Pornography. What's wrong with it?

[Sunstone]

The article was poorly written, but the authorship doesn't matter.

True. It's logically conceivable that the author could know what she's talking about despite her lack of credentials.

 

[idea]

if someone wants "official church" statements on it, recently a vid was released:

LDS.org - Mormon Message Gallery
"watch your step"

there are also many articles on it:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Search

it does seem to be a new "epidemic" that is sweeping the world, and the church is being pro-active in fighting it - I'm glad that they are not ignoring the issue. (not that they are obsessing over it either, there are a lot of issues which the church is proactive on)

 

[Skwim]

idea This stuff is obvious to most...

Perhaps to most of those who have been indoctrined by such simplistic diatribes, but to the rest of us it comes of as rather silly.

the old anti-crowd... it's true - you can leave the church, but you can't leave it alone...

And that, I believe, is because it is soooo bizarre that it almost begs to be satirized. For instance:

Hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

Jesus visited the Americas after his resurrection.

There are three heavens: the Celestial Kingdom, Terrestrial Kingdom, and Telestial Kingdom.

God created multiple worlds and each world has people living on it.

Multiple Gods exist but each has their own universe.

In order to make it to the highest kingdom of heaven, you must pay a full and honest tithe.

Everyone on earth now was a spirit in the pre-existence. When we die, our spirits are separated from our bodies and if we were good they go to “spirit paradise.” If we were bad they go to “spirit prison.”

Special underwear is worn day and night.

​

Not saying these are inappropriate or wrong, just a bit bizarre.

 

[fallingblood]

So, what is wrong with pornography, or is there nothing wrong with it?

There is nothing wrong with it. Studies, when done on the subject, never really show anything negative. However, the problem is when religious groups do studies that have one thing that they want to prove.

The idea that porn destroys marriages or anything of the like is just ridiculous. If you notice most of the time, the supposed studies never show that porn causes anything. The only thing they are able to show is correlation. Simply, correlation is not causation.

 

[idea]

There is nothing wrong with it. Studies, when done on the subject, never really show anything negative. However, the problem is when religious groups do studies that have one thing that they want to prove.

The idea that porn destroys marriages or anything of the like is just ridiculous. If you notice most of the time, the supposed studies never show that porn causes anything. The only thing they are able to show is correlation. Simply, correlation is not causation.

so you don't take the word of all the divorce attorneys as being valid?

studies are a bit hard - as most people seem to be ashamed of the practice and do not publicly share their info... but then there is a reason people are ashamed of it...

 

[idea]

Not saying these are inappropriate or wrong, just a bit bizarre.

bizarre is in the eye of the beholder.

I find it bizarre that someone would not understand the beauty of loyalty, of having a "one-and-only" soul mate, I mean why do we even wear cloths? I guess to some clothing itself would seem bizarre - others find it the civilized thing to do.

 

[Skwim]

The article was poorly written, but the authorship is irrelevant.

As I pointed out, not when it comes to opinion. The only reason to accept the opinion of anyone is if there are grounds to trust it; in other words, what qualifications does the person have that would generate a trust in what they think about X, Y, and Z? Now, maybe qualifications in an understanding of X, Y, and Z don't mean zilch to you, but they do to me. I would be far quicker to trust the opinion of a mycologist on the edibility of a certain mushroom then trust the opinion of a back yard flower enthusiast. The background of people is very important when it comes to the veracity of their opinions. And as I said, the opinion on social issues by a stay-at-home Mormon mother with a degree in Engineering Systems doesn't mean squat.

 

[Sunstone]

As I pointed out, not when it comes to opinion. The only reason to accept the opinion of anyone is if there are grounds to trust it; in other words, what qualifications does the person have that would generate a trust in what they think about X, Y, and Z? Now, maybe qualifications in an understanding of X, Y, and Z don't mean zilch to you, but they do to me. I would be far quicker to trust the opinion of a mycologist on the edibility of a certain mushroom then trust the opinion of a back yard flower enthusiast. The background of people is very important when it comes to the veracity of their opinions. And as I said, the opinion on social issues by a stay-at-home Mormon mother with a degree in Engineering Systems doesn't mean squat.

You have merely demonstrated that she lacks formal credentials to be talking about porn. But it is conceivable that she could still be well informed on the subject (although she actually is not). What you need to do to make your point regarding her authority logically valid (in informal logic) is demonstrate that she is an anti-authority. That is, that what she says on the subject of porn has a greater chance of being wrong than being right.

 

[idea]

It occurs to me that porn is really a subset of another bigger issue - that of the media/internet vs. reality.

this was another talk that was recently given:
Things as They Really Are - Liahona June 2010

thinking about people's addiction to the internet - to games, or chatting, or watching TV... you know how before people used to sit on the front porch and actually talk to one another in real life - and now no one does this anymore - they don't even make homes with front porches anymore...

In my communications class one of the things we learned is that most of communication is non-verbal (non-words) it's in tone of voice, face expression, etc. etc. so when you are just typing something, you don't get most of what is actually there...

it's still in the early stages, another 50 years and we will know what computers have actually done with our ability to interact with one another in the "real" non-cyber world...

Read carefully the following quote describing an intense romantic relationship a woman had with a cyberspace boyfriend. And note how the medium of communication minimized the importance of the physical body: “And so PFSlider [the man’s screen name] became my everyday life. All the tangible stuff fell away. My body did not exist. I had no skin, no hair, no bones. All desire had converted itself into a cerebral current that reached nothing but my frontal lobe. There was no outdoors, no social life, no weather. There was only the computer screen and the phone, my chair, and maybe a glass of water.”

that's some scary stuff...

ok - I'm ot of here - I'm going to go talk with some "real" people in "real" life

 

[fallingblood]

Researcher Patrick Fagan, PhD, a psychologist and former Deputy Assistant Health and Human Services Secretary, calls pornography a “quiet family killer” and says it is time for citizens to buck the laissez-faire approach to porn. His key findings:

Just a little bias. Well, actually, he is very very biased. His research only showed one thing, what he had already previously believed. This is the same common strand one finds in any research done by either Christian institutes, or most Christians. Simply, doing such is unethical, and not credible in any sense.

Pornography use was correlated with an increase in infidelity of more than 300%. (Other factors may have also contributed to the infidelity, but it was a factor.)

I find it funny how they admit that there are other factors that contributed to infidelity. Of course there were. Porn does not lead to infidelity. If that was true, there wouldn't be millions of people who watch porn and never commit infidelity.

More so, correlation does not equal causation. If a person is committing infidelity, and watching porn, it probably means something more is going on. Porn simply is not the problem here.

56% of divorces involved one party having an obsessive interest in porn.

Again, just a correlation. There is no evidence that porn is causing the divorce. And if we look at divorce statistics, one of the top reasons for divorce is a loss of intimacy and communication. Porn again, is not the problem here.

Married men who are involved in pornography feel less sexually satisfied with their spouse and less attached to her. Wives notice and are upset by the difference.

Or maybe, again, it is because of above. One of the biggest reasons for divorce is a loss of intimacy and communication.

More so, many couples, throughout the years, simply begin to not keep up as much with their health and beauty. So yes, they begin to not be as attracted to their spouses. Porn, once again is not a problem.

Many wives begin to feel unattractive or sexually inadequate.

Again, same as above. That, or they had low self-esteems based on the fact that their husbands don't make them know that they are beautiful. Women, in general, are bombarded by pictures of what beauty is, and for many, as statistics show, it can become burdensome. It has very little to do with porn.

More than half of those engaged in cybersex lost interest in sexual intercourse; one-third of their partners also lost interest.

Did they lose interest before or after cybersex? Unless they can show that the loss of interest happened during the time one is engaged in cybersex, there really is no argument here. And if we look above, it would be logical to assume that the loss of interest happened before.

Pornography is addictive, and neuroscientists are beginning to map the biological substrate.

This is debated. There is no consensus as to whether or not pornography is addictive. And really, when looking at a scientific perspective, the evidence simply is not really there. More so, the evidence doesn't even show that it is harmful. Thus, this point fails.

Users become desensitized and tend to seek more extreme types of pornography (including viewing aggressive behaviors and rape).

This is just bs, simple as that. This argument then leads to the idea that pornography leads to rape, or the like, and there simply is no evidence for that. More so, if one looks at the statistics, most porn users are not looking at extreme types of pornography. This is even more obvious from the fact that most pornography sites are not of the extreme nature. Statistics really help here.

Child-sex offenders are more likely to distribute or regularly view pornography.

This is just asinine. If we look at child-sex offender, most have some form psychological problem. For instance, pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. So they have a real problem in the first place. This has absolutely nothing to do with pornography, and to even to claim such is dishonest.

Pornography use alters sexual attitudes and behavior.

How? Does it do so in a dangerous manner? If not, then there is no problem with it. And are there any other factors?

Adolescents exposed to high levels of pornography use had lower levels of sexual self-esteem.

Or maybe adolescents, who are seen to be sexually attractive by their peers, watch more porn. Again, another correlation.

Porn is not the problem here. Low self-esteem is a problem for many adolescents. To blame it on porn, when the evidence simply is not there will only mask the real problem, and thus make it worse.

Porn use was highly correlated with increased sex with non-romantic friends.

Correlation, again, is not causation. And really, logically, this only shows someone who is sexually active, or enjoys sex.

Men are six times more likely to view pornography as females, and spend more time viewing it. However, among women who engaged in cybersex, 80% went on to have real-life sexual affairs, compared to 33% of men.

Doesn't this actually suggest the opposite then? If men, who watch more porn, are less likely to have an affair, opposed to women who watch less porn, but have more sexual affairs, doesn't that suggest something else?

More so, as I already explained above, statistics explain this. The problem is not porn. The problem is becoming less intimate, and communicating less with their spouse. To blame it on porn is simply masking the real problem.

When brains are scanned using a PET scanner while viewing pornography, the brain reactions are similar to a cocaine addict’s brain while viewing images of others using cocaine.

This is just stupid. The scanners are only picking up on someone having a sensation of enjoyment. You could probably get the same results by making people view someone eating ice cream.

The presence of sexually oriented businesses in communities leads to increases in crime and decreases in property rates.

Decrease in property really show nothing. Especially since most of these places are in business areas. Many of them are sleazy areas of town simply because they are considered taboo and really have no other place to go. That, and many sexually oriented businesses also include bars. Bars in general do the same thing, increase crime and decrease property rates.

This point simply is a misrepresentation of the facts, and really, is just the author being dishonest.

Dr. Fagan concludes, “Pornography corrodes the conscience, promotes distrust between husbands and wives and debases untold thousands of young women. It is not harmless escapism but relational and emotional poison.

Dr. Fagan, in my opinion, is extremely dishonest, unethical, and foolish. He did shoddy research with the sole intention of proving what he already believed. If he did actual research on divorce, and why the occur, most of his points would never have been listed.

 

[fallingblood]

so you don't take the word of all the divorce attorneys as being valid?

Not all divorce attorneys even say this. Your appeal to authority simply is false, and is not based on actual research.

studies are a bit hard - as most people seem to be ashamed of the practice and do not publicly share their info... but then there is a reason people are ashamed of it...

People are generally ashamed of sex in general. Yes, there is a reason. Sex, in general (even between consenting married adults) is considered to be somewhat of a taboo. And the only reason that is true is because people do not want to talk about it, and would rather make people ashamed of it.

People used to be ashamed of being left handed. That didn't make it wrong.

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

The only thing they are able to show is correlation. Simply, correlation is not causation.

Hi Fallingblood!

This is bang on. I'm using a science textbook this semester that spends a lot of time talking about this. Good for you for pointing this out!

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[Darkness]

I suspected this was the connection you were making---the choice to be a gladiator and the choice to be a porno star---both of which had the likely result of throwing one's life away. However, whether you believe it or not,those in porno are not throwing their life away. At least no more so than the poor factory worker who does the same repetitive, boring job of stuffing envelopes or herring cans 40 hours a week from 11 PM to 7AM every night. Moreover, the life of a gladiator is quite unlike that of the porno worker in two very important respects. Most gladiators were slaves, and their life was pretty darn short, two aspects not shared by porno workers. So your comparison is quite inapt.

And that's all I wanted you to see when I asked my leading question. Therefore, if you want to compare the life of a porno worker to that of someone else I suggest you pick a different occupation.

So you think people contemplating suicide have stopped themselves because they remembered that it's against the law, and there would be legal consequences if they went ahead with it? Is THAT what you actually think? Pleease say "No."

No, what I meant was that if someone is found alive having tried to commit suicide, for instance, we should have the authorities provide/mandate psychological counseling for that person. We should not wash our hands and say that it is his or her choice to commit suicide and walk away. If the person is caught in the process or with the immediate intent of committing suicide, the authorities should do their best to prevent it.

Ah ha, another hit and Ruuuuuun! Gotcha.

It's not running away. It is merely that if you believe people should freely be able to choose to be gladiators, then this is a debate for a "individualism vs. communitarianism" thread.

I took this as Darkness saying sex has no basis as something to be bought / sold.

I very much disagree.

Sex is one of the areas I believe should be de-commoditised. Likewise, I believe that health care should be de-commoditised form the position of the consumer. Health care should not be provided on the basis of the consumer's ability to pay.

On a worldwide scale, the prostitution industry is out of whack, but precisely because of how illegal it is. And this has deeper issues than merely looking at symptoms like poverty and psychological issues. Those are symptoms of an industry that is a) not controlled and b) not honored, but instead downplayed and devalued. Having much to do with why our porn contains the themes that it does. And is akin to why our news sells dirt more so or better than direct, mundane topics (i.e. city hall proceedings).

i.Even places where prostitution is legal do not experience better quality of prostitution, if that is even possible. The Netherlands is experience high levels of human trafficking precisely because prostitution is legalised. Blaming it on the aggregate world criminalisation of prostitution is a cop-out. It is like conservatives arguing that if we just cut taxes one more time on the rich, productivity will take off. It doesn't matter that it hasn't the last two times it was tried. This time it will. ii. Blaming the problem of prostitution on it not being honor is also another cop-out. That's like saying we should honor a job where it is your duty to wipe the *** of a rich person's dog. For some reason or other, liberals want us to assign some special value to prostitution, as if it is not an industry that exists to provide infantile men, who should have been aborted, the ability to **** a girl or boy, who is oftentimes young enough to be their daughter or son.

* marshalling my best Bill Maher voice* Honoring prostitution is like honoring the heroin addict in the alley about to inject herself with another dose. It is stupidity. Liberalism is a cancer, because it can never assert value to anything, and must treat everything as equal, because the individual chooses it to be so. I will leave you guys with the last word, since nothing productive can come from further debate. We are separated by two philosophical systems that cannot be reconciled.

 

[Otherright]

it promotes the indulgence in flesh rather then the sanctity of life

So does football.

 

[Otherright]

Hi there! Pornography is disgusting in God's eyes- Ephesians 5:3.

Hi there! It isn't in most human eyes.

 

[Songbird]

As I pointed out, not when it comes to opinion. The only reason to accept the opinion of anyone is if there are grounds to trust it; in other words, what qualifications does the person have that would generate a trust in what they think about X, Y, and Z? Now, maybe qualifications in an understanding of X, Y, and Z don't mean zilch to you, but they do to me. I would be far quicker to trust the opinion of a mycologist on the edibility of a certain mushroom then trust the opinion of a back yard flower enthusiast. The background of people is very important when it comes to the veracity of their opinions. And as I said, the opinion on social issues by a stay-at-home Mormon mother with a degree in Engineering Systems doesn't mean squat.

It's more your tone. You've mentioned three or four times "Mormon" and "stay at home mother" as if those are remotely relevant. The engineering degree is relevant - in that it's not relevant to her topic. But not a parental status or religion.

--Agnostic stay-at-home-mom (by deliberate choice)

 

[Otherright]

It occurs to me that porn is really a subset of another bigger issue - that of the media/internet vs. reality.

this was another talk that was recently given:
Things as They Really Are - Liahona June 2010

thinking about people's addiction to the internet - to games, or chatting, or watching TV... you know how before people used to sit on the front porch and actually talk to one another in real life - and now no one does this anymore - they don't even make homes with front porches anymore...

In my communications class one of the things we learned is that most of communication is non-verbal (non-words) it's in tone of voice, face expression, etc. etc. so when you are just typing something, you don't get most of what is actually there...

it's still in the early stages, another 50 years and we will know what computers have actually done with our ability to interact with one another in the "real" non-cyber world...



that's some scary stuff...

ok - I'm ot of here - I'm going to go talk with some "real" people in "real" life

Here's the thing, Idea. You are generalizing the heck out of this and demonizing something that is totally natural. Orgasm is one of the five paths to joy and fulfillment.

You've posted ideas on here that gauge porn watchers being everything from pedophiles to uneducated. I find this very insulting.
I love my wife. My wife loves me. We watch porn together. We also build a life together, one that does not involve infidelity. One in which we respect one another, trust one another, and our own human sexuality. We aren't afraid of our bodies or our desires toward one another.

If you choose to deny yourself the basic human condition of sexuality, then that is your choice. That is for you to miss out on. But don't judge others who choose to enjoy sex.

For some of us, sex is almost spiritual. It isn't dirty. It isn't something to be ashamed of. It doesn't lead to amputee midget fetishes. We don't need a book to tell us don't touch yourself there or don't look at that down there because its evil. Its healthy. Its part of who we are. Denying yourself this only leads to more stress and suffering in your own life.

As an added note, that bit on loss of desire for sexual contact after cybersex is insane, and I in no way believe it to be anywhere close to accurate. What human being would choose to deny themselves the touch of a mate over simulation?

 

[idea]

Here's the thing, Idea. You are generalizing the heck out of this and demonizing something that is totally natural. Orgasm is one of the five paths to joy and fulfillment.

You've posted ideas on here that gauge porn watchers being everything from pedophiles to uneducated. I find this very insulting.
I love my wife. My wife loves me. We watch porn together. We also build a life together, one that does not involve infidelity. One in which we respect one another, trust one another, and our own human sexuality. We aren't afraid of our bodies or our desires toward one another.

If you choose to deny yourself the basic human condition of sexuality, then that is your choice. That is for you to miss out on. But don't judge others who choose to enjoy sex.

For some of us, sex is almost spiritual. It isn't dirty. It isn't something to be ashamed of. It doesn't lead to amputee midget fetishes. We don't need a book to tell us don't touch yourself there or don't look at that down there because its evil. Its healthy. Its part of who we are. Denying yourself this only leads to more stress and suffering in your own life.

As an added note, that bit on loss of desire for sexual contact after cybersex is insane, and I in no way believe it to be anywhere close to accurate. What human being would choose to deny themselves the touch of a mate over simulation?

One more post (now that everyone is asleep) … would it bother you, if while with your spouse – they called out the name of another person while they were having sex with you? I think it would bother most people, because that would mean they were not really emotionally with you – they were emotionally with someone else – thinking about someone else – getting turned on by someone else…

I agree, sex is wonderful – it’s especially wonderful if you are together both physically, and emotionally – thinking about nothing but one another (not emotionally absent fanaticizing about some other person) just my opinion .

 

[Otherright]

One more post (now that everyone is asleep) … would it bother you, if while with your spouse – they called out the name of another person while they were having sex with you? I think it would bother most people, because that would mean they were not really emotionally with you – they were emotionally with someone else – thinking about someone else – getting turned on by someone else…

I agree, sex is wonderful – it’s especially wonderful if you are together both physically, and emotionally – thinking about nothing but one another (not emotionally absent fanaticizing about some other person) just my opinion .

If you are with someone and the experience is spiritual, then you won't be thinking about anyone else.
From a more secular approach, if you are interested in satisfying your mate, and you aren't in it for selfish reasons, they won't have the opportunity to think about anyone else.

If sex has become a chore where you are thinking about other things or people, you aren't into it anyway. Don't waste your time. Go mow the yard.

 

[Skwim]

It's more your tone. You've mentioned three or four times "Mormon" and "stay at home mother" as if those are remotely relevant. The engineering degree is relevant - in that it's not relevant to her topic. But not a parental status or religion.

--Agnostic stay-at-home-mom (by deliberate choice)

Jamie Turner here has made moral and character judgments, and presented opinions about pornography without credentials in any of the social sciences. So it is relevant to ask what has shaped her judgments and opinions. Because religion is quite influential in shaping one's moral outlook it stands to reason that should Mrs. Turner be devoted to her religion it would no doubt have influenced her moral outlook. As it turns out she is. Not only a devote Mormon, she has written several articles revolving around religion. So I feel it's important to understand that her uneducated opinion is one guided by Mormon principles and beliefs.

If she had been a communist speaking on social political issues I would have identified her as a communist for the same reason.

My identification of her as a stay-at-home mom was simply to show she wasn't going to school or involving herself in larger outside pursuits that may enlighten her. Perhaps this is a bit of bias on my part, but knowing several such mothers who have seemed to have stagnated, I don't regard the enlightenment of such mothers as anything to write home about.