MDD Bans Poster for Opposing Church's Views on Porn

[_stemelbow]

Yet another LDS gem. Take 1 drink and suddenly you are an alcoholic.

You do realize that the vast, VAST majority of people can self-regulate their alcohol intake without becoming an alcoholic, right?

that's my point. That's why I question whether telling someone who looks at porn at some point is an addict actually creates addicts is just silly.

More to your point, yes, I believe that if they were told time and time again that they were alcoholics, they would probably start to act like alcoholics.

I suppose. So with people who look at porn. they become addicts, often, because they are told they are addicts, right? How are alcoholics created then? Who tells them they are addicts after drinking at some point?

Now that I think about it, why has a direct question been added to the TR questions? "Do you actively view pornography?" I would think this question we be enough to keep a lot of people from doing it.

In my most recent TR interview I don't recall hearing that question at all. How recent was this added? I got my latest interview in August.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't doubt that there are GA's with porn problems. I'm not arguing that. Your argument is that the MDD mods are wrong to suspend someone for pointing this out. Frankly, I agree with you. The GA's should not be immune from criticism. BUT, we all know that MDD holds a different view. GA's ARE immune from criticism there. Not only that, but it wasn't even a valid criticism. The argument basically boiled down to, "I can totally see him being addicted to porn because..... well, just because!" That isn't going to fly on MDD.

As I tried to point out above, the comment about Holland was not the sole reason cited for William James's banning. Ares said that he was banned--in part--merely for taking up a position that's not in keeping with the GA's draconian comments.

[_Droopy]

Over on the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board, a thread has been locked and a poster has been suspended for voicing concern over the Church's rather draconian stance on porn. This was the OP:

Good to see you're now pro-porn, Scratch. It'll be interesting to see you defend this position in future.

In characteristic fashion, this video propogates the commonly-held stereotype in the LDS Church that the typical porn user is a man:
(1) who has a hot, loving, and sexually available and interested wife;
(2) who choses porn in place of sex with his hot, loving, and sexually available and interested wife, leaving her rejected;
(3) who abandons his adorable family of his own volition because of his sinful addiction.

The video says that the typical LDS males wife is "hot?" It then tries to define this term? It says that all LDS men's wives are "sexually available" and then defines this concept? It makes a connection between this alleged "hotness" and sexual availability and porn addiction in some manner?

It's time we get honest and fair about this, and set the record straight. I think a few critical points are in order here, including, without limitation:

Good. I'm glad we have an expert on the world of pornography and its psychological, emotional, spiritual, and social meaning/effects to guide us through this miasma of misinformation and ignorance and to "set the record straight."

(1) I believe that the scenario presented in the video is extremely atypical, and virtually all real-life situations are far more complex and nuanced;

What do you mean?

(2) The majority of active, believing LDS men are probably looking at porn,

CFR

but are simply not getting caught (and though they may privately be racked with unspeakable guilt, many continue to function well in their marriages and daily responsibilities);

As with all destructive carnal indulgences and addictive syndromes, numbers of users are "functional" addicts/indulgers, withreally clear symptoms of spiraling deterioration of functioning not setting in until later in the progress of the addiction.

(3) Even LDS men who do not look at porn are generally still having pornographic fantasies in their minds (and keep them to themselves);

CFR (note: this kind of claim is always dangerous because it threatens to tell us more regarding what is in the mind of the one making the claims than of any actual state of affairs in the world).

(4) The "porn destroys families" argument fails to adequately account for the many couples in which porn is not taboo, and is accepted and/or viewed by both partners.

This assumes that such hypothetical relationships are in any sense really healthy or stable, in any substantive or positive way, and that a couple watching porn together is not a symptom of serious psychological and developmental distortion and dysfunctional life negotiation strategies. Scratch provides no reason to believe that such behavior should be thought of as healthy, or such relationships as viable.

This ought to prompt us to ask the question, "Does porn inherently destroy marriages, or is it possibly the insecurity and/or needless offense taken at it which causes the discord?";

This question begging can be with utility ignored until Scratch comes back with a logically connected body of argument.

(5) The video's scenario ignores the critical and widespread issue of what men in sexless marriages are supposed to do- de-facto celibacy would only be imposed by a cruel God which is utterly inconsistent with the loving God I believe in;

This assumes, yet again, far more than it feigns to claim. Really, this is just a new reworking of the old Hefter mindset that has driven the psychology of the culture of pornography since the sixties. All the poor men in sexless marriages with fat, frumpy, chocolate consuming wives and all the hot, repressed, desperate housewives in sexually stale, boring relationships who crave a "sexual awakening" and to "lick it up" as the song says. Of course, it couldn't - just couldn't - be the case that the subjective psychological reorientation of perception and expectation that pornography creates is the primary factor in both its allure and its destructiveness, could it? No, as usual, it must be that resistance is futile; it is resistance to pornography that creates the social pathology closely associated with it, not its inherent characteristics that create negative consequences which eventually produces social/philosophical/ethical resistance.

(6) It is a gross mischaracterization to assume that the average porn user is turning down their willing-and-available spouse for intercourse in order to substitute porn for real sex;

A quite well known and common state of affairs among sex addicts, and hardly different than the manner in which drug and alcohol users "turn down" much more satisfying life situations and experiences for the "high" of choice.

The issue is NOT whether it would be possible to spend a few more minutes of your time with your family if you would abstain from looking at porn- the issue is, are you maintaining a reasonable life balance and generally fulfilling your responsibilities? If so, then I don't see the problem.

This is just another value relativist kicking of the can down the road. Pornography substantially reorients and reconfigures the perception of the meaning, purpose, and proper context of human sexuality, and, as such, cannot be a part of a larger "balance" of otherwise morally and psychologically neutral personal cathartic indulgences. Its a thorough reorientation of perspective regarding a core human attribute, and can, because of this, in no sense be morally, socially, or spiritually neutral.

Put another way: Bishop hardly sees his kids because he is always working or fulfilling church calling? No problem. Man spends 15 minutes looking at women in lingerie? Problem. I don't think that's very consistent or reasonable.

I see no relation between these whatsoever, and the central question of pornography's moral and social nature is still being kicked down the road and that central question begged.

I don't expect my post will do much to help TBMs contemplate these issues thoroughly.

Most have already done that, and at a far deeper and more exhaustive level than you are even willing to approach, if this thread is any indication.

But I feel a duty to speak my mind,

Oh no...

as it may help at least some open-minded people re-think this. I sincerely believe that the LDS Church's overbroad condemnation of pornography destroys more LDS families than use of porn itself ever did.

I'll be waiting to see a cogent, evidential connected augment showing why I should beleive this claim to be anything but a modern liberal psychological trope.

It has nothing to do with a substitute for sex or even an attractive spouse. It has everything to do with instant gratification and excape behavior.

You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. You are going to need a long crash course in sexual addiction and its dynamics before you're going to be able to speak intelligently on this subject beyond early seventies sexual revolution slogans. Pornography is, after all the window dressing and props have been removed, about masturbation, and masturbation is a substitute for real sex. When the profoundly powerful fantasy world of pornography takes hold of the psych and imbues it with its own system of perceptions, values, and priorities, masturbation becomes primary. The result of this is, ultimately, impotence outside the fantasy realm of the Pornscape.

Clearly, our very own Why Me is a huge fan of discussing porn.

[/quote]

Except for those who discuss it and sex (you know who you are) and start entire threads on the subject. You know, people like Scratch.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi, Droopy. A lot of the material you're working with there is coming from an MDD poster called "William James." You know how it says, "William James wrote:"? That means that someone else wrote the comment, and that I'm merely quoting it.

[_Droopy]

The first line??

Here's the video, narrated by anti-porn hawk (and I have to even privately speculate sometimes, whether he might have a problem with it himself, because he "protesteth too much"), Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

How so very, very typical.

Projection is a harsh mistress.

[_Droopy]

Hi, Droopy. A lot of the material you're working with there is coming from an MDD poster called "William James." You know how it says, "William James wrote:"? That means that someone else wrote the comment, and that I'm merely quoting it.

Are you saying that you do not agree, in substance, with his take on the issue?

[_Droopy]

I think that is why the church has such inflated numbers of people affected by porn addiction.

CFR

[_just me]

Well you're the expert. I might have rehearsed this story to you before but here goes if not. My brother is a military man. He's been to Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan serving. He's bled with his partners. He's medically worked on them when needed. He's led them. He's done all that and in the process and grown immensly close to them. Tight as brothers, as they say. Likewise his wife has been quite close to their wives and families. While they were in Iraq, the wives all got together. In such a setting the wives all vehemently complained about their husbands' porn addictions at one point. These were out of state non-LDS folks. But every single one of the wives said their husbands had the problem and reported to their wives that its normal and needed for men, or something, even though it made the women feel small unimportant and terrible. They all thought it was disgusting. My brother’s wife just quietly listened, even though she’s normally the leader of the group. They asked her about her feelings and she just said how sad it was to hear their situations, as some of them were in tears, but she didn’t have any problems with it at all. Her husband didn’t in any way patronize the stuff. The women were crushed to hear that. They felt lied to and betrayed by their husbands. So, of course, all the men were confronted, challenged and complained to. What was the men’s response? They went straight to my brother to take it out on him. They were going to beat him senseless. It got all heated and some pushing but it never got to the point they initially intended. All the way to the point of my brother moving and transferring divisions they had a problem with him all because of that. Pretty pathetic stuff that porn.

Just like the video in the OP this anecdote villianizes the man. That is the whole point of what the OP on the other board wanted to discuss. Why are the men always being villianized and why are the most drastic examples being used?

Both the husbands and the wives in your story could have handled the situation better. It's not about one being right and the other being wrong (black/white). It is about reaching a mutually beneficial, or palatable, compromise. Or at least gaining an understanding. Lots of information is absent from the story. We don't know if their was an actual addiction in any of these men, we don't know if they had removed their affections from their wives, we don't know if the wives had removed their affections from the husbands. We don't know why the men were using porn.
I know of some military couples who make their own erotic pictures and porn for the one who is away.

Most people are very ignorant about male sexuality and female sexuality. In school they teach you how babies are made and how they are prevented and STD's. They don't teach much else.
The LDS church maligns male sexuality as a bad and dangerous thing that needs to be overcome or supressed. The LDS church also tends to treat females as if they have no natural sexual desire and that they are in charge of keeping themselves and the males "worthy" and "pure." This is unhealthy.

Male sexuality isn't bad. Female sexuality isn't bad. They are just different.

Turning the husband, father and man into the bad guy will not strengthen homes and families.

[Guest]

It's a shame that the MDD OP had to bring Holland into it. In fact, if he had phrased things a bit differently, the thread might not have been closed. He had at least one interesting point that is worthy of discussion.

That point is whether the particular strength of COJCOLDS's condemnation of porn, and the (perhaps unintended, but nevertheless real) villification of the porn user does more harm than good. I personally suspect that it does.

And I'm not advocating for porn in stating this. The question is not whether it is generally negative. The interesting question is whether COJCOLDSs and its members are well-served by the strength of the condemnation. I take the view that porn usage ought to be seen as being more on the level of a Word of Wisdom infraction than the commission of adultery. Granted, scriptures that refer to "committing adultery in your heart" when you lust don't help my argument. Pity.

If you reduce the porn viewer to the level of a child molester, and encourage (deliberately or not) the same degree of opprobrium against him, you're just going to drive him underground. He'll never confess. He'll never get the assistance that he might otherwise seek.

[_Buffalo]

and I'm just going off my one buddies experience that I'm aware of. As it is you can pay for porn more than just paying for it online, as I understand it.

I didn't mention addiction purposefully, because I think the church tends to characterize casual use as addiction, when in reality I think addiction is rare. But it's tough to have addiction without a lot of shame involved as well. Shame perpetuates self-destructive behaviors.

Well you're the expert. I might have rehearsed this story to you before but here goes if not. My brother is a military man. He's been to Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan serving. He's bled with his partners. He's medically worked on them when needed. He's led them. He's done all that and in the process and grown immensly close to them. Tight as brothers, as they say. Likewise his wife has been quite close to their wives and families. While they were in Iraq, the wives all got together. In such a setting the wives all vehemently complained about their husbands' porn addictions at one point. These were out of state non-LDS folks. But every single one of the wives said their husbands had the problem and reported to their wives that its normal and needed for men, or something, even though it made the women feel small unimportant and terrible. They all thought it was disgusting. My brother’s wife just quietly listened, even though she’s normally the leader of the group. They asked her about her feelings and she just said how sad it was to hear their situations, as some of them were in tears, but she didn’t have any problems with it at all. Her husband didn’t in any way patronize the stuff. The women were crushed to hear that. They felt lied to and betrayed by their husbands. So, of course, all the men were confronted, challenged and complained to. What was the men’s response? They went straight to my brother to take it out on him. They were going to beat him senseless. It got all heated and some pushing but it never got to the point they initially intended. All the way to the point of my brother moving and transferring divisions they had a problem with him all because of that. Pretty pathetic stuff that porn.

Well, most military men seem to be pretty conservative, and it's the conservative areas that see the highest porn usage.