bdouglas Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) deleted Edited March 31, 2018 by bdouglas 1
cinepro Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) An interesting footnote to this discussion is something we often don't think about when it comes to Mormonism and sexuality. Many of our policies are derived from a pre-scientific era when people really had no idea where babies came from, and how the male and female machinery worked to make a baby. It's all described in great detail in this book: The Seeds of Life: From Aristotle to da Vinci, from Sharks' Teeth to Frogs' Pants, the Long and Strange Quest to Discover Where Babies Come From Basically, until the discovery of the sperm and egg, and the discovery that they both combined to start the process of a growing embryo, people had no idea how things worked. This is relevant to the current discussion because depending on what theory you ascribed to, you might believe that masturbation was literally spilling a tiny child onto the hay in the barn (and thus was akin to murder or abortion). Or, a little better but no less incorrect, it might be believed that there was only a limited number of shots in the gun, so to speak. So if you waste your shots, you might not be able to have children in the future. This ignorance about the biological processes could lead to all sorts of weird theories about the physical, moral and spiritual dangers of masturbation that just don't hold up when we understand the body's vast capacity for sperm production for guys (and the regular elimination of an egg for women, whether it gets fertilized or not). So while we don't express any of the odd and superstitious views of the past, it's possible that some of our current theories are created as a means to justify the policies from the past. Instead of saying "wow, we were totally of base on that policy", we instead say "this policy exists, and there must be a reason, so maybe it's this...?" Edited March 31, 2018 by cinepro 1
Popular Post cinepro Posted March 31, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Our prophet Spencer W Kimball taught "“It i ridiculous to imply that pornography has no effect. There is a definite relationship to crime. Murder, robbery, rape, prostitution, and commercialized vice are fed on this immorality. Sex crime statistics seem to reflect a relationship between crime and pornography." Was Spencer W Kimball mentally disabled or just stupid? He couldn't tell the difference between his stupid ideas and spiritual revelation? He was neither "mentally disabled" or "stupid". He was just wrong. He formed a theory from limited data and bad logic, which people do all the time. It's very common. He obviously associated it with "crime" because for almost his entire life, pornography was illegal. The only way to produce it and distribute it was to commit a crime. But as a counterpoint to his theory, society has (for better or worse) been engaged in a massive experiment on what the consequences of exposure to pornography are. And while the consequences might be bad in some ways, they haven't led to an increase in murder, robbery or rape. That's a testable theory, and as the linked graphs show, the rates for all three have declined as society's exposure to pornography has grown exponentially. Edited March 31, 2018 by cinepro 7
The Nehor Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Shark officially jumped. 3
BlueDreams Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, pogi said: Thanks for your reply. That is an interesting comment about the "light switch". I am conflicted on this. I see what you are saying, but I don't see a way to nurture sexuality and self-simulated sexual experiences in youth without indulging in a healthy(?) dose of lust. Is it really possible, if so, how? I imagine that the male sex is not alone in using fantasy and lustful thinking in order to elicit and fuel this physiological response - isn't that kind of the point of it, to have a sexual experience in your body and mind? Can one have a sexual experience without including the mind? I think it depends on your definition of lust. Lust to me is broader than the googled definition of strong sexual desire. It a form of strong desire toward someone or something that isn't ours to have or ordained by God for us to have. It doesn't always have to do with sex or sexuality all the time. I stick with the definition that I see outlined in scriptures in general. Initial sexual exploration isn't usually about lust at all, but learning that certain touches simply feel good. This is usually before children really have a strong conceptualization of what sex is. But even for older people, masturbation doesn't have to be interlinked with lust. It can be a near automatic response to physiological arousal when one is half asleep. For women it can be a means to ease menstrual cramps. It can also just be a simple enjoyment of touch and pleasure in ones own body. You're still very much including ones mind. It's almost a form of mindfulness about ones body and cherishing the pleasure found in it. But well beyond masturbation, we already do many things to nurture our sexuality. We date, have crushes, kiss, make out, etc. Preferably, and with healthier sexual development. The degree of commitment and affection would align with the degree of sexual expression. The difference is that we have a tendency to not characterize these as sexual development or expression because we place a heavy emphasis on intercourse as "real sex." Quote It seems like most people do it in response to lustful thinking, boredom, or stress. In which case it is either a sinful physical indulgence in lust, or could easily turn into an unhealthy coping mechanism. Does anybody really do it without one of those elements triggering it? Yes they do With luv, BD Edited March 31, 2018 by BlueDreams
mfbukowski Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 6 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I don’t think he was. Or are you saying you really are 14 years old? I’m not trying to be mean, but your posts are so over the top they are hard to take seriously. And yet you are always the one to say that you do not want to destroy someone's faith. Your true self is showing
Tacenda Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 5 hours ago, CA Steve said: My mom was addicted to genealogy. She would work on it when other things needed doing like laundry and cooking. She would go hide in her room looking at data bases and emails when the rest of us gathered for family reunions. She made my dad bring a small portable desk with them in their RV so she would have a place to work on her genealogy even when they were camping. The one time she visited the house I currently live in, she spent most of the time here doing genealogy and the night before they were going to leave she place that desk in front of our front door blocking it, just to make sure my dad would not forget the desk. Anything carried to excess is unhealthy. But I do not use her as an example to caution people to not do genealogy. I recognize the difference between normal behavior and obsessiveness regardless of the activity. Great post, thanks CA!
jkwilliams Posted March 31, 2018 Author Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: And yet you are always the one to say that you do not want to destroy someone's faith. Your true self is showing I don’t like posters who mock other people’s faith. In my view, that’s what Samuel is doing. I don’t apologize for calling out a troll. ETA: In the spirit of tolerance and harmony, I will not comment on this poster, troll or not, henceforth. Edited March 31, 2018 by jkwilliams 3
mfbukowski Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I don’t like posters who mock other people’s faith. In my view, that’s what Samuel is doing. I don’t apologize for calling out a troll. ETA: In the spirit of tolerance and harmony, I will not comment on this poster, troll or not, henceforth. He is not a troll, he is ultra conservative and that is clear.
jkwilliams Posted March 31, 2018 Author Posted March 31, 2018 28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: He is not a troll, he is ultra conservative and that is clear. That is not at all clear to me. Either way, in no way have I tried to destroy his faith. 4
Calm Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: He is not a troll, he is ultra conservative and that is clear. I am with jkwilliams based on Sam's history of posting, jumps around too much 2
RevTestament Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 19 hours ago, pogi said: Thanks for your reply. That is an interesting comment about the "light switch". I am conflicted on this. I see what you are saying, but I don't see a way to nurture sexuality and self-simulated sexual experiences in youth without indulging in a healthy(?) dose of lust. Is it really possible, if so, how? I imagine that the male sex is not alone in using fantasy and lustful thinking in order to elicit and fuel this physiological response - isn't that kind of the point of it, to have a sexual experience in your body and mind? Can one have a sexual experience without including the mind? It seems like most people do it in response to lustful thinking, boredom, or stress. In which case it is either a sinful physical indulgence in lust, or could easily turn into an unhealthy coping mechanism. Does anybody really do it without one of those elements triggering it? 16 hours ago, BlueDreams said: Yes they do I would venture to say there are a fair number of pubescent adolescents who have never seen pornography, much less ever seen a naked man nor woman, but yet still have masturbated. It is quite typical for young men to awake in an excited state. He doesn't have to consciously do anything to get there. Indeed I have some concerns about a young man who doesn't experience that. I am sure I don't need to tell other parents this. Just the thought of experiencing an orgasm can excite young men - and my guess is young women too. I suppose to some that may be lust, but it is not lust after another who is forbidden to you. I would hope the Church would finally come to learn this. In the totality of this thread no one has clearly delineated why M alone is sinful. I agree with the Church that pornography is sinful and have stated why. It is also often quite degrading, and probably always unspiritual. In this way it gives the opposite example of what the true relation between a man and a woman should be, and I believe its use allows evil spirits to enter the sexual mind. Although probably most who M do use pornography or remember it, you are right that some do not. I definitely did not equate M and pornography in teaching my children, and tried to be explicitly clear why they should not use pornography.
RevTestament Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 5 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I don’t like posters who mock other people’s faith. In my view, that’s what Samuel is doing. I don’t apologize for calling out a troll. ETA: In the spirit of tolerance and harmony, I will not comment on this poster, troll or not, henceforth. 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: That is not at all clear to me. Either way, in no way have I tried to destroy his faith. Sam is not a troll. I would like to speak on his behalf, and I agree with Mark. I often do not agree with Sam, and sometimes he is a little much for my tastes, but he has a right to be here and express his opinion as far as I am concerned. He is typically a respectful poster, and a defender of Christ. May I suggest JK if you do not like reading what Sam says, that you block him? I am also tired of posters trolling him - it does drag on. 1
jkwilliams Posted March 31, 2018 Author Posted March 31, 2018 1 minute ago, RevTestament said: Sam is not a troll. I would like to speak on his behalf, and I agree with Mark. I often do not agree with Sam, and sometimes he is a little much for my tastes, but he has a right to be here and express his opinion as far as I am concerned. He is typically a respectful poster, and a defender of Christ. May I suggest JK if you do not like reading what Sam says, that you block him? I am also tired of posters trolling him - it does drag on. I haven’t been trolling him, but as I have said, I will refrain from interacting with him going forward. I reject the accusation that I have made any attempt to destroy his faith. That is ridiculous. 2
SamuelTheLamanite Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 18 hours ago, cinepro said: He was neither "mentally disabled" or "stupid". He was just wrong. He formed a theory from limited data and bad logic, which people do all the time. It's very common. He obviously associated it with "crime" because for almost his entire life, pornography was illegal. The only way to produce it and distribute it was to commit a crime. But as a counterpoint to his theory, society has (for better or worse) been engaged in a massive experiment on what the consequences of exposure to pornography are. And while the consequences might be bad in some ways, they haven't led to an increase in murder, robbery or rape. That's a testable theory, and as the linked graphs show, the rates for all three have declined as society's exposure to pornography has grown exponentially. Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught "A little pornography may not only lead to child and spouse abuse, but it slowly sucks out the marrow of self-esteem". Thomas S Monson taught, "Pornography is especially dangerous and addictive. Curious exploration of pornography can become a controlling habit, leading to coarser material and to sexual transgression." Gorden B Hinckley taught "“There is an ever-growing plague of pornography swirling about us. … Portrayals of sexual perversion, violence, and bestiality become increasingly available for those who succumb to their lures." A prophet is an expert in spiritual revelation because he can tell the difference between his own thoughts and the spirit. It is true a prophet can make a mistake, but it is impossible for many of them to make the same mistake in General Conference. Why? Because God controls his church. But if you want statistics look at the countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and China. In the four countries I just mentioned pornography is illegal and crime is low. The BYU encyclopedia of Mormonism says "Also, since much pornography depicts violence and aggression against females, it raises risks of conditioning viewers to sanction these as acceptable behavior. The best evidence suggests that all sexual deviations are learned, and pornography appears to be a major facilitator in the acquisition of these deviations." http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Pornography 22 hours ago, pogi said: As a recovering porn addict myself Brother Pogi you are a porn addiction survivor. Can you please confirm if pornography depicts violence and aggression against females.
SamuelTheLamanite Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 12 minutes ago, RevTestament said: He is typically a respectful poster, and a defender of Christ. May I suggest JK if you do not like reading what Sam says, that you block him? I am also tired of posters trolling him - it does drag on. God bless you brother
RevTestament Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: God bless you brother
pogi Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 47 minutes ago, RevTestament said: I suppose to some that may be lust, but it is not lust after another who is forbidden to you. I would hope the Church would finally come to learn this. I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that lust is not forbidden for youth, but only for married adults? 47 minutes ago, RevTestament said: In the totality of this thread no one has clearly delineated why M alone is sinful. If it can be done without lust...maybe. How many married men do this while thinking about their wives? Lets be honest. But I remain skeptical that any of the population masturbate without lustful thoughts. That just seems weird and defeats the purpose (except in the case of relieving cramps). I would venture that for anyone who has hit the age of puberty, and some even younger, it is all about lust and sex. It is a simulated sexual experience - what the heck else are they going to be thinking about - weeding their garden? You are right, it is common to wake up "excited in the night". Nothing wrong with that. But I would suggest that it is uncommon to then masturbate without indulging in lustful thoughts. Edited March 31, 2018 by pogi
pogi Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 30 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Brother Pogi you are a porn addiction survivor. Can you please confirm if pornography depicts violence and aggression against females. Give me a break Sam, you are a dude, tell him yourself. To answer you honestly though, I rarely ever saw anything like that. That kind of stuff is offensive to me on another level and never turned me on. Some girls have a fetish for that kind of stuff too though, it is not just guys who are into it. It goes both ways. Some dudes are into female dominatrices. It is usually role playing and not actual violence.
california boy Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 19 hours ago, bdouglas said: I am haunted my “Michael” (not his real name). I went on a mission at 19, most of my friends did also, but Michael didn’t. Michael was one of our group, perhaps the most religious of all of us, but when he turned 19, he didn’t go on a mission. When I asked another friend (one who, like me, was just going into the MTC) why this was, he said, laughing, “I’m pretty sure he whacks, and so his stake prez won’t let him go.” When I came home from my mission two years later, I started school at BYU, and in the summer I went on a six month Semester Abroad. Michael was in my group i.e. he was part of the same Semester Abroad. He still had plans for a mission, even though he was now 21. Michael would fast once a week, and sometimes these fasts went on for, not 24 hours, but 48 hours. One time he fasted for 36 hours, taking only water——all done, I think now, looking back on it all, in an effort to "subdue his flesh". Michael never went on a mission, and I have lost touch with him. I’m guessing Michael was highly sexed; on a scale of 1 to 10, he was probably a 10 plus. This was in the 1970s, the era of BKP, Mark E. Peterson, Vaughn J Featherstone, “Miracle Of Forgiveness”, etc. Not every church leader hammered on M, but many did. It was a cultural taboo far more than it was ever a Gospel taboo, but some people, like Michael, didn’t make that distinction. Anyway, reading this thread, I remembered Michael, and I wondered how many other Michaels there are out there. I am guessing Michael is gay. His behavior is very similar to mine and how I tried to deal with it. Just another viewpoint. Things are not all as they seem. Of course I could be totally wrong.
RevTestament Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 24 minutes ago, pogi said: I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that lust is not forbidden for youth, but only for married adults? You tell me Pogi. How does one lust after one's self? It is kind of a contradiction in terms. You can't lust after your own house or your own car or your own body. So, what I am suggesting is that perhaps finishing off a climax upon waking is not lust. But I do agree that lust after a female to whom you are not married in this sense is sinful and unchaste. You are sinning against her in your mind because you are not committed to her, and have not covenanted with her. Therefore, you are starting something in your mind to which she presumably will not agree. That is where lust begins. What BlueDreams and I am saying is that this is not so for most or many pubescent boys and probably girls. They are not lusting after some female whom they have never seen naked. To the extent they are using pornography though, this is obviously not so. Quote If it can be done without lust...maybe. How many married men do this while thinking about their wives? Lets be honest. But I remain skeptical that any of the population masturbate without lustful thoughts. That just seems weird and defeats the purpose (except in the case of relieving cramps). Well, i don't feel I can speak for others, but as an adolescent I often had trouble going to sleep, etc. What to you may be weird, may not be so to others. I have no idea what "cramps" you would be talking about. I have never experienced cramps other than some muscular ones upon exhaustive exercise or the occasional charlie horse - but, I am sorry if you did. Quote I would venture that for anyone who has hit the age of puberty, and some even younger, it is all about lust and sex. It is a simulated sexual experience - what the heck else are they going to be thinking about - weeding their garden? You are right, it is common to wake up "excited in the night". Nothing wrong with that. But I would suggest that it is uncommon to then masturbate without indulging in lustful thoughts. Well, we disagree. While it may be a challenge to discipline the sexual mind, Yeshua expected it of all of us. Because our actions begin with our thoughts. The mere fact of marriage doesn't stop this need either. If one has never exposed themselves to pornography, they cannot think about it. Unfortunately for those that have, it is a bigger task, but it is required of them.
Recommended Posts