure speculation.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

Oh, I love speculation. It's the heart and soul of High Priest group meetings.

[Meadowchik]

On Monday, May 01, 2017 at 5:36 PM, pogi said:

All this is basically saying is that if you don't believe that you are doing something bad, then you are not going to feel bad about it...no kidding!

Unfortunately, many people go beyond what I would consider to be a healthy guilt about porn use and turn it into toxic shame - the "damaged goods hypothesis". Toxic shame will inevitably lead to relationship anxiety and isolation.  

 

 

 

This actually calls into question the badness itself. Guilt for real harm is good, guilt for exaggerated harm is not so good.

I'm not saying porn use is good, but I think this shows that the "toxic shaming" could quite possibly be worse than porn use.

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This actually calls into question the badness itself. Guilt for real harm is good, guilt for exaggerated harm is not so good.

I'm not saying porn use is good, but I think this shows that the "toxic shaming" could quite possibly be worse than porn use

The study says nothing about "badness".

The spiritual harm caused by P use is not exaggerated.  The holistic harm caused by P addiction is even worse.  Guilt is good, toxic shame is bad.

It sounds like you are inferring that it is shaming to ever call it addiction.  I think that has thoroughly been debunked throughout this thread.  It has also been noted that there are several problems with this study in what it calls "perception" of addiction. 

P.S.  I agree that toxic shame is more dangerous than P use.

Edited May 12, 2017 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

The study says nothing about "badness".

The spiritual harm caused by P use is not exaggerated.  The holistic harm caused by P addiction is even worse.  Guilt is good, toxic shame is bad.

It sounds like you are inferring that it is shaming to ever call it addiction.  I think that has thoroughly been debunked throughout this thread.  It has also been noted that there are several problems with this study in what it calls "perception" of addiction. 

P.S.  I agree that toxic shame is more dangerous than P use.

I said it calls into question the badness, not that it explicitly tested it.

And I only meant what I said, iow, don't try to winkle out more than that from the reply

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I said it calls into question the badness, not that it explicitly tested it.

And I only meant what I said, iow, don't try to winkle out more than that from the reply

Winkling?  Oh, my!

That sounds almost as bad as pornography!  

 

[SteveO]

I was reading through the headlines this morning, and saw this study from Newsweek, and I thought of this thread.  Basically says that porn is ruining the sex lives of white, heterosexual men who are married.  Not really sure if those with sexual dysfunction prefer or gravitate towards porn, or if porn makes one sexually dysfunctional.  Either way I think its a crutch and an escape for people who can't deal with the stress of everyday life--no different from alcohol or anything else that serves as a distraction.

There was a guy that my wife knew who killed himself a few weeks ago.  He obviously had some problems, but I do know what triggered his downward spiral was his confession to his sometime girlfriend of his porn use.  He was going to ask her to marry him and thought he should tell her.  She broke up with him.  I can't help but think he was having some serious shame and feelings of worthlessness.  I'm not really sure what the answer is, we keep hearing the dishonesty is the biggest issue with porn in relationships, but if honesty is going to get you that...I dunno.  She is naive and foolish if she thinks there isn't a guy who is "untouched" by pornography.

Anyways, I think the practical reasons for avoiding pornography are pretty clear, but there is a shame culture within the church that needs to change regarding it.

EDIT: I can't link to the story for some reason, its from Newsweek though!!

Edited May 15, 2017 by SteveO

[SteveO]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/16444/shock-pornography-ruining-mens-sex-lives-amanda-prestigiacomo

Here's an indirect link to the study via commentary.  Sorry for the confusion!

Edited May 15, 2017 by SteveO

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, SteveO said:

 I'm not really sure what the answer is, we keep hearing the dishonesty is the biggest issue with porn in relationships, but if honesty is going to get you that...I dunno.

A good point. We do keep hearing that dishonesty is the biggest problem, and that getting the problem out into the open will help. I find, though, that the sexual immorality problem itself is a problem, and that honesty and transparency don't magically make the guilt and hurt go away. It is certainly better than shaming and hiding, but there is still a spiritual cost (loss of the Spirit, etc.) even with the most liberal of approaches to pornography/masturbation.

 She is naive and foolish if she thinks there isn't a guy who is "untouched" by pornography.

There are most definitely some. I agree that it is increasingly harder to find them, but they do exist. Nowadays, it's going to take purposeful parenting, from an early age, and most parents don't teach about this until it's too late.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/30/2017 at 10:57 PM, cinepro said:

This is an interesting study, and I wonder if it will affect how the Church deals with people who look at pornography:

Here is the source citation for the original study:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2017.1295013?journalCode=hjsr20&

 

So the problem with porn use is the belief that porn use is is a problem

Duh.

Totally circular and obvious.

So if you don't believe porn us is a problem then porn use is not a problem

If you don't believe heroin use is a problem then heroin use is not a problem.

Brilliant 

So all we have to do is stop thinking anything is a problem then we will have no problems.

Whoopee!

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

The researchers themselves are much more cautious that the various reports about it, not surprisingly.

[MorningStar]

If a Mormon man looks at pornography frequently despite negative consequences and he's not addicted, then he's just a guy who chooses to look at porn even though he might lose his wife, job, etc.?  Why would anyone choose to do that unless they're addicted?  I went to a fireside put on by LDS Family Services and the therapist said she wished our quorums could be our support groups, but we're still too judgmental to handle such a thing.  We go to church and pretend we don't have any big issues. We talk about more minor things we're guilty of - the acceptable sins.  Shame and secrecy drive addiction.  One investigator came to visit our ward as young adult and the lesson was on pornography.  Being new, he blurted out, "I struggle with that."  My husband told me about it and that it was actually kind of refreshing hearing his honesty and openness.

Not calling it an addiction isn't going to make it go away.   

[MorningStar]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So the problem with porn use is the belief that porn use is is a problem

Duh.

Totally circular and obvious.

So if you don't believe porn us is a problem then porn use is not a problem

If you don't believe heroin use is a problem then heroin use is not a problem.

Brilliant 

So all we have to do is stop thinking anything is a problem then we will have no problems.

Whoopee!

 

This is my favorite:  If women weren't taught to believe pornography is offensive, then they wouldn't be upset by their husband occasionally viewing it.   

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So the problem with porn use is the belief that porn use is is a problem

Duh.

Totally circular and obvious.

So if you don't believe porn us is a problem then porn use is not a problem

If you don't believe heroin use is a problem then heroin use is not a problem.

Brilliant 

So all we have to do is stop thinking anything is a problem then we will have no problems.

Whoopee!

 

I don't want to understate the crucial role of the Atonement in extricating us from any sin, no matter how serious, how vexing, or how seemingly addictive.  The Atonement can reach anyone.  No one is "too far gone," and so forth.  And I do believe that toxic shame is just that and, as such, that it is not productive.  All of that having been said, the whole "It's-not-the-sin-that's-the-problem-it's-calling-the-sin-a-sin-that's-the-problem" approach reminds me of a couple of scriptures:

2 Nephi 28:22 -- https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.21-22, and

2 Nephi 28:8 -- https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.8?lang=eng#7.

Just sayin'!  

 

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So the problem with porn use is the belief that porn use is is a problem

Duh.

Totally circular and obvious.

So if you don't believe porn us is a problem then porn use is not a problem

If you don't believe heroin use is a problem then heroin use is not a problem.

Brilliant 

So all we have to do is stop thinking anything is a problem then we will have no problems.

Whoopee!

It's not Whoopie Golberg's philosophy...it's Buddhism.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, RevTestament said:

It's not Whoopie Golberg's philosophy...it's Buddhism.

Or hypnosis.

Take your pick. Spin that wheel!

Clearly those folks need some porn to keep them hypnotized into not seeing reality. Problem solved.

Edited May 19, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't want to understate the crucial role of the Atonement in extricating us from any sin, no matter how serious, how vexing, or how seemingly addictive.  The Atonement can reach anyone.  No one is "too far gone," and so forth.  And I do believe that toxic shame is just that and, as such, that it is not productive.  All of that having been said, the whole "It's-not-the-sin-that's-the-problem-it's-calling-the-sin-a-sin-that's-the-problem" approach reminds me of a couple of scriptures:

2 Nephi 28:22 -- https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.21-22, and

2 Nephi 28:8 -- https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.8?lang=eng#7.

Just sayin'!  

 

Exactly.

The problem is now so pervasive that the researches themselves become complicit in the problem.

It's like alcoholics saying there is only a problem with alcoholism if you think there is.

The entire point is THERE IS A PROBLEM

Your beliefs are what create you as a person.  Those guys in prison only crave freedom because they think incarceration is a problem.

Oppressed people have no problems- they are all in their minds, you just have to cure them from thinking they have a problem being oppressed.  That's just life as they know it.

Why do people not stand up for themselves and revolt?  What about North Korea?  The people do not see the problem AS a problem.

Addicts never see the problem- that IS the problem.

They think the only problem is people who tell the addict that he has a problem.

It's called "denial".