A MAD Porn Thread

[_mentalgymnast]

I understand that Cline is from Salt Lake City. Is he LDS? Sadly, I have seen many a case where an LDS 'expert' will throw logic and ratiocination out the window in order to support Brethren-sanctioned theories and edicts.

Cline earned a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley and conducted research with the George Washington University's human resources research office.

Here is a cut and paste from:

http://mentalhealthlibrary.information/library ... t.htm#data

In reviewing the literature on the effects of pornography, there is a variety of evidence suggesting risk and the possibility of harm from being immersed in repeated exposure to pornography. These data come primarily from three sources:

· Clinical case history data
· Field studies
· Experimental laboratory type studies.

Clinical case history data come from the offices of professional health care personnel treating individuals with sexual dysfunctions, as well as from clergy - and attorneys who counsel or provide services to sexually troubled individuals. Also, in this category is the evidence provided by sexual addicts affiliated with such national support groups as "Sexaholics Anonymous," or in treatment at such centers as the Institute for Behavioral Medicine at Golden Valley, Minnesota.
As a clinical psychologist, I have treated, over many years, approximately 300 sex addicts, sex offenders, or other individuals (96% male) with sexual illnesses. This includes many types of unwanted compulsive sexual acting-out, plus such things as child molestation, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sadomasochism, fetishism, and rape. With only several exceptions, pornography has been a major or minor contributor or facilitator in the acquisition of their deviation or sexual addiction.
However, where pornography was a contributor or facilitator, regardless of the nature of the sex deviation or addiction, I found a four-factor syndrome common to nearly all of my clients, with almost no exceptions, especially in their early involvement with pornography.

Yes, he is LDS. So throw out the evidence.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

You know porn if fine. C'mon. What's the deal with the Mo's. Y'all look at that crap. Stop frontin'..

No we all don't. You may be so immersed in pornography that you think everyone does it. Have you watched too many "Friends" episodes? Ross, Chandler, and Joey are the norm?

If so, that's sad.

Again, as I said earlier, it's not abnormal to not be involved in porn. You guys make it sound like everybody is doing it.

Regards,
MG

[_marg]

http://www.ldsr.org/information/drcline.phtml

Victor Cline: "In over 25 years I have treated approximately 350 males afflicted with sexual addictions (sometimes referred to as: sexual compulsions). In about 94% of the cases I have found that pornography was a contributor, facilitator or direct causal agent in the acquiring of these sexual illnesses. Patrick Carnes, the leading U.S. researcher in this area, also reports similar findings. In his research on nearly 1000 sex addicts as reported in his "Dan 't Call it Love", he stated: "Among all addicts surveyed 90% of the men and 77% of the women reported pornography as significant to their addiction."
-------------------------
The problem MG with Victor Cline's argument is that just because there is a correlation with people who have sexual compulsions and porn does not mean that porn causes sexual compulsions. One would expect people with sexual compulsions to have a high interest in sex and therefore likely an interest in porn. So that makes logical sense. But if Victor Cline wishes to argue or if you wish to use him as support for the argument that porn is harmful and leads to sexual compulsion then Cline or whomever would need to do a statistical analysis of a random sample of men and women who have viewed porn and whether or not they suffer from sexual compulsions which have a negative impact on their daily lives and relationships.

[_Ray A]

Yes, he is LDS. So throw out the evidence.

Regards,
MG

I've read quite a bit of Cline, including one of his books, which was sent out by the First Presidency for bishops to read in the 1980s. It was free, so I read it. Even then I thought it was mumbo-jumbo. Just not realistic for real-life situations. His study is also based around "sex addicts", not your everyday Joe.

Here are some studies that reach different conclusions:

Studies on the effects of Pornography

[_antishock8]

You know porn if fine. C'mon. What's the deal with the Mo's. Y'all look at that crap. Stop frontin'..

No we all don't. You may be so immersed in pornography that you think everyone does it. Have you watched too many "Friends" episodes? Ross, Chandler, and Joey are the norm?

If so, that's sad.

Again, as I said earlier, it's not abnormal to not be involved in porn. You guys make it sound like everybody is doing it.

Regards,
MG

Yeah, ok. You watch tv with beer commercials? You look at a Victoria Secret's catalogue? Anyway. You're a liar. You've looked at porn on occasion. It's just the way it is. It's human nature. You don't actually have to see a vagina for something to be porn, MG. You know what you do. Stop frontin'.

[_mentalgymnast]

Yes, he is LDS. So throw out the evidence.

Regards,
MG

I've read quite a bit of Cline, including one of his books, which was sent out by the First Presidency for bishops to read in the 1980s. It was free, so I read it. Even then I thought it was mumbo-jumbo. Just not realistic for real-life situations. His study is also based around "sex addicts", not your everyday Joe.

Here are some studies that reach different conclusions:

Studies on the effects of Pornography

I caught this comment as I scanned through the page:

...[pornography] lowers inhibitions toward sex. However, most men and women agreed that pornography may have negative effects. They felt that pornography dehumanizes women and causes the sexes to lose respect for each other..

Regards,
MG

[_Ray A]

I caught this comment as I scanned through the page:

...[pornography] lowers inhibitions toward sex. However, most men and women agreed that pornography may have negative effects. They felt that pornography dehumanizes women and causes the sexes to lose respect for each other..

Regards,
MG

These are abstracts from many studies, and they aren't all going to reach the same conclusions. For example:

Kutchinsky, B. The effect of easy availability of pornography on the incidence of sex crimes: The Danish experience. Journal of Social Issues, 1973, 29:163-181.
Abstract: Cites the Danish liberalization of legal prostitution and of laws concerning pornography and the ensuing high availability of such materials as a unique opportunity to test hypotheses concerning the relationship between pornography and sex offenses. It is shown that, concurrent with the increasing availability of pornography, there was a significant decrease in the number of sex offenses registered by the police in Copenhagen. On the basis of various investigations, including a survey of public attitudes and studies of the police, it was established that at least in 1 type of offense (child molestation) the decrease represents a real reduction in the number of offenses committed. Various factors suggest that the availability of pornography was the direct cause of this decrease.

This also confirms a study done in Japan (which I linked on another thread), with the same results. A huge drop in sex-related crimes.

So what's the deal here? If porn is scientifically shown to reduce sex-related crimes in society (which means that your daughters, and mine, will be safer), shall we ban it?

I'm certainly not advocating that anyone use porn, and it may not suit the tastes of a large number of married couples. Then I know couples who thrive on it, too, and in some cases the wife likes it more than the husband. This does not apply to single people. Unless you believe that porn is inherently bad for mental health, or is a "sin". I am certainly not convinced that it's bad for mental health - unless you read The Miracle of Forgiveness too many times.
>
>
>
>

[_Dr. Shades]

What points and/or facts in the following extract from this article . . . do you take issue with?

Here goes:

Dr. Victor Cline has posited four progressive effects of pornography: (1) addiction, where the need to view pornographic materials leads to a loss of free control over behaviour; . . .

That applies to nearly anything. Addictive personalities may choose alcohol, gambling, video games, whatever. It's no surprise that the pornographic arts would be one of many things on that list.

. . . (2) escalation, where the person delves into progressively harder pornography, usually to attain the same level of sensation and arousal; . . .

That hasn't been my experience. I still don't like anything having to do with lesbianism, anal, BDSM, etc.

. . . (3) desensitization, whereby the user is no longer morally sensitive to the shocking, illegal, repulsive, perverted or immoral quality of the material, but instead views it as acceptable and begins to look upon others as objects; . . .

That's begging the question. Although some forms of pornography are illegal, the only reason he labels the rest as "shocking," "repulsive," "perverted," or "immoral" is because his religion told him to think that way. If he hadn't been raised with an artificially negative view of the pornographic arts, he would probably have found it "acceptable" himself.

As for "looking at others as objects," well, guess what? We're all objects to someone else. As has already been mentioned, the mailman is an object to someone who wants to receive his mail. The butcher is an object to someone who wants to get some cold cuts. Therefore, it's perfectly normal and natural for an erotic performer to be an object for someone wishing to partake of an erotic performance.

That's merely market specialization for you.

. . . and (4) acting out, where the fantasizing becomes overt behaviour.

As long as the kids and the animals are left out of it, what's wrong with acting out? If more people acted out, there would be a lot fewer wars in this world.

Additionally from a moral point of view, there are three reasons why pornography is wrong and sinful behaviour

And here he exposes the reason for his opposition: His religion has artificially taught him to view it as a sin.

First, pornography offends the dignity of the participants (actors, vendors, the public).

If this is true, it's only because the participants have been taught by their religion or their parents (or both) to have their dignity offended. Without all that fiat conditioning, there's no loss of dignity.

Did you walk outside today without wearing your burqua? If so, did you suffer a loss of dignity like your fundamentalist Muslim sisters would have?

Each one is exploited or exploits others in some way for personal pleasure or gain.

"Exploited." Such a harsh term. The only ones who are truly exploited are those who don't consent.

Erotic performances are nothing more than a job. And anyone with a job is being exploited for his/her labor.

In all cases, the dignity of the human being -- whether the person posing, the person producing, the person distributing, or the person enjoying -- is debased.

If so, it's only because they think they're being debased. Had religion and/or their parents not falsely conditioned them to feel debased, they wouldn't feel debased.

When I partake of the joys of the pornographic arts, do I feel debased? No. On the contrary, I feel enlightened and just a little happier to be alive.

Second, those who engage in pornography immerse themselves in a fantasy world, withdrawing from reality.

And therein is no sin. Anyone who has ever read a fiction novel has also immersed themselves in a fantasy world, withdrawing from reality. So it also goes for anyone who has ever watched a movie that wasn't a documentary.

Seems that's the entire point of entertainment in general, no?

While genuine love always involves a self-giving of oneself for the good of others, pornography entices a person to withdraw into a selfish world of perverted fantasy which may later be acted out to the detriment of oneself and others.

"Perverted" fantasy? The author inadvertently reveals his religious bias once again.

Third, pornography offends against the virtue of chastity and constitutes an assault on marriage.

"Chastity" is an artificial construct of religion, born out of a bunch of bronze age goatherders' obsession over the virginity of their women. Chastity is a state of mind, not body. If one recognizes that sexual activity is a perfectly normal, natural (and enjoyable!) biological activity, then chastity is not offended.

Once more, pornography is in no way an assault on marriage. The other person's freaking out and filing for divorce is the assault on marriage, not the pornography itself.

Each of us must respect the sanctity of our own human sexuality, which involves the integration of his physical and spiritual being. Furthermore, conjugal love which reflects the union of husband and wife, and the enactment of their vows is sacred. The conjugal act ought to express that faithful, permanent, exclusive, self-giving and life-giving love between husband and wife.

I agree with all of the above. Pornography doesn't inhibit the expression of any of the above.

If you take issue with any of the points and/or facts in this article, where is your evidence that your personal POV is more reliable than those that have studied the effects of pornography?

Simple. That guy only studied people already addicted to pornography. If he had made an exclusive study of people not addicted to pornograhy, his results would've been much, much different. Likewise, if he hadn't been LDS, his results would've been much, much different.

There have been a number of people on this thread that have pretty much said that pornography is really nothing to be overly concerned with at all, that it's not a scourge and we're getting too worked up about it. I'm guessing Dr. Cline would disagree wholeheartedly. So who's right and who's wrong?

In Return of the Jedi, Obi-Wan Kenobi told Luke, "You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view." Long ago religious folks flipped a coin and decided that pornography was wrong, so they began conditioning all their believers to have the same point of view. Likewise, each generation has jumped on the bandwagon and instilled the same set of neuroses into the next.

"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view." My point of view is that pornography is one of the greatest gifts that God has given us, to be relished and partaken of in the spirit of joy and thanksgiving. So who's right and who's wrong?

I'm thinking that it might be wise to go with the experts.

Dr. Cline is only one such expert. In my textbook for my human sexuality class, the experts noted that most men who viewed pornography had a greater respect for women than those who didn't, since they saw women as free agents in control of their own sexuality and not mere females to be captured and dominated like we see in the animal kingdom.

So it all depends on your expert.

[_Mister Scratch]

Here is a cut and paste from:

http://mentalhealthlibrary.information/library ... t.htm#data

Yes, let's take a look at what this says:

In reviewing the literature on the effects of pornography, there is a variety of evidence suggesting risk and the possibility of harm from being immersed in repeated exposure to pornography.

"Being immersed in repeated exposure"? What does that mean? I think you'll agree that, whatever it means, is a great deal different from, say, an adult such as Dr. Shades perusing the latest issue of Playboy.

These data come primarily from three sources:

· Clinical case history data
· Field studies
· Experimental laboratory type studies.

Clinical case history data come from the offices of professional health care personnel treating individuals with sexual dysfunctions, as well as from clergy - and attorneys who counsel or provide services to sexually troubled individuals.

And this proves the TBM "scourge" theory how, exactly?

As a clinical psychologist, I have treated, over many years, approximately 300 sex addicts, sex offenders, or other individuals (96% male) with sexual illnesses. This includes many types of unwanted compulsive sexual acting-out, plus such things as child molestation, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sadomasochism, fetishism, and rape. With only several exceptions, pornography has been a major or minor contributor or facilitator in the acquisition of their deviation or sexual addiction.
However, where pornography was a contributor or facilitator, regardless of the nature of the sex deviation or addiction, I found a four-factor syndrome common to nearly all of my clients, with almost no exceptions, especially in their early involvement with pornography.

An "N" of 300 doesn't exactly seem statistically significant. (Nor does that fact that nearly all of the subjects were dysfunctional in some way.) One can cite very high usage of anti-depressants in Utah. Does this mean that Mormonism is somehow causing depression?

Yes, he is LDS. So throw out the evidence.

That's not what I said, MG. Rather, I was trying to point out that your citing of this person is rather similar to Kerry Shirts---or whomever---citing John Gee on the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, or William J. Hamblin on the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

[_Danna]

If you take issue with any of the points and/or facts in this article, where is your evidence that your personal POV is more reliable than those that have studied the effects of pornography? For an extended article written by Victor Cline, go here:

http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/clineart.cfm

There have been a number of people on this thread that have pretty much said that pornography is really nothing to be overly concerned with at all, that it's not a scourge and we're getting too worked up about it. I'm guessing Dr. Cline would disagree wholeheartedly. So who's right and who's wrong?

I'm thinking that it might be wise to go with the experts.

Regards,
MG

The 'problem' that I would have with Dr Cline, is that he over-reaches the evidence. As a clinician he is in a good position to forward a hypothesis about possible correlations between porn and socially undesirable behaviour. But he has pre-determined that porn itself is socially undesirable behaviour. But he is cherry-picking from the behavioural theories available to him, and making conclusions not supported by empirical research - apparently in order to conform with church teaching.

He is not in a position to make conclusions he does, based on clinical observation. He has not provided any evidence of cause and effect at all! He cannot differentiate porn use as a cause or symptom (perhaps a symptom of external authoritarian repression of sexuality in an other-wise healthy person?).

The dangers of going too far with clinical anecdotes and case-studies have become so obvious these days that I won't thrash it other than to note that clinicians over-reaching themselves have given us alien abduction syndrome, (false) recovered memories, Fetal Alcohol Effects (as opposed to FAS), a rash of unusual PTSDs and other assorted hysterias.

Then his crazy separation of porn into two categories: 'violent' and 'nonviolent' and including child-porn and animal/human porn in the latter category is just sick. He has the same definition of 'violence' as SWK. As if an adult porn viewer would: a) naturally seek out child or animal porn, and b) be converted to pedophilia or beastiality by watching such porn. Crickey, what is he smoking?

Not sure about the US, but child porn down here is illegal. possessing it is illegal. It strips a child of their rights, and anyone involved from producers to viewers are guilty of a crime. When people like Dr C make 'expert' statements implying porn watchers will naturally gravitate to child abuse, as a direct result of initially viewing soft porn, it is dangerous to take them seriously.