Re: Response to ( annilid worm reference deleted) Buffalo.

[_why me]

I have never asserted that I was "struggling with porn addiction." Buffalo, meet MsJack. Jack, meet Scratch. Scratch, meet beastie. I have had personal experience with it, and studied it intensely. I have also known others who have had problems with sex addiction, and I do know about addiction.

Welcome to the cesspool.

Relax droopy. They also have me down as a porn addict. It comes with the turf.

[_Buffalo]

Thanks for the clarification. I retract my previous statement regarding your supposed addiction to porn and apologize.

Then the retraction is accepted. Thank you.

Thanks. I'll be more careful to verify before making those kinds of statements in the future.

[_Droopy]

Relax droopy. They also have me down as a porn addict. It comes with the turf.

I've known only a few people like this in "real life," but never in such concentrated profusion. I'm just trying to stay away from here and not heed the call to defend, defend, defend everything I've said.

It can be a bit...well, addictive.

[_malaise]

It can be a bit...well, addictive.

Well, you do know a lot about addiction.

[_zeezrom]

Droopy,

What do you think? Can you answer my question posted above?

Cheers,

Zee

PS- why so much verbiage against other posters instead of useful dialogue? This is the crap that enters this, the wastewater treatment plant called the discussion board. Without which, our world would be very crappy. Think of this place as a hospital. We are here to help you along the way. We can convert the crap to a dark soil treatment where flowers grow.

[_Droopy]

It can be a bit...well, addictive.

Well, you do know a lot about addiction.

I already said that, I believe in this thread.

Do I hear an echo??

[_Droopy]

I understand that you're a very angry man.

What makes you think this? I would think that, when the term "angry" came up, your first thought would be Kevin Graham.

But I'd like to hear a criticism of the very real abstinence violation effect that rises above your dismissive "psychobabble" retorts.

Its the way you've used it, not the principle itself. Any violation of core principle will produce a similar effect, regardless of the principle or behavior involved. Its an utterly mundane and natural reaction to the violation of core values.

Your inference from this, that it is the perception of something as wrong that creates:

1. The desire to do it and

2. Generates the very addictive processes one seeks to abstain from,

does not follow from the principle itself, and can be easily explained through other processes, such as, in a theological sense, the very idea of the "natural man" within the gospel, in which carnal, selfish appetites and self centered behavior intrinsic to the human being as a biological and "telestial" being tend to dominate the personality unless continual disciplines are observed though which these are controlled and, ultimately mastered.

The desire to taste "forbidden fruit" is inherent in the human condition and within "natural" human dynamics. The forbiddeness itself does not always produce the desire (and this is an especially prevalent adolescent characteristic) to seek the forbidden thing. That requires only the Fall and concomitant inherent sensitivities and biases. We would, in other words, seek out our sex, drugs, and rock n' roll whether or not someone said "Don't do that!"

All types of psychologies and personological characteristics are not equally enticed by things like drugs, sexual media, alcohol, partying etc. Others have deep biases in that direction.

The "forbidden fruit" does not create addiction. Addiction creates the overwhelming perception that the forbidden fruit is desirable at almost any risk.

[_Droopy]

What if pornography is defined as " imagery that arouses sacred procreative powers"? In this case, would you still categorize it the way you have?

Depends upon the circumstances.

[_Buffalo]

I understand that you're a very angry man.

What makes you think this? I would think that, when the term "angry" came up, your first thought would be Kevin Graham.

But I'd like to hear a criticism of the very real abstinence violation effect that rises above your dismissive "psychobabble" retorts.

Its the way you've used it, not the principle itself. Any violation of core principle will produce a similar effect, regardless of the principle or behavior involved. Its an utterly mundane and natural reaction to the violation of core values.

Your inference from this, that it is the perception of something as wrong that creates:

1. The desire to do it and

2. Generates the very addictive processes one seeks to abstain from,

does not follow from the principle itself, and can be easily explained through other processes, such as, in a theological sense, the very idea of the "natural man" within the gospel, in which carnal, selfish appetites and self centered behavior intrinsic to the human being as a biological and "telestial" being tend to dominate the personality unless continual disciplines are observed though which these are controlled and, ultimately mastered.

The desire to taste "forbidden fruit" is inherent in the human condition and within "natural" human dynamics. The forbiddeness itself does not always produce the desire (and this is an especially prevalent adolescent characteristic) to seek the forbidden thing. That requires only the Fall and concomitant inherent sensitivities and biases. We would, in other words, seek out our sex, drugs, and rock n' roll whether or not someone said "Don't do that!"

All types of psychologies and personological characteristics are not equally enticed by things like drugs, sexual media, alcohol, partying etc. Others have deep biases in that direction.

The "forbidden fruit" does not create addiction. Addiction creates the overwhelming perception that the forbidden fruit is desirable at almost any risk.

So your objection to it is actually that it contradicts your religious beliefs, correct?

Try this out: whatever you do, DON'T think about a pink elephant!

Do you disagree that, for someone raised in a strict religious setting anyway, one look at porno brings intense feelings of guilt and shame and immense failure? Do you disagree that when someone feels they've failed in some essential regard, there is increased motivation to do it again because they are "screwed," anyway? Do you disagree that another look at porn and the endorphins you get from seeing nekkid women is a temporary antidote to all that religious shame?

That's the abstinence violation effect.

[Guest]

Try this out: whatever you do, DON'T think about a pink elephant!

Pink elephants are imaginary creatures that have no moral/ethical weight or consequences attached to the thought of them.

Do you disagree that, for someone raised in a strict religious setting anyway, one look at porno brings intense feelings of guilt and shame and immense failure?

No.

Do you disagree that when someone feels they've failed in some essential regard, there is increased motivation to do it again because they are "screwed," anyway?

That's a feature of certain kinds of psychologies, and especially adolescent psychologies, not by any means all.

Do you disagree that another look at porn and the endorphins you get from seeing nekkid women is a temporary antidote to all that religious shame?

No. In my experience, especially with alcohol, it creates a cascading avalanche of shame and self loathing in a deeply compulsive, repetitive cycle. The cycle itself medicates those feelings of shame (or compensates briefly for them) in the same why one's drug of choice "medicates" those aspects of one's self perception within which lie the origin of one's addiction. That cycle is what must be broken through the process of "recovery."