Internet Porn Addiction Debate

[LA Ute]

Didn't what books made it into the Bible come about by some sort of a vote?

Well, we accept the Bible "as far as it was voted on correctly."

[frank ryan]

It's now the Anti-Pornography Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (APCLDS).

Your funniest post to date, sir.

Touché. I don't care if it is an addiction, it is a big problem for a lot of people. But I've probably been listening too much to the wrong people.

Yeah it can definitely cause a lot of problems. I think one way the church could make progress in reducing pornography consumption among its members would be to stop the silly byzantine masturbation makes you unworthy stuff.

My apologies if I've already linked this:

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/hes_just_not_that_into_anyone.html

I've linked to this blog before, but I don't believe I linked to this article.

I thought this blog post was fascinating in many respects. First, I can't imagine how someone wrote an article in a widely circulated magazine about their personal sexual problems, and they didn't do it anonymously. Second, the blog post itself and the advice gleaned therein stands in stark contrast to the church's approach to this issue; namely, shaming people for this behavior basically does nothing to help them out. If they're consuming massive amounts of porn then the problem isn't so much the porn or that singular behavior itself -- rather it connotes some glaring personal deficiencies in their overall habits and behavior that leads to frequent and habitual behavior. If the underlying problems are not fixed, then the massive porn consumption will continue. I thought the discussion about efforts to lose weight clarified the point -- sheer will power and avoiding food is not as effective as behavior replacement.

Here are a few gems:

Regarding the line between recreational porn consumption and something more serious: "You have to approach porn like a bank heist: get in, get out, you got 15 minutes and someone tripped the silent alarm. Leave nothing behind." lol

Shortly after that is this:



On resistance to porn being futile:



And finally the money quote:

There has got to be a correlation with people who self-identify with having a porn addiction and their religious background. When they are taught to any viewing of porn makes you unworthy it doesn't take much to feel like you have a problem.

What? We're talking about this shit again? Oh, never mind, I was thinking about punography.

lol

[Eddie]

...
Yeah it can definitely cause a lot of problems. I think one way the church could make progress in reducing pornography consumption among its members would be to stop the silly byzantine masturbation makes you unworthy stuff....

Now, admittedly I don't know a lot about this stuff. But this sounds counter-intuitive to me. I'm having a hard time understanding how more masturbation = less porn.

[YOhio]

Now, admittedly I don't know a lot about this stuff. But this sounds counter-intuitive to me. I'm having a hard time understanding how more masturbation = less porn.

You get so good at it that you don't need external stimulation.

[jay santos]

Now, admittedly I don't know a lot about this stuff. But this sounds counter-intuitive to me. I'm having a hard time understanding how more masturbation = less porn.

My opinion with pretty much nothing but anecdotal observances:

The hyperfocus on masturbation and porn on LDS teens produces more porn addicts than the general population. The shame is the key factor. Most teenage boys masturbate. Most look at porn at least on occasion. A large percent go through a phase of life where they view porn regularly or get caught up some sort of habitual use. Most kids come out of it (LDS and not) and may or may not continue occasional use, but they don't feel compelled or addicted. For some, it becomes a stronger and stronger habit until you might call it an addiction. The shame and secrecy about it in the LDS church creates an environment where it's more difficult to come out of that in a natural way, and more likely for it to become a stronger attraction.

[jay santos]

That Ted talk video linked earlier is a good video, and IMHO is a much better approach than the approach the church takes. The church takes a Law of Moses approach. Thou shalt not look at porn. The motivation is fear and the justification is obedience. This Ted talk video is a higher level approach. This is WHY it's not good for you. The motivation is seeking balanced mental health and successful relationships and good sex.

[UVACoug]

That Ted talk video linked earlier is a good video, and IMHO is a much better approach than the approach the church takes. The church takes a Law of Moses approach. Thou shalt not look at porn. The motivation is fear and the justification is obedience. This Ted talk video is a higher level approach. This is WHY it's not good for you. The motivation is seeking balanced mental health and successful relationships and good sex.

Thanks for actually looking at it, rather than immediately jumping to a bunch of conclusions and pronouncements. I think it is an interesting topic and I agree that the Church (or more accurately, in my view ... zealots among the Church membership) often exacerbates these type of problems, when they really exist, by demonizing those that have ever looked at porn.

The two sources I linked really have nothing to do with the Church, or any church ... for that matter. In fact, they mostly talked about how porn impacts people's sex lives in their twenties (and presumable unmarried). Not exactly the viewpoint of the Church or others that oppose porn on moral grounds. I posted this in the 'Water Cooler' with the hopes of having a discussion that didn't involve the Church, but apparently that isn't possible.

On another note, I find it a little disingenuous to say it is impossible to study the effects of pornography because everyone uses it. Even if that were mostly true, surely there are varying degrees of porn use among the general populous. I get the impression from the Atlantic column that it is somewhat politically incorrect to study porn addiction, given the implications it might have on certain social issues. Surely unbiased scientists wouldn't shape their scientific investigations by what was politically correct, would they? Psychologists have never shunned those that dared to study controversial subjects ... have they?

[Topper]

My opinion with pretty much nothing but anecdotal observances:

The hyperfocus on masturbation and porn on LDS teens produces more porn addicts than the general population. The shame is the key factor. Most teenage boys masturbate. Most look at porn at least on occasion. A large percent go through a phase of life where they view porn regularly or get caught up some sort of habitual use. Most kids come out of it (LDS and not) and may or may not continue occasional use, but they don't feel compelled or addicted. For some, it becomes a stronger and stronger habit until you might call it an addiction. The shame and secrecy about it in the LDS church creates an environment where it's more difficult to come out of that in a natural way, and more likely for it to become a stronger attraction.

Astute observations.

The Church approach likely exacerbates the problem, not improving it.

[ERCougar]

Thanks for actually looking at it, rather than immediately jumping to a bunch of conclusions and pronouncements. I think it is an interesting topic and I agree that the Church (or more accurately, in my view ... zealots among the Church membership) often exacerbates these type of problems, when they really exist, by demonizing those that have ever looked at porn.

The two sources I linked really have nothing to do with the Church, or any church ... for that matter. In fact, they mostly talked about how porn impacts people's sex lives in their twenties (and presumable unmarried). Not exactly the viewpoint of the Church or others that oppose porn on moral grounds. I posted this in the 'Water Cooler' with the hopes of having a discussion that didn't involve the Church, but apparently that isn't possible.

On another note, I find it a little disingenuous to say it is impossible to study the effects of pornography because everyone uses it. Even if that were mostly true, surely there are varying degrees of porn use among the general populous. I get the impression from the Atlantic column that it is somewhat politically incorrect to study porn addiction, given the implications it might have on certain social issues. Surely unbiased scientists wouldn't shape their scientific investigations by what was politically correct, would they? Psychologists have never shunned those that dared to study controversial subjects ... have they?

Oh good. You're back.

As for mention of the Church, if you'll read carefully (or at all) without jumping to conclusions about what everyone is saying (irony alert?), you'll note that you and LA are the only ones to even mention the Church (until jay's last post). The rest of us have addressed this from a mental health perspective, one that you've nicely packaged into mere "political correctness" (what a fresh perspective!), without actually addressing any of the relevant issues (what criteriae do mental health professionals use to define "addiction" or "disorder" and does porn use meet that criteria, for example).

I had hoped for a rational discussion of this issue, without silly buzzwords and political paranoia, but apparently that isn't possible.

[Armenag]

Interesting tangential article from the Guardian about the minor academic ruckus stirred up by the announcement of a new journal called Porn Studies:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2013/jun/16/internet-violent-porn-crime-studies

[frank ryan]

Now, admittedly I don't know a lot about this stuff. But this sounds counter-intuitive to me. I'm having a hard time understanding how more masturbation = less porn.

I think by shaming sexual feelings it can serve to make any sexual behavior taboo. Anytime you stigmatize something that way it will increase the addictive power that behavior has for a lot of people.
You want to turn a book into a bestseller? Ban it.
Activities that involve risk and shame always lend themselves to being the objects of addiction.

[LA Ute]

Oh good. You're back.

As for mention of the Church, if you'll read carefully (or at all) without jumping to conclusions about what everyone is saying (irony alert?), you'll note that you and LA are the only ones to even mention the Church (until jay's last post). The rest of us have addressed this from a mental health perspective....

Are you really suggesting that the church has not really been part of this discussion from the beginning, sub rosa at the very least?

[UVACoug]

Oh good. You're back.

Did you think you scared me off? Nope ... I've just been too busy at work to say much here lately. You can't get rid of me that easy.

As for mention of the Church, if you'll read carefully (or at all) without jumping to conclusions about what everyone is saying (irony alert?), you'll note that you and LA are the only ones to even mention the Church (until jay's last post).

I won't even bother to quote all the posts that prove you wrong. That just doesn't interest me, and we both know that you are. The more interesting question is why you felt the need to say something so demonstrably false in order to attack me.

The rest of us have addressed this from a mental health perspective, one that you've nicely packaged into mere "political correctness" (what a fresh perspective!), without actually addressing any of the relevant issues (what criteriae do mental health professionals use to define "addiction" or "disorder" and does porn use meet that criteria, for example).

I had hoped for a rational discussion of this issue, without silly buzzwords and political paranoia, but apparently that isn't possible.

I don't understand why you think any of my comments were directed at you or anyone else on this board. They weren't. They were comments about people mentioned in the column that I posted in the original post. (who is not reading now?) If you had actually read the post, rather than jumped to conclusions ... you would understand what I am talking about. The people mentioned in the column are clearly letting their political beliefs shape their scientific endeavors.

Setting all that bull crap aside, let me ask you this. Do you think porn addiction (or theoretical porn addiction) is a subject worthy of investigation by psychologists? And if it is, do you think it is true that it can't be studied because it is impossible to find a control group of people that don't regularly look at porn? Do you believe that habitual masturbation causes porn addiction? If it does, how do you explain those that had a porn habit before they started masturbating? Do you there are people that struggle to break a porn habit? If so, are these people just pathetic slobs that have no self control ... or is it possible that they can't help themselves and need some outside help? Do you think people who claim attending 12-step programs (similar to attending AA) helped them overcome a porn habit are lying? Do you think those that claim ending heavy porn use made them less depressed, more confident, and allowed them to have better sex lives are lying?

I don't really care whether people call it an addiction or a habit or something else. I don't know what the technical definition of "addiction" is (and doubt there is one ... I have asked before and never got a clear answer). What I do know is that I know people that have struggled to stop looking at porn for years. I'm not talking about once every few weeks for a short amount of time. I am talking about every day for hours at a time. These people sincerely want to stop and put in a lot of effort to do so. I don't think these people are pathetic slobs that have no self-control. They are people with real problems that need help. These people aren't that rare either.

I think the more we pretend like this isn't a real issue, the more people with problems are going to be ostracized and demonized. They will be treated like scum by self-righteous Mormons (and other religious people) who think they are pathetic, disgusting perverts that are going to hell. Do you think that is going to help anyone overcome a bad porn habit? Of course it won't. If anything, it will only exacerbate things (I have seen it happen). The sooner the psychological community overcomes its political correctness and recognizes this problem for what it is, the sooner people like this can be treated the way they should be treated. People who, through their own choices, have gotten themselves into a situation where they can't help but spend hours a day looking at porn. People whose porn habits are impacting their lives. Not evil scumbags that have disgusting minds and that are going to hell. People that need help to break a habit.

[ERCougar]

Are you really suggesting that the church has not really been part of this discussion from the beginning, sub rosa at the very least?

By beginning, do you mean UVA's original post? Or Donuthole's referral to other porn related threads? Or danimal's comment that porn addiction is still not a part of the DSM? Those were the three posts that preceded your mention of the church in this thread, so maybe you could point out where the church became part of this discussion before your post.

Maybe I need to brush up on my Latin.

[ERCougar]

Did you think you scared me off? Nope ... I've just been too busy at work to say much here lately. You can't get rid of me that easy.

I won't even bother to quote all the posts that prove you wrong. That just doesn't interest me, and we both know that you are. The more interesting question is why you felt the need to say something so demonstrably false in order to attack me.

I don't understand why you think any of my comments were directed at you or anyone else on this board. They weren't. They were comments about people mentioned in the column that I posted in the original post. (who is not reading now?) If you had actually read the post, rather than jumped to conclusions ... you would understand what I am talking about. The people mentioned in the column are clearly letting their political beliefs shape their scientific endeavors.

I don't know if your response is all part of your grand effort to "tolerate" people like me or not. If it is ... it is an interesting way to go about it.

I guess I misunderstood your point here:

I posted this in the 'Water Cooler' with the hopes of having a discussion that didn't involve the Church, but apparently that isn't possible.

You were talking to the people in the articles you linked! Apologies.

And no, this isn't part of any grand effort to tolerate you.