Unusual sexual obsession in church

[BoylenOver]

There was a lot of discussion and warnings about drug use when I grew up in the 60s and 70s but I really don't recall those discussions being as prevalent as the admonitions against porn today. From a personal standpoint I did not feel any great temptation to use drugs simply because I was told not to. I knew people who used them and I saw that their lives were generally messed up and that was sufficient motivation to abstain. Further, I don't think the drug problem was (or is) nearly as widespread as the porn problem in the Church, hence the more frequent admonishments against porn. Porn seems to have a stronger addictive pull to more men, probably because men are hard-wired (no pun intended) to have as much sex as they can. When sex is not available, voyeurism substitutes for it, thus the porn problem, whereas with drugs, substitutes can be as harmless as exercise which provides endorphin highs. I don't know if that answers the question, but it is my viewpoint on your inquiry.

Porn is a also bigger problem because you can hide it. You can go to google, type anything you can think of, a collection of sites are available, you look at them to fulfill the desired stimulation, and it's over. It doesn't make your eyes bloodshot; it doesn't alter your conscious state; and there's no injection point or secondhand smoke (among many other things).

[Viking]

[quote=wuapinmon;281410]

Probably. But there is something to it, i bet

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Unfortunately, the frequent discussion is a direct function of how big of a problem it is in the church, and while it might grate on the nerves of those that may not have problems with porn, I seriously doubt the constant discussion of it becomes a direct or indirect contributor to more people falling victim to that vice.

I think it could make the problem worse for some. The extreme guilt can lessen a person's ability to overcome the vice. They may think "I'm weak and I'm screwed, I might as well look at some more." On top of that, consuming more could give them a short-lived endorphin rush to ease some of the guilt.

The current track record seems to also speak for itself. By all indications, the constant discussion about porn isn't helping. I don't buy that porn is harmless, I think it is. But I think a periodic discussion would provide enough notice to people that porn consumption is not okay and requires repentance. The bishop should talk to the porn user once, let him get it off his chest. If the bishop has to talk to him (or her, ROWRRR!) twice, the porn user should be referred to a group or specialist. If the porn user doesn't go to the group or specialist, then his temple privleges should be put into question. I know the church doesn't completely ignore the therapeutic side of overcoming this problem, but I think these people should be introduced to some form of therapy sooner rather than later. Also, bishops are probably bogged down with this kind of crap. They're not therapists.

[Indy Coug]

The current track record seems to also speak for itself. By all indications, the constant discussion about porn isn't helping.

How would you know it isn't helping? Do we have a control group of Mormons being shielded from all "thou shalt not porn" talk to compare their porn utilization rates against those that are being subjected to the full frontal assault coming from their church leaders?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

How would you know it isn't helping? Do we have a control group of Mormons being shielded from all "thou shalt not porn" talk to compare their porn utilization rates against those that are being subjected to the full frontal assault coming from their church leaders?

We have somewhat of a control group: Utah, which seems to be a leader in porn consumption. Apparently the approach isn't helping. As for control groups within the church, I think it's pretty impossible when GENERAL Conference seems to constantly discuss it.

Plus, you'd be hardpressed to find too many psychiatrists, psychologists or therapists outside the church who think the extreme guilt approach actually works.

[Indy Coug]

Plus, you'd be hardpressed to find too many psychiatrists, psychologists or therapists outside the church who think the extreme guilt approach actually works.

Whatever you say, Mr. NSFW avatar man.

[OhioBlue]

my brief thoughts:

--It's how the church talks about it, not how much, that is more the problem

--sexual purity isn't a new problem for religious cultures, but it certainly got complicated with the advent of the internets. Freakin' Al Gore.

--the amount of guilt and shame around this problem has become ridiculous, and paradoxically only serves to keep someone even more stuck and adversely impact other areas of one's life. No I don't have aggregate, high-n data to support this, just several years of experience in multiple n=1 cases.

(interpret that last line as you must, but you know what I really mean)

[wuapinmon]

my brief thoughts:

--It's how the church talks about it, not how much, that is more the problem

--sexual purity isn't a new problem for religious cultures, but it certainly got complicated with the advent of the internets. Freakin' Al Gore.

--the amount of guilt and shame around this problem has become ridiculous, and paradoxically only serves to keep someone even more stuck and adversely impact other areas of one's life. No I don't have aggregate, high-n data to support this, just several years of experience in multiple n=1 cases.

(interpret that last line as you must, but you know what I really mean)

The youth are being told by the SP that anyone with a pornography "addiction" isn't going to be able to go on a mission until they can go a year.

While I dislike pornography's effects on the viewer--long term--I also think that the best place to help someone avoid looking at porn is probably the mission.

[thesaint258]

While I dislike pornography's effects on the viewer--long term--I also think that the best place to help someone avoid looking at porn is probably the mission.

Just don't send them to Europe.

[Goatnapper'96]

The youth are being told by the SP that anyone with a pornography "addiction" isn't going to be able to go on a mission until they can go a year.

While I dislike pornography's effects on the viewer--long term--I also think that the best place to help someone avoid looking at porn is probably the mission.

I agree with this. I think.

I think it comes down to what one means by the word "addiction." To me one who is addicted to something is so caught up in fulfilling that urge, let it be physiological or mental, that all other activities or pursuits are retarded. In that case I don't think serving a mission is a good idea. However, I believe the people "addicted" to porn is very low. There is difference between a porn abuser and being a porn addict. Even those who use porn every day, or more than once a day, to get a chubby that they then rub but can function the rest of the time strike me more as abusers than addicts. If they are still functioning then send them on the mission and it will likely help.

Another angle is what type of porn do you look at. I don't know if there is such a thing as normal, but from my perspective if you like to look at voluptuous women scantily clad that strikes me as normal. If you wanna wax that ass, once again these are normal urges that in the long run benefit mankind. Obviously under most religious theologies there are constraints to be placed upon acting out those urges for many very good reasons, and thus it follows that working on controlling the information you give yourself to increase your self-control over those urges is likely a good idea. However, the base instinct to wax that ass isn't really the enemy. But if you like looking at midgets dressed like Star Wars storm troopers putting metal pipes up their anal orifice while gently walking a gerbil into your ass with the help of a large bic lighter, that doesn't strike me as normal and perhaps one might hesitate to send such a prospective missionary into the mission field. But that might just be me.

[byu71]

I agree with this. I think.

I think it comes down to what one means by the word "addiction." To me one who is addicted to something is so caught up in fulfilling that urge, let it be physiological or mental, that all other activities or pursuits are retarded. In that case I don't think serving a mission is a good idea. However, I believe the people "addicted" to porn is very low. There is difference between a porn abuser and being a porn addict. Even those who use porn every day, or more than once a day, to get a chubby that they then rub but can function the rest of the time strike me more as abusers than addicts. If they are still functioning then send them on the mission and it will likely help.

Another angle is what type of porn do you look at. I don't know if there is such a thing as normal, but from my perspective if you like to look at voluptuous women scantily clad that strikes me as normal. If you wanna wax that ass, once again these are normal urges that in the long run benefit mankind. Obviously under most religious theologies there are constraints to be placed upon acting out those urges for many very good reasons, and thus it follows that working on controlling the information you give yourself to increase your self-control over those urges is likely a good idea. However, the base instinct to wax that ass isn't really the enemy. But if you like looking at midgets dressed like Star Wars storm troopers putting metal pipes up their anal orifice while gently walking a gerbil into your ass with the help of a large bic lighter, that doesn't strike me as normal and perhaps one might hesitate to send such a prospective missionary into the mission field. But that might just be me.

If a Bishop were to say to a young man, do you look at porn and the young man responded, define porn for me. Can the Bishop go to a manual from Church Headquarters that gives him the answer or is porn defined the way each individual Bishop defines it?

[Goatnapper'96]

If a Bishop were to say to a young man, do you look at porn and the young man responded, define porn for me. Can the Bishop go to a manual from Church Headquarters that gives him the answer or is porn defined the way each individual Bishop defines it?

Even members of the US Supreme Court cannot define it. I think my answer would be do you believe you have any problems purposely seeking out media content with the specific intent of sexual stimulation? If the young man doesn't believe he has any problems then I would be content...unless he has a metal pole big enough for a gerbil to walk through and a Star Wars Storm Trooper costume with a hole for #2s.

[byu71]

Even members of the US Supreme Court cannot define it. I think my answer would be do you believe you have any problems purposely seeking out media content with the specific intent of sexual stimulation? If the young man doesn't believe he has any problems then I would be content...unless he has a metal pole big enough for a gerbil to walk through and a Star Wars Storm Trooper costume with a hole for #2s.

I would not buy a Playboy Magazine and actually never have. On the other hand if one was being passed around the office I would take a turn looking at it.

I would hope my Bishop would agree with me that I do not have a problem with porn.

[Goatnapper'96]

I would not buy a Playboy Magazine and actually never have. On the other hand if one was being passed around the office I would take a turn looking at it.

I would hope my Bishop would agree with me that I do not have a problem with porn.

I don't know if your Bishop would, but I would likely agree with you. But that is mostly because I know of you insatiable appetite for intellectual commentary with a liberal bend. Obviously, you would be reading the articles.

[Paperback Writer]

As has been mentioned, how does one define an addiction to pornography? Bishops will have different standards let alone recent teenage HS graduates. Because of the LDS guilt factor, I thought I was addicted to porn as a teenager and I had never bought a Playboy or anything like it. I just had a strong desire to look at boobs and thought that my porn or boob addiction had to be overcome.

So I'm not sure YM or Bishops will be able to diagnose an addiction to porn even if it could be defined. And I think there is already an unhealthy stigma attached to porn in the LDS culture; porn is the quintessential boogeyman and scapegoat.