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."

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, 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 BYU and its scientific study is telling the Church and its leadership that its religion based rhetoric has actually made matters worse instead of better? Imagine that...

[HappyJackWagon]

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well it's not like I don't believe you, and I'm sure i'm just plain not understanding this.

Let me try again:

Ok.  So the goal here is to see how porn use, porn perception and religion play on "relationship anxiety"?  my mind went to suggesting, then, well if porn use, "healthy" porn perception and no religion, then less relationship anxiety.  Maybe that can't be concluded here.

Yeah..>That's what I'm saying.  The problem here is the term we use.  "Addict".  To a religious person in this case, it seems, "addict" applies because the person can't/won't stop sinning (however infrequent porn use is).  of course that's not clinical.  It's religious.  So I'm at a loss why we're being told the problem it seems is people "overestimate the harm and shame attached to pornography use, and to experience greater distress related to porn use, which they label as an “addiction.”".  What's the solution?  Not use the one word?  Will that somehow keep people from feeling shame or overestimating the harm (what amount of harm are we talking about?)?  Honestly this study has me confused.  I'm all for dropping the term addiction to use, unless a professional doctor diagnosis it as such, but "m not sure that will change that which is being described as harmful (overestimating harm and shame).  I don't even know how one would do that.  I'm not trying to be dramatic or overestimating anything.  But porn viewing is soliciting a destructive industry.  I don't know how to estimate that. 

I don't get where the needle needs to be on the shame meter.  if you have no shame, then you won't change at all, right?  Does treating them shame mean, don't feel shame?  How do you treat the shame without addressing that which is causing the shame? 

Moving away from an incorrect label like "addict" is a good start because if a person believes they are an addict, and their behavior is treated like an addiction in stead of a behavior, or even a compulsion, then the treatment and success plan are defined very differently. With an addiction model a person will expect success to be measured by perfect abstinence where a behavioral modification paradigm or compulsivity model might treat it differently and define success differently. Those definitions could have a major impact on how a person views himself and whether or not he has a realistic expectation for himself.

I think the church sometimes reinforces the addiction model with all sins. It is sometimes taught that if you return to a sin after you have repented you are basically back to square one and the past sins return because you haven't truly repented fully. It's like an alcoholic being sober for 10 years and then having 1 drink and losing their sobriety token. If you had fully repented or overcome the addiction, you would have turned away from the sin/behavior and would perfectly abstain from it. But when that mentality creeps into treatments for unwanted behaviors it becomes daunting and counterproductive when perfection isn't achieved. It reinforces the idea that one must be perfect to be worthy and good.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

While interesting to me, I'm finding myself unable to speak intelligently on this topic.  I don't know the Church's program at all (have heard from some that it's great and others that it is not so great).   I'll try to keep that in mind from now on in this thread, if I choose to continue to participate other than as a lurker.

Think of it from the POV of an 18 year old boy wanting to go on a mission or get an ecclesiastical endorsement to attend BYU. He confesses to his bishop that he watches p0rn 2-3 times per month. The bishop, as part of the repentance process, assigns the young man to attend the church's Addiction Recovery Program meetings each week. Viewing p0rn 2-3 times a month is now an addiction which this kid thinks he will have his entire life, similar to how an alcoholic will say "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic". This 18 year old now views himself as broken and his behavior, which is otherwise having a very small (if any) impact on his daily life, is seen as a boogey man that will stalk him his entire life and ruin every relationship he will every try to have. Then every time he views it going forward he is reminded how broken he is as an addict because he doesn't abstain perfectly.

Calling 2-3 times a month an addiction is silly. We might as call every sin an addiction. Are you a gossip addict? Are you a lying addict? Or maybe you're a diet coke addict because you have 2-3 per month. The language and the labeling is counterproductive. When the label of addict is watered down it overstates the non-addicts problem and under-cuts the value of the term for actual addicts who are struggling with real addictions.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Nope. It's about the incorrect belief that usage is "addictive" and that those who engage in the behavior are "addicts". This isn't to say there couldn't be an addict, but that it is extremely rare.

I agree about toxic shame. Pathologizing a behavior as an "addiction" when it is not, promotes that toxic shame.

Nope.  It said nothing about the "incorrect belief" that usage is addictive.  You made that part up all on your own.  The study is based on self-identification as an addict.

Addiction is not as "rare" as you pretend.  I don't care what the APA says, or rather, doesn't say about it.    I am a recovering addict. No doubt about it.  I almost lost my marriage over it.  If you go to a support group you will meet people who have lost their spouses, their jobs, etc. over this addiction.  They are not few.  If they were not addicted, they wold not have chosen porn over their marriage and jobs, etc.   

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26393658

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/

 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Nope.  It said nothing about the "incorrect belief" that usage is addictive.  You made that part up all on your own.  The study is based on self-identification as an addict.

Addiction is not as "rare" as you pretend.  I don't care what the APA says, or rather, doesn't say about it.    I am a recovering addict. No doubt about it.  I almost lost my marriage over it.  If you go to a support group you will meet people who have lost their spouses, their jobs, etc. over this addiction.  They are not few.  If they were not addicted, they wold not have chosen porn over their marriage and jobs, etc.   

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26393658

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/

 

This is kind of a standard accusation family and loved ones of addicts will throw at an addict. "If you loved me you would stop."

When that much meaning is heaped onto a behavior like viewing p0rn, it is no wonder marriages have a hard time. It's not because of the actual viewing but because of the baggage heaped on top of it. "If you loved me you would stop. If you had more faith, you would stop. If you..." That is what is so damaging.

ETA- there are numerous things I'm not perfect at in my marriage. If my wife essentially gave me an ultimatum that I must always put the seat down or  roll the toothpaste tube, go to bed at precisely 11 pm or it would indicate I didn't love her and didn't value our marriage, we would be in trouble. I would undoubtedly do all of these things wrong but the wrong behavior wouldn't indicate I'm an addict to the behavior. It would more likely indicate that I don't place the same value judgment on those things as she does.

People make bad decisions all of the time for reasons other than being addicts.

Edited May 1, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That might be true if the religion didn't influence the general culture, but it does.

Again, this isn't arguing that p0rn doesn't cause any harm for any users. It's arguing against the general acceptance of p0rn addiction. Behavior and "addiction" are different. They are not synonyms. P0rn could mess up lives and this study is pointing out that many of the lives it is messing up are those people who believe that p0rn will mess up their lives. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Does the study address those who didn't believe that porn would mess up their lives, and but now believe that it very much does?

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Nope.  It said nothing about the "incorrect belief" that usage is addictive.  You made that part up all on your own.  The study is based on self-identification as an addict.

 

I think the error of the self-diagnosis is implied since it is stated as part of the problem. Therefore if I mis-diagnose myself as an addict, when I'm not, I have an incorrect belief that I'm an addict. See how that works  

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is kind of a standard accusation family and loved ones of addicts will throw at an addict. "If you loved me you would stop."

When that much meaning is heaped onto a behavior like viewing p0rn, it is no wonder marriages have a hard time. It's not because of the actual viewing but because of the baggage heaped on top of it. "If you loved me you would stop. If you had more faith, you would stop. If you..." That is what is so damaging.

I think you are ignoring the addict themselves, those who really want to stop and have not been able to.  I have been privy to some heart wrenching stories of men who wanted more than anything else not to have a porn problem and could not break the cycle of viewing it.   Men with wives who were not threatening divorce and were giving it their all (including more than $12000 a year in couple therapy fees) trying to be supportive of their recovery. 

How do you explain those people, and also allow them to speak to their own experiences?  What you've said above seems to dismiss those men as not really understanding what their problem is while simultaneously blaming their problems on both the church and their wives (but i might not be reading you right).

[Duncan]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Think of it from the POV of an 18 year old boy wanting to go on a mission or get an ecclesiastical endorsement to attend BYU. He confesses to his bishop that he watches p0rn 2-3 times per month. The bishop, as part of the repentance process, assigns the young man to attend the church's Addiction Recovery Program meetings each week. Viewing p0rn 2-3 times a month is now an addiction which this kid thinks he will have his entire life, similar to how an alcoholic will say "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic". This 18 year old now views himself as broken and his behavior, which is otherwise having a very small (if any) impact on his daily life, is seen as a boogey man that will stalk him his entire life and ruin every relationship he will every try to have. Then every time he views it going forward he is reminded how broken he is as an addict because he doesn't abstain perfectly.

Calling 2-3 times a month an addiction is silly. We might as call every sin an addiction. Are you a gossip addict? Are you a lying addict? Or maybe you're a diet coke addict because you have 2-3 per month. The language and the labeling is counterproductive. When the label of addict is watered down it overstates the non-addicts problem and under-cuts the value of the term for actual addicts who are struggling with real addictions.

I drink litres of Pepsi and mountains of starbursts but my dentist says keep doing it as he wants to go to Costa Rica this year

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think you are ignoring the addict themselves, those who really want to stop and have not been able to.  I have been privy to some heart wrenching stories of men who wanted more than anything else not to have a porn problem and could not break the cycle of viewing it.   Men with wives who were not threatening divorce and were giving it their all (including more than $12000 a year in couple therapy fees) trying to be supportive of their recovery. 

How do you explain those people, and also allow them to speak to their own experiences?  What you've said above seems to dismiss those men as not really understanding what their problem is while simultaneously blaming their problems on both the church and their wives (but i might not be reading you right).

As I've stated previously, I'm not discounting the possibility that there are rare cases where someone has an addiction that could cause problems but I find it more likely that they have a behavioral compulsivity toward a behavior, rather than an addiction.

Quote

Bluebell- Does the study address those who didn't believe that porn would mess up their lives, and but now believe that it very much does?

From the abstract of the actual study...

Quote

Recent research on pornography suggests that perception of addiction predicts negative outcomes above and beyond pornography use. Research has also suggested that religious individuals are more likely to perceive themselves to be addicted to pornography, regardless of how often they are actually using pornography. Using a sample of 686 unmarried adults, this study reconciles and expands on previous research by testing perceived addiction to pornography as a mediator between religiosity and relationship anxiety surrounding pornography. Results revealed that pornography use and religiosity were weakly associated with higher relationship anxiety surrounding pornography use, whereas perception of pornography addiction was highly associated with relationship anxiety surrounding pornography use. However, when perception of pornography addiction was inserted as a mediator in a structural equation model, pornography use had a small indirect effect on relationship anxiety surrounding pornography use, and perception of pornography addiction partially mediated the association between religiosity and relationship anxiety surrounding pornography use. By understanding how pornography use, religiosity, and perceived pornography addiction connect to relationship anxiety surrounding pornography use in the early relationship formation stages, we hope to improve the chances of couples successfully addressing the subject of pornography and mitigate difficulties in romantic relationships.

 

[mapman]

The study is behind a paywall, so I know that most of you can't read it. Fortunately, being a student gives me access to it. The study says one of its limitations is that it isn't a longitudinal study, so it isn't analyzing individuals over any period of time. I'd think to be able to look at the efforts of people who perceive themselves to be porn addicts to quit over time you'd need to do a longitudinal study. Maybe someone has done that, I'm not sure.

The study doesn't try to determine whether people are actually addicted to porn, just whether or not they perceive themselves to be. While there are surely some non-religious people that perceive themselves to be addicted to porn, they are arguing that there is a bigger correlation between religiosity and perception of addiction than there is between frequency of porn use and perception of addiction: "This supports previous studies showing that those from religious populations seem to perceive their pornography use differently than nonreligious populations, and thus experience different outcomes due to this perception (Grubbs, Stauner, et al., 2015; Nelson et al., 2010). We reaffirmed the finding that religious individuals are more likely to perceive themselves to be addicted to pornography regardless of their level of use (Grubbs, Exline, et al., 2015)." I think this is a key point that how much people are actually consuming porn has little to do with relationship problems, but rather whether they perceive themselves as addicted (which is usually correlated with being religious). They aren't arguing that porn is ok or good, just that on its own it doesn't negatively affect romantic relationships. From my point of view, we can conclude that porn is unethical separate from the questions of whether it is addictive and whether it is destined to destroy your love life.

The study also talks about the feedback loop "addicts" get stuck in that everyone else that consumes porn is able to avoid: "Because religious individuals are more likely to feel frustrated, worried, angry, or anxious because of their pornography use, they may view pornography use as a way to temporarily alleviate those negative feelings. This cycle of negative feelings being alleviated from pornography use may result in a higher likelihood of feeling an inability to stop use. For example, negative feelings from relationship anxiety may plausibly result in something of a feedback loop, where perceived addiction leads to a higher likelihood of relationship anxiety, and the negative feelings from relationship anxiety lead to an increased likelihood of feeling powerless to stop pornography use."

Edited May 1, 2017 by mapman

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is kind of a standard accusation family and loved ones of addicts will throw at an addict. "If you loved me you would stop."

When that much meaning is heaped onto a behavior like viewing p0rn, it is no wonder marriages have a hard time. It's not because of the actual viewing but because of the baggage heaped on top of it. "If you loved me you would stop. If you had more faith, you would stop. If you..." That is what is so damaging.

ETA- there are numerous things I'm not perfect at in my marriage. If my wife essentially gave me an ultimatum that I must always put the seat down or  roll the toothpaste tube, go to bed at precisely 11 pm or it would indicate I didn't love her and didn't value our marriage, we would be in trouble. I would undoubtedly do all of these things wrong but the wrong behavior wouldn't indicate I'm an addict to the behavior. It would more likely indicate that I don't place the same value judgment on those things as she does.

People make bad decisions all of the time for reasons other than being addicts.

I could equally say that it is not mistresses that hurt marriages, it is the baggage heaped on top of it.  That actually is true.  If your wife was cool with it, then your marriage would be just fine wouldn't it.  You see, the "baggage" actually does matter when it matters.  Pretending like porn is not a problem may save your marriage (if you can convince your wife), but it aint going to save your spirituality. 

Addiction is not about making bad decision.  It is about becoming powerless to choose anything else...things that you want, love, and don't want to lose. 

Comparing porn addiction to leaving the toilet seat up is ridiculous!  If it came between your wife and the toilet seat, I am sure that you would have the control and power to choose your wife, wouldn't you?  If not, then you either have a cognitive/memory disorder, or you just don't want to be married to your wife any more. 

 

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think the error of the self-diagnosis is implied since it is stated as part of the problem. Therefore if I mis-diagnose myself as an addict, when I'm not, I have an incorrect belief that I'm an addict. See how that works  

You are conflating self-diagnose with misdiagnose.  This article never mentioned misdiagnosis.  Also, correlation does not imply causation.  I see toxic shame as the problem, not self-diagnosis.  This study only points to correlation, it says nothing of causation. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Moving away from an incorrect label like "addict" is a good start because if a person believes they are an addict, and their behavior is treated like an addiction in stead of a behavior, or even a compulsion, then the treatment and success plan are defined very differently . . . I think the church sometimes reinforces the addiction model with all sins.

I strongly agree that pornography/masturbation is too often neatly-labeled as an "addiction." I think it is better, and more accurate to call it a "sin." Like stemelbow said earlier, an addiction would entail compulsively participating in it in inappropriate places, like work or school, or when its all-consuming nature ruins families and relationships. In most cases, men and women who struggle with it are not compelled automatons who have no choice or say as to whether they participate --- granted, that they display weakness and inability to not do it, but it usually doesn't rise to the level of an addiction. 

Usually, too, I find that we dwell excessively on the pornography aspect, and not enough on the masturbation --- which is the actual problem. This makes it seem/sound like the problem is simply watching or viewing things that shouldn't be watched, instead of the reason why the media is viewed. And, there are people who have a masturbation problem without pornography.

I believe that it is a serious sin that has serious spiritual consequences --- and not because of imposed guilt by Church sociology. I think the guilt and degradation are intrinsic. But, I think the Church labels it an addiction to neatly explain why it is a problem.

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Like stemelbow said earlier, an addiction would entail compulsively participating in it in inappropriate places, like work or school, or when its all-consuming nature ruins families and relationships. In most cases, men and women who struggle with it are not compelled automatons who have no choice or say as to whether they participate --- granted, that they display weakness and inability to not do it, but it usually doesn't rise to the level of an addiction. 

Do you know why it does not destroy more families and relationships than it does?  It is not because men are controlling themselves and not viewing it.  I would suspect that it is because 1) men hide it from their spouse (a sign of addiction), or 2) spouses often just tolerate it and the ill consequences it has on their marriage - they put it in the back of their mind and pretend like it is not happening (my wife did that for a while).  

I disagree that masturbation is the only or "actual" problem.  Porn addiction can happen without masturbation too.  They are both "actual" problems that are usually related.  

30 minutes ago, rongo said:

I believe that it is a serious sin that has serious spiritual consequences --- and not because of imposed guilt by Church sociology. I think the guilt and degradation are intrinsic. But, I think the Church labels it an addiction to neatly explain why it is a problem.

The church doesn't label all porn use as addiction.  They say that it is addictive and can turn into an addiction.  They don not say that to "neatly explain why it is a problem", but because they have been dealing with it for years and years and years.  It seems to be the one transgression that many members just can't seem to give up, despite being able to avoid or stop any other serious transgressions in their lives, and despite many, many marriages being destroyed because of it. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

I strongly agree that pornography/masturbation is too often neatly-labeled as an "addiction." I think it is better, and more accurate to call it a "sin." Like stemelbow said earlier, an addiction would entail compulsively participating in it in inappropriate places, like work or school, or when its all-consuming nature ruins families and relationships. In most cases, men and women who struggle with it are not compelled automatons who have no choice or say as to whether they participate --- granted, that they display weakness and inability to not do it, but it usually doesn't rise to the level of an addiction. 

Usually, too, I find that we dwell excessively on the pornography aspect, and not enough on the masturbation --- which is the actual problem. This makes it seem/sound like the problem is simply watching or viewing things that shouldn't be watched, instead of the reason why the media is viewed. And, there are people who have a masturbation problem without pornography.

I believe that it is a serious sin that has serious spiritual consequences --- and not because of imposed guilt by Church sociology. I think the guilt and degradation are intrinsic. But, I think the Church labels it an addiction to neatly explain why it is a problem.

I agree with your first paragraph. Well said. P0rn is a problem as a matter of religious values.

Personally, I would view the single, independent act of p0rn viewing as worse morally than the single, independent act of msturbtion but that is purely a subjective judgment of value. The act of mstrbtion is much more natural and even developmental than p0rn viewing. Of course they often go hand in hand (no pun intended), but it is the way we are taught to place value judgments on the behavior that really has the negative impact.

Bishop- "Do you have a problem with mstrbation?"

Youth- "No, Bishop. Everything works fine."

I won't try to convince you otherwise, but we will clearly disagree about the spiritual impact of mstrbtion. Similar to the p0rn problem, the bigger problem comes from leaders making too big of a deal about it, asking inappropriate questions of youth behind closed doors, and the shame that attends.

[stemelbow]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

It seems to be the one transgression that many members just can't seem to give up, despite being able to avoid or stop any other serious transgressions in their lives, and despite many, many marriages being destroyed because of it. 

 

huh?  I was going along with you ok, until that last line.  "The one transgression that many members just can't seem to give up"?  I certainly wish it was the last transgression members have to give up. 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I strongly agree that pornography/masturbation is too often neatly-labeled as an "addiction." I think it is better, and more accurate to call it a "sin." Like stemelbow said earlier, an addiction would entail compulsively participating in it in inappropriate places, like work or school, or when its all-consuming nature ruins families and relationships. In most cases, men and women who struggle with it are not compelled automatons who have no choice or say as to whether they participate --- granted, that they display weakness and inability to not do it, but it usually doesn't rise to the level of an addiction. 

Usually, too, I find that we dwell excessively on the pornography aspect, and not enough on the masturbation --- which is the actual problem. This makes it seem/sound like the problem is simply watching or viewing things that shouldn't be watched, instead of the reason why the media is viewed. And, there are people who have a masturbation problem without pornography.

Please elucidate from scripture where the Lord has told us masturbation is a sin. OT?, NT?, BoM?, D&C?, Joseph Smith? or just 1920s presidency?  If it is such a horrible sin, why doesn't He say anything before 1920? To me pornography is a separate issue. I believe married couples using it are sinning just like the single male or female. The sin is is lusting after others to whom one is not committed and financially supporting sin. i am not the Church, but I am not going to tell my boy waking up from a wet dream and going to the bathroom that he is sinning. I suppose the Church can continue to make that distinction somewhere if they feel they have to, but to me that is an unwarranted invasion of privacy. However, I will tell my boys, and have that they should not get involved in pornography, and we monitor their internet activities somewhat closely. I have explicitly told them what is sinful about it, and why they should not start exposing themselves to it, and I feel they have responded responsibly to my advice. 

[pogi]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

huh?  I was going along with you ok, until that last line.  "The one transgression that many members just can't seem to give up"?  I certainly wish it was the last transgression members have to give up. 

Sorry, I meant a transgression serious enough to keep you out of the temple.

[rongo]

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you know why it does not destroy more families and relationships than it does?  It is not because men are controlling themselves and not viewing it.  I would suspect that it is because 1) men hide it from their spouse (a sign of addiction), or 2) spouses often just tolerate it and the ill consequences it has on their marriage - they put it in the back of their mind and pretend like it is not happening.  

I think this is largely correct on both counts. 

I disagree that masturbation is the only or "actual" problem.  Porn addiction can happen without masturbation too.  They are both "actual" problems that are usually related.

I agree, but in my experience working with people (men and women), very, very few people simply view pornography. It is almost always accompanied by masturbation, and the purpose of the pornography is the masturbation. There are also people who masturbate without pornography.

The church doesn't label all porn use as addiction.  They say that it is addictive and can turn into an addiction. 

I really liked something that Elder Costas said at our regional GA Q&A in Phoenix a few months ago. He said that it is important to distinguish between a pattern of behavior vs. occasional incidents. When there is a pattern, that is more serious and troubling. There are people who come in to confess episodic (like, months apart) transgressions, and I think this is completely different from people who are whit-knuckling it to make it from day to day. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Please elucidate from scripture where the Lord has told us masturbation is a sin. OT?, NT?, BoM?, D&C?, Joseph Smith? or just 1920s presidency?  If it is such a horrible sin, why doesn't He say anything before 1920?

You say it below:

To me pornography is a separate issue. I believe married couples using it are sinning just like the single male or female.

The sin is is lusting after others to whom one is not committed and financially supporting sin. 

The Bible, the Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants all contain versions of the doctrine "he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." The sin of masturbation is that of committing adultery/fornication in the heart. I don't think it's possible to masturbate without some form of fantasizing or ideation. 

I am not going to tell my boy waking up from a wet dream and going to the bathroom that he is sinning.

Neither would I, and I don't know where that idea would come from. Masturbation involves willful, waking effort. Wet dreams in the night are beyond our control, and are no sin. As much as President Packer's "little factory" talk is excoriated, even he makes this distinction.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mapman said:

I think this is a key point that how much people are actually consuming porn has little to do with relationship problems, but rather whether they perceive themselves as addicted (which is usually correlated with being religious). They aren't arguing that porn is ok or good, just that on its own it doesn't negatively affect romantic relationships. From my point of view, we can conclude that porn is unethical separate from the questions of whether it is addictive and whether it is destined to destroy your love life....

Does the study address issues such as attitudes towards women in general?

Thank you for the summary.

[rongo]

54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with your first paragraph. Well said. P0rn is a problem as a matter of religious values.Personally, I would view the single, independent act of p0rn viewing as worse morally than the single, independent act of msturbtion but that is purely a subjective judgment of value.

Why would simply viewing pornography (sans masturbation) be morally worse than masturbation itself? And, what severity level, morally, would you place on the fantasizing/ideation that accompanies masturbation? To me, there is no difference imagining something than there is in viewing it or participating in it. And that is what Jesus taught in all of our scriptures.

The act of mstrbtion is much more natural and even developmental than p0rn viewing.

This is insisted on today, but I don't believe that it is natural or developmental. This usually elicits "there are masturbators, and those who say they never have are liars" responses, but it isn't true. It is possible to make it through life never having tried it, but that of course won't happen if people are told that it is natural and developmental. Then, you approach 100% certainty that it will.

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Please elucidate from scripture where the Lord has told us masturbation is a sin. OT?, NT?, BoM?, D&C?, Joseph Smith? or just 1920s presidency?  If it is such a horrible sin, why doesn't He say anything before 1920? To me pornography is a separate issue. I believe married couples using it are sinning just like the single male or female. The sin is is lusting after others to whom one is not committed and financially supporting sin. i am not the Church, but I am not going to tell my boy waking up from a wet dream and going to the bathroom that he is sinning. I suppose the Church can continue to make that distinction somewhere if they feel they have to, but to me that is an unwarranted invasion of privacy. However, I will tell my boys, and have that they should not get involved in pornography, and we monitor their internet activities somewhat closely. I have explicitly told them what is sinful about it, and why they should not start exposing themselves to it, and I feel they have responded responsibly to my advice. 

Well, masturbation is lust based.  Christ did condemn lust as "committing adultery in your mind."  

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

You say it below:

The Bible, the Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants all contain versions of the doctrine "he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." The sin of masturbation is that of committing adultery/fornication in the heart. I don't think it's possible to masturbate without some form of fantasizing or ideation. 

 

Neither would I, and I don't know where that idea would come from. Masturbation involves willful, waking effort. Wet dreams in the night are beyond our control, and are no sin. As much as President Packer's "little factory" talk is excoriated, even he makes this distinction.

 

 

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Well, masturbation is lust based.  Christ did condemn lust as "committing adultery in your mind."  

No offense, but were you guys teenagers?

I disagree with your basic premise that masturbation is lust based. Is a wet-dream lust based? Granted it may be if one exposes oneself to pornography, but I strongly disagree with your contention that a masturbating 14 year old boy is lusting after some woman. Maybe, but maybe not, and I am certainly not going to fill him with guilt if he is not doing something I believe he "must be" doing or because I find him in the bathroom after a dream.

"The sin of masturbation is that of committing adultery/fornication in the heart. I don't think it's possible to masturbate without some form of fantasizing or ideation." Are you conceding that it is not sin if one is not fantasizing or ideating of another person to whom one is not wedded?