By way of full disclosure, I volunteered to write this post because I have personal experience with the topic. I’ve viewed online pornographic movies both before and since I joined the church. I felt no guilt associated with viewing it before joining the church (which was also before I was married), but when I began to view it after joining (which was also after I had been married), I desired to repent and have since studied the topic to better understand it.
Pornography:
When I use “pornography” in this post, I will be referring to video or photographs of adults engaging in sexual relations. Currently, there are more than 300 million pages of pornographic material on the internet, an increase of 1800% over the last five years. More than 70% of American men, ages 18 – 34, visit a pornographic website in a typical month. Further, in 2006, the pornography industry netted just short of $100 billion – more revenue than that of Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple, and Netflix combined. The state that contributes the most to those profits – Utah.
The inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
Porneia is rendered “fornication” all 26 times it is used in the New Testament. It is from the word used to designate the temple prostitutes the Gentiles used for fertility worship.
Dehumanizing:
The popularity of pornography relies on dehumanizing the subject, which is typically a woman. The characters in pornography are not depicted as children of God with intellects and personalities – but as a collection of anatomical features that can be used to induce a physiological response. Ask a man who watches pornography if he would want his wife or daughter to be in videos like the ones he watches – and 68.2689492137% will say, “No.” (Note: this figure was edited from 100% per comments below) They want somebody else’s wife or daughter. They prefer to do unto others’ daughters what they would not want done to their own.
The sexual climax is intended to be the sequel of the unification of two real persons. The fact that the pleasure associated with the discharge can be produced in solitude demonstrates that the feelings are designed to conclude the sexual act – and are not a part of the unifying aspect of sex. This is what I find most troubling about pornography use. The release that ends sexual unification is designed to bind a person to the other person he or she is having relations with. What are pornography users binding themselves to – a computer screen, pixels? Humans are meant to make real connections with real people.
Hiding:
Recent discussion indicates that Satan introduced the concept of shame for nudity. It is the same with sexuality. Satan either covers up sexuality, teaching that it is too private to discuss openly, or he teaches only the physical biology of it, leaving out the spiritual connection that takes place. He motivates sinners to hide from God and from others. On the other hand, God sees all things, and thus He motivates sinners to be open, in full-fellowship and intimacy with Him and with others.
Sites like FightTheNewDrug promote addressing pornography by letting it into the light to be seen for what it really is – much like the “Truth” ads did for changing the discussion on cigarette smoking. Having progressed, we can now look back on old cigarette ads as a deceptive venture to make an unhealthy practice popular for the sake of making money. FightTheNewDrug focuses on addressing pornography by reducing demand – not supply. When something is banned – rather by states, religions, etc. – without addressing the underlying motivations, the behavior is just pushed underground, becoming darker in the process. When people learn that, for example, the reason for pornography actors shave their pubic hair is to make them look more like large children – people can choose to turn away from such perversions. Instead of demonizing sexual expression or victimizing “porn addicts”, the rhetoric should focus on re-humanizing the people involved with pornography and re-emphasizing the sexiness of humans connecting with humans.
Intimacy is the opposite of what Satan suggested Adam and Eve do when they discovered their nakedness in the garden. Before he found them, they were naked and were not ashamed. Adam was fully exposed to Eve – and Eve to Adam. This is the light that pornography should be seen in. Humans are not meant to experience sexuality in front of computer screens, alone, feeling cycles of shame and guilt.
Confessing:
Boyd Packer told members during the most recent General Conference that:
The priesthood holds consummate power. It can protect you from the plague of pornography—and it is a plague—if you are succumbing to its influence. If one is obedient, the priesthood can show how to break a habit and even erase an addiction. Holders of the priesthood have that authority and should employ it to combat evil influences.
I think the evidence on this site should make it clear that you do not have to do anything with your bishop if you have viewed pornography. A person that has viewed pornography has most likely committed adultery in his heart – if he were married, then confession to a spouse would be warranted. But whether or not a person chooses to talk to his or her bishop is a personal decision – and it should be made in light of what will be the most helpful to the person. When confession to a bishop is not expedient – as it would be in cases of unrepentant sin brought to the authorities by witnesses – then confession should be treated only as a tool to help the person. One should weigh the risk of opening up grounds for a witch-hunt from an unprepared or unrighteous priesthood leader with the comfort that being completely open with a trusted and capable bishop can bring. For example, I spoke with my bishop in the past when I had fell into a habit of viewing pornography – because I knew him to be a man of integrity and Godly love. I received no formal or informal disciplines. It was hard to speak openly about it with my wife, and I used my time with him to get many things off my chest. I, unlike Packer, would not recommend confession to a bishop to everyone. Many bishops are unprepared for dealing with such a nuanced situation and have been conditioned to use extreme measures with pornography because of inflated rhetoric about the subject. So tread carefully.
Moving on:
I don’t mean to say porn can’t be a problem for some people. However, it is more often the symptom of a different problem – e.g. poor socialization by parents on sexuality, unaddressed childhood abuse, an addictive personality, or feelings of insecurity. The visual depiction of a man and women engaging in sexual relations is not, in and of itself, sinful – not any more than shopping is, or spending too much time on the computer. The current state of pornography is a complicated issue and calling it evil or a plague doesn’t help anybody. All you do is demonize something that, unless you have some dependence on it, isn’t bad for you. Proclaiming some moral absolute on a mental health issue is just harmful to those involved.
We should take comfort in the fact that, for our generation, pornography is largely a problem of technology. Just 30 years ago, to obtain pornography, a man would don a trench coat and sunglasses and go to the back of a dimly lit store to secretly purchase a VHS tape, hoping no one would see him walking back to his car – then he’d have to keep the tapes hidden at home, hoping kids or spouse didn’t find them. However, today, I can type in a URL in the privacy of my home or office, instantly steam hours of free videos, and then delete my browsing history. That’s it. The reason this is a good thing for anyone who finds themselves habitually viewing pornography – if technology is the reason it is so available to you, then use technology to make it less available. Effective webfilters are as readily available as free porn sites. Humans should choose to connect with people — not pixels.
Next Article by Justin: The Garment
Previous Article by Justin: Tribal Relationships
66 Comments
LDS Anarchy 
Very wonderful article. I did not know what pornography was. I am sure that most LDS think it is anything with too much skin showing. But that didn’t make sense in terms of the truths about the body as discussed on the body modesty post. I wonder how many people think they have a problem with pornography when they are simply responding to an innate desire to enjoy beauty.
Thank you so much for teaching that the word fornication comes from the same root. It makes sense.
Having said that I do know that there are poses and inflections which are false suggestions and are intended to stimulate with pixels. Which is not a spiritually healthy thing to view.
I suspect that pornography is a symptom of a three-pronged problem. I believe it all comes down to sexual dissatisfaction. I think that if people are sexually satisfied, pornography holds no enticement, whatsoever. Sexual dissatisfaction, I believe, has three contributing causes.
First would be circumcision, which, from what I’ve read, takes the “10” in pleasure felt by an intact penis down to about a “2” after circumcision. If we are designed to be sexually satisfied with intact penises (the “10” level) it doesn’t matter how much sex is obtained with a “2” scale circumcised penis, that “10” level of pleasure (sexual satisfaction) just can’t be achieved. This would mean that virtually all circumcised males are sexually dissatisfied, whether they consciously know it (acknowledge it) or not. In the case of a circumcised man who is unaware that his circumcised penis is the cause of his sexual dissatisfaction, he might try to compensate by increasing the amount of sex he has or by trying different ways to perform sex. The end result would be just the same, though, because if you are drinking from a cup with a hole in it, no matter how many times you fill it up and then attempt to drink from it, you’ll never be able to drink down a full cup of water on each attempt. It is a physical impossibility, due to genital mutilation. If physical sexual satisfaction is unattainable, the mind can offer some semblance of relief, through mental eroticism. That is where pornography, whether pictures, video, audio or literature, can engage the mind’s capacity to imagine sexual satisfaction. Man’s capacity to imagine sexual pleasure is immense, but pales in comparison with the pleasure generated by an intact penis during intercourse. However, in comparison to the dulled senses of a circumcised penis, the mind’s immagination is superior, hence the attraction of using pornography to achieve what is intended by God to be achieved with another person. Nevertheless, whatsoever is imagined by the mind is not real, thus sexual satisfaction is not achievable through that means, either.
This leaves the circumcised man ever searching for sexual satisfaction, whether by seeking out different women, thinking that perhaps he doesn’t feel satisfied because he is with the wrong woman, or by increasing the amount of sex through the same partner or with multiple lovers, thinking that he is not satisfied because he doesn’t get enough sex, or by seeking strange sexual behaviors, kinky sex, etc. In all of this, pornography presents itself as a substitute, because of its effect on the mind, which makes it highly addictive but never satisfying.
I suspect that if there were some studies done, we would find that pornography use is very much lower in countries where the men are generally intact (such as European countries) than in countries whose men are circumcised. I suspect that what we call pornography addiction is more prevalent in countries where the men are largely circumcised.
The second variable to sexual dissatisfaction would be singleness. Prolonged singleness creates sexual dissatisfaction. Everyone reaches an age where the sex drive kicks in. If one cannot marry to release the sex drive, it must be reigned in. This creates a problem. For those who aren’t restricted by religion, it is no problem. They just go and find someone to hook up with, obtaining relief. For those who are under religious restrictions, no relief can be found. The only other means of relief are masturbation and/or pornography, both of which also have religious restrictions. Over time, sexual tension can build up, if a slip is had with masturbation or pornography, the resulting relief can be so great that it can become an instantaneous addiction. If the male is intact and then gets married, pornography might be easily given up, as it never gives sexual satisfication, which is obtainable with a woman and an intact penis. However, if the man is circumcised and then gets married, his pornography addiction interferes because the amount of satisfaction obtained via that means is always greater than that obtainable from his wife, due to the circumcision.
Finally, the third cause of sexual dissatisfaction could be monogamy itself. Even if the man is intact and has married young, so that his sex desire has been satisfied by his wife, he may still be attracted to other females around him. As he knows that he can achieve sexual satisfaction with any female, due to his intactness, he knows that sexual incompatibility is not an issue. All females around him might be an enticement. The restriction of monogamy, assuming that the Sex at Dawn research is correct, would go against his natural sexual desires, frustrating him sexually. If he remains faithful to his wife and satisfied concerning her, he may still be unsatisfied due to this capacity to express himself sexually to others. In other words, he still has sexual dissatisfaction. He may then turn to pornography, which technically, in his view, is not cheating, and engage in mental sex. This is less satisfying, to be sure, than normal sex, but it is, in his view, better than nothing. In the case of a circumcised man, this would be better than normal sex, which would make it more enticing than to an intact male, so I would imagine that in all cases, whether single or married, men who are circumcised are far more likely to use and become addicted to pornography, while intact males are far more likely to seek out extramarital affairs. All this to obtain sexual satisfaction.
The solution, if the above view and speculations are correct, would be to undue everyone’s circumcision (making the men intact) and promote sexual satisfaction through plural marriage covenants. This would take away the market for, and enticement of, pornography.
I would agree that attacking demand, as the above view and speculations do, is the only way to get rid of pornography. Gen. Conf. shame talks and legislation will never do it because they don’t address why people are using the material.
I would also point out that, as outlined in Tribal Relationships, the Sex at Dawn research noted that a new spouse has been the tried and true method of compensating for naturally decreasing levels of testosterone in men reaching middle-age.
I don’t know the break-down of porn use by age — but I would imagine that users in the middle-age range may be attempting to use porn to raise their testosterone levels (maybe even in younger men due to much of the Standard American Diet leading to decreases in testosterone levels).
Here is the Church’s official web site on pornography:
Combating Pornography: Replacing darkness with light
“A person that has viewed pornography has most likely committed adultery in his heart – if he were married, then confession to a spouse would be warranted.”
Some off the wall questions for you:
1) As the Lord mentioned committing adultery in the heart and not fornication in the heart, does the marital status of the woman in the pornographic picture/video matter in determining if this is sin?
2) Does the marital status of the man viewing the porn matter in determining whether this is sin? For example, if the woman in the video is single and the man viewing the video is single, is adultery in the heart still the sin?
3) Does the fact that these are pixels and not a real woman in someone’s personal presence matter, at all? In other words, looking at a video or picture is not, in fact, looking at a woman, it is merely looking at the image of a woman. Does this distinction apply at all to the Savior’s teaching? If so, does a statue or painting or any other medium of sexual depiction of a specific woman count as looking upon a woman to lust after her?
4) For men who look at porn, does the aspect of lusting after the woman (or women) in the porn play any part? Or is merely looking at porn for sexual excitement sufficient to come under the Lord’s teaching of adultery of the heart? In other words, must one actually lust for/after the particular woman/women in the video to commit this sin, or is it merely enough to achieve sexual arousal, excitement and release through the visual presentation?
5) Is viewing porn, if interpreted as “adultery of the heart”, equal to lusting after your neighbor’s wife? Or is one a greater crime of the heart?
I’m not picking on you, Justin. I’m just analyzing your post.
You said, “Humans are not meant to experience sexuality in front of computer screens, alone, feeling cycles of shame and guilt.” Yet you also said, “I felt no guilt associated with viewing it before joining the church.”
This makes me think that the guilt and shame came from exposure to the church and not from exposure to the pornography.
1) I do believe the Lord used “adultery” for a reason — just like I think He made the addition of “in the heart”, instead of just adultery. I had not thought to consider the martial status of the pornographic actress mainly b/c my thesis is that the core of what is wrong with pornography lies with the users connecting with a non-real entity instead of a real human and that masturbation wastes/spills the seed/sows it by the wayside.
2) I toyed with the idea of discussing a single man viewing pornography without masturbation. Without masturbation there is no connection being made with the material being viewed — and a single man does not offend a wife.
3) I think the presence of lust in the imagination (right brain/heart) of the man is what is the sin. Many things placed in the visual imagination do not ever come out — but can be recalled at any time, often without prompting. I would say that masturbation to a statue of sexual relations is only different from internet pornography in terms of the technology used.
4) I view sexual arousal (in a non-specific sense) as neutral — it is only good or bad in context. For example, a married couple (or just the man in the couple) watching pornography with the intent of arousing him in order to maybe play out some kind of fantasy scenario with his spouse is not committing the lust. It is the excitement and release part that is the issue to me. The unifying nature of that act should not be directed at non-spouse humans.
5) I’d be interested in seeing this question answered in terms of the husband of the pornographic actress giving full consent for her to be in such films — which I believe to be common in that industry. Does he, in essence, give up his right to be offended by men lusting after the visual depiction of his spouse? This would make adultery in the heart thru viewing pornography entirely a personal sin that offends only God and spouse (if the man has one).
I appreciate the questions LDSA — and do not interpret them as “picking“. I too enjoyed analyzing your posts as well.
It might have been useful to add that I joined the church in connection with my girlfriend becoming pregnant — thus I joined the church four months prior to my wedding. Thus, I was single when not a member viewing pornography and I was married when a member viewing pornography.
What you spoke of may have also played a role, and to that extent I’d be interested in analyzing how the church puts false guilt and shame on people — in order that such Luciferian influences be removed.
Do you think we moderns might be taking these scriptures out of context when we apply them to pornography? Did pornography exist during the time of Christ? Among the Nephites? During Joseph Smith’s time? If it did exist, what form did it take? If it did not exist, what exactly did these words refer to?
From wikipedia:
Depictions of a sexual nature are as old as civilization (and possibly older, in the form of venus figurines and rock art), but the concept of pornography as understood today did not exist until the Victorian era.
So I guess it depends on what we are defining “pornography” as. If it’s sexual depictions, then it would have existed among 1st Century Jerusalem and among the Nephites. Also, the modern concept of pornography would have existed during Joseph Smith’s time.
I don’t think that one should replace the words “commit adultery in their hearts” with “watch a pornographic video” — however I think that viewing such material with the intent of exciting oneself sexually to the point of sexual climax falls into the category of things that causes a man to commit adultery within the heart.
This might be worth adding to the discussion, as it has an interesting twist on the meaning of “adultery”: http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/10/3-nephi-12-31-32.html
Also, someone (not sure who) mentioned masturbation as being sinful – or somewhere in the ballpark of being sinful. Is this definition a cultural one (i.e. stemming from Packer’s (among others) talk on “little factories”) or a scriptural one?
I’m becoming one of the opinion that we focus too much on sexual things, thanks in part to an interview given by Paul Toscano some time ago and what he stated as, “Morality is the enemy of religion.” Without spending too much time on it here and now, I think many of our understandings are limited by time, space and culture, being raised in a strange land. What do indigenous tribes, those largely unaffected by our westernized culture, view as “adultery”? What about “fornication”? Or, would they even recognize these terms? There are more questions along this vein, but not sure I’m ready to lob them out just yet.
Paraphrasing, “Viewing pornographic material with the intent of exciting oneself sexually to the point of sexual climax causes one to commit adultery within the heart.”
That is an interesting and concise definition, involving both the inner, spiritual man (the desires and intents of the heart) and the outer, physical man (masturbation). I think many would agree with it. In particular, such a definition contains an element of something that is actually done, an actual act, even masturbation, and not strictly mental musings. We tend to think of sins as commission, something done, or ommission, something that should have been done but wasn’t, but always in terms of action or lack of action. The Savior’s “adultery in one’s heart” sin throws a wrench in the works for it (apparently) takes away the action part. At the last day, if someone says, “You desired to have sex with that married woman!” and is answered by the accused, “Yeah, but I DIDN’T DO ANYTHING. I didn’t act on my desire,” technically, that would be correct. Spiritual adultery technically isn’t physical or real adultery. Yet, if we define it as you have here, with a physical action taking place, the sexual climax without the partner, now something has been done, although it wasn’t actually done with the one who was lusted after.
If this definition is real, then the actual point of sin occurs at climax, not before. Am I understanding you correctly? If I am, then sexual climax apart from one’s spouse is the sin, whether one is looking at a physical person (a neighbor’s wife) or images of people (porn) or just using one’s own imagination (through literature or just by oneself).
I’m not sure about the point of sin occurring at the point climax, because that is only the sequel to the unification portion of the sexual act. For example, in the complex marriage community of John Humphrey Noyes, members typically did have climax when having sexual intercourse with another. He saw it as a matter of secondary importance — bordering on wasteful — when compared with the intimate expression of unity that happens during the act prior to climax.
However, I am clearly just playing devil’s advocate with myself at this point — since I am arguing against my own quote.
Okay, we’ll throw out the climax bit and say, “Viewing pornographic material with the intent of exciting oneself sexually to the point that sexual self-stimulation occurs causes one to commit adultery within the heart.” How’s that? I’m just trying to narrow this down.
Tom, I think 3 Ne. 12: 31-32 is a mistranslation on Joseph’s part. I think he just used the KJV Matthew scripture and left it at that, but the Matthew scripture can be translated differently than what is in the KJV. I would translate these verses in this way:
This translation makes more sense. The man isn’t divorcing his wife, he is merely separating from her, which is against the commandment of God, for He hates separation. And the abandoned wife (who is still married and NOT divorced) is left high and dry, with her need of a man intact. If she gives in to temptation, she, as a still married woman, commits adultery, but this sin was caused by her husband’s abandonment of her. The only justification given by Jesus for separating from one’s wife is because she has sexually sinned and has not repented. If she has sinned and repented, she is to be forgiven, for this is the gospel law. But if she sins and does not repent, the husband may justifiably separate from her in order to help her to repent. Once she repents, he is to return to her and be reconciled. Separation is intended as a tool to engender repentance in an unrepentant spouse.
Denver, I think, doesn’t distinguish between marital separation and marital divorce, confusing the two together. Under the Mosaic law, if separation occurred, a writ of divorcement was (allowed) to be given. In other words, the two were to be divorced or no longer spouses. Under the gospel law of Christ, there is no (allowances for) divorce mentioned. Once married, you remain married and are to stay together come thick or thin, except in case of unrepentant fornication. In cases of gospel-approved separation, you are not to give a writ of divorcement, but are come together again and be reconciled.
Viewing pornographic material with the intent of exciting oneself sexually to the point that sexual self-stimulation occurs causes one to commit adultery within the heart.
That seems concise and accurate to me. Like dyc4557 said in the Body Modesty post:
We are told there is a sin involved in looking upon a woman to lust after her. We are told that when we see a bare woman’s body we react sexually. We do know that we react. And since we have been warned about this sin that it is committing adultery in your heart we try as hard as possible to avoid this.
And Satan laughs his heartless soul silly at us.
But think about what is happening from an objective heavenly viewpoint.
Have you ever seen a fantastic vista of nature? Have you seen a dazzling display of autumn foliage in New England? Have you seen the Yosemite Valley a giant redwood tree an ocean view, great snow covered mountains, a herd of antelope, a beautiful tiger, a galaxy, the rings of Saturn? All of these things and countless more make us have a reaction. We gasp in awe. Our heart beats faster, our eyes widen, our pupils dilate to take in more of this sight. Are we lusting after these things? Of course not.
So how do we think we should react when we are given a view of the most beautiful of all God’s creations the human body?
There isn’t sin in looking at an attractive woman and noticing that “Wow” she is sexually attractive — b/c much of that is in scientific/objective terms (fitting the golden ratio, proportionality, waist-to-hip ratio, etc.) — sin comes in when you use either her directly or the image of her in your imagination (right-brain/heart) to excite and stimulate yourself sexually.
The Lord intends that the hormones and chemicals that flood the brain when sexual excitement and stimulation occurs to be directed towards a real human being to whom you have been married.
Justin did apply my ideas correctly. I see women nearly everyday who are very attractive to the eye. It is not to my shame or culpability that I find them attractive.
I meet women who are not loved by a man even though they be married or living with someone or had children by some man but these men do not care enough to provide for them physically let alone emotionally. Knowing of my own experience that I am a man who will always provide for any woman I am intimate with what am I supposed to feel? “Hey sister sucks to be you.” doesn’t strike me as from God.
But here lies the key to whether I am committing adultery in my heart. What is the desire of my heart? Do I want to satisfy my sexual urges even if it damages their heart or the heart of my spouse? This is lust it is a self centered goal. You can not say it is sin because it is self gratification; it is self gratifying to me to desire love and support and give children to more than one woman but is not evil. No it is when what we desire would be damaging to another person that it is lustful. Without this element it cannot be sin. With this element it is sin.
LDSA I would not call it sexual “dissatisfaction” because that has a feeling of emphasizing a self centered urge. Rather we are experiencing a knowledge of unused potential. (you need to find the succinct term for that). Our sexuality was given like the priesthood as a source of great blessings to others and naturally when we bless others we are blessed.
Maybe I’ll use the word satiated, then, instead of satisfaction (or dissatisfaction). When a man eats his full, he is satiated, or has satiated his hunger for food and drink. If you bring more food or drink to him while in this satiated state, he will reject it. It holds no appeal to him.
Sexual urges, in like manner, are like the man’s initial hunger. Or, as my sister often says, it’s like an itch that needs scratching. If you scratch someone’s itch sufficiently well, the itch goes away, or becomes satiated. If you offer to continue scratching the person will tell you to stop. There is only so much scratching to satiate an itch, once that limit has been reached, more scratching is too much and undesirable.
However, if someone scratches someone else’s itch insufficiently, for example, they scratch lightly instead of deeply, although they may scratch for a long time, the itch still lingers and torments the individual. He or she still desires to be scratched by someone. It may be a barely detectable itch, but as long as it is there, the need to scratch it remains, because it (the itch) was not satiated.
If mankind satiated their sexual urges with their married partners, pornography should hold absolutely no attraction, whatsoever. As it has no physical component, pornography is incapable of scratching the sexual itch. It is merely a mental exercise, nothing more. Yet we find that so many Americans and, apparently, Mormons, are hooked on pornography. Why? Because their sexual itch is not being satiated by their partners and they are looking for any means necessary to scratch it, while still remaining, if possible, faithful to the spouse. (I suppose in the minds of many men pornography is better than actually cheating, whereas the women think it’s equally cheating.)
For most men who do not recognize the roll intactness plays in satiating the sexual itch, they put the blame for their dissatisfaction (or unsatiateed itch) on either themselves (their technique isn’t right) or their partner (she’s not doing it right) or any of a multitude of other reasons, all of which skirt the real reason: a mutiliated sexual organ.
In truth, all circumcised men’s technique is wrong because all circumcised men make love the same way and that way is totally different than how intact men make love. The intact way of making love actually fully satsifies (satiates) a woman, whereas the circumcised way short-changes her. If she has never experienced both types of men, she may not even know what she is missing, as does her circumcised husband. There is no way around this problem, because circumcised men are incapable of making love in the same way as intact men. The changed dynamics of the penis actually cause him to change the rhythm, etc. of the sexual act, because it is the only way he can obtain some measure of pleasure out of it. Otherwise, if he did it like the intact men do it, he would feel absolutely nothing.
It is an unfortunate set of circumstances, all of which is devil-inspired. He inspires men to amputate their baby boys’ organs while they are defenseless to fight back, forcing all these future men into a sexually unsatiated state. This is contrary to the command of God, for the Gentiles were never intended by God to be circumcised, that law being done away with when the gospel was ready to go to them. He uses the arm of the state and the threats of the church to force men into monogamy. And then he presents a false and inferior sexual substitute (pornography) that directly affects the brain chemistry, de-humanizing women and producing sexual deviants. In short, the devil has stacked the sexual deck against mankind, in his attempt to make everyone miserable.
The gospel is the only solution, in my view, to these problems. Pornography needs to be fully exposed before the people. People need pure knowledge of exactly what it is, exactly what it does to the brain, exactly why it is attractive to men (and also women), etc. And then real gospel-grounded solutions need to be implemented, not just temporary fixes that heap guilt upon people and that cause porn addicts to struggle their entire lives, like the rest of men, with resisting and suppressing their God-given sexual urges. Latter-day saints could do a death-dealing blow to the porn industry if 1) the gift to heal every whit were among us and 2) the church would preach a real “marriage covenant is ordained by God” doctrine, permitting people to enter into (non-state sanctioned) plural marriage covenants without being excommunicated or called sinners. Even if the Gentiles didn’t flock to the church in droves after that, at least the LDS would have no more problems with pornography.
Amen. I see you’ve read the Sex as Nature Intended It site.
I’ll add that I have been using the stretching techniques found here. I have been praying for a manifestation of the gift of faith to be healed — but I have never experienced that gift and I’m not manifesting the faith to see it in this matter.
Also, what then of God’s command for circumcision — Why would such a detrimental practice be expedient among God’s people for some many centuries?
I suspect that the original practice as given to Abraham was not cutting the entire foreskin and frenulum off, but of a ceremonial cut which made a mark (a small scar) that left the foreskin essentially intact, with just the tip, if anything, affected. In other words, the organ remained fully functional, but with a distinguishing mark that showed that one was of the covenant people. In time, the practice was perverted into the full amputation it is now. That is just my suspicion. I have no evidence to back it up with.
I know that circumcision predates Abraham and was had anciently among the Egyptians. Perhaps the practice among the Gentiles was full mutilation — and the practice among the Abrahamites later degraded to match the practices among Egyptians, etc.
That is, in fact, my understanding. Namely, that Egyptian Gentiles practiced “reduced function” circumcision; God revealed to Abraham “fully functional” circumcision; over time the Jews perverted the practice back to the Gentile Egyptian practice of “reduced function” circumcision; then Christ came and did away with the practice among the church, restoring full function to all His believing people (Jew and Gentile). Finally, the unbelieving Jews have re-instated “reduced function” circumcision among the Gentile nations, including among the Gentile LDS.
When historians speak of Abraham getting circumcision from the Egyptians, I do not understand this to mean that Abraham exactly copied their practice, but practiced a form of it that kept all the functions of the organ intact. In other words, in reality he didn’t copy or get the practice from the Egyptians, but his form of circumcision came from a revelation from God.
Given what facts we have about the current practice of “reduced function” circumcision, and the many problems and misery associated with it, it is doubtful, in my view, that the modern practice exactly conforms to the Abrahamic rite. Considering that we are largely living under Satan’s system today, it goes against logic that he would allow people to continue to practice the original Abrahamic rite. To me it makes more sense that the Egyptian and Abraham rites were fundamentally different, although called by the same name, and that it would be Satan’s desire to have everyone copy the pagan Egyptian practice, while deceiving them into believing they are practicing what Abraham practiced.
Justin-
“Ask a man who watches pornography if he would want his wife or daughter to be in videos like the ones he watches – and 100% will say, “No.”
Your naivety is unfortunate. On my mission I taught a 24 year old female whose father used to invite his friends over to watch porn. The father and had her serve him and his friends drinks…naked. This started when she was 12. When they had watched much porn and couldn’t handle only watching any more, they took out their desires on her. This was her father and his friends. The mother was in the house but did nothing to stop it. This is uncommon but not rare. When you say 100% I fear the only people you sampled were those like you. There are many people in the world not like you.
LDSA said:
“The restriction of monogamy, assuming that the Sex at Dawn research is correct, would go against his natural sexual desires, frustrating him sexually’
Did you catch that? his natural desires. King Benjamin said:
“For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam”
This conversation is disturbing, I have been to this blog a few times and enjoyed what I read, but this is something completely different.
I would caution people on their discussion of Pornography and it’s effect on Brain Chemistry. There currently are no medical studies in existence that demonstrates that there is a quantifiable difference between frequent sexual activity with a partner(such as with a spouse), or frequent sexual activity as a solo pursuit.
The only semi-viable link the Brain Chemistry angle on porn has at present is the impact of the “chemical bonding” that likely occurs after attaining a sexual climax. Where you would be potentially bonding(connecting) with pixels rather than another human being. However, I doubt anybody is ever going to be able to demonstrate that there is a significant Brain Chemistry difference between “bonding with your computer screen” and bonding with your spouse, particularly where men are concerned(women may be another matter due to how “exchanges of fluids” generally work out). Psychological impacts are another matter open to plenty of debate.
And given that Dr. Hilton(Who is very popular in Church circles currently when it comes to discussing porn) in particular seems to have a big bugaboo about sex for purposes other than procreation(I guess doing it simply to emotionally bond with your spouse is a sin), so beware of the messenger you are getting your information from. The real argument being made by proponents of the Brain Chemistry angle, though focused mainly on pornography(where some users are quite likely getting more white knuckle sexual activity than most “highly active” couples do), is that frequent sexual activity, rather than porn, can cause brain damage.
—————————————
And @LDS Anarchist
Your circumcision point is potentially relevant, but you are also forgetting another leftover from the Victorian Era that still lingers today. You also can’t tell me that remnants of that Victorian attitude are not still prevalent in many parts of American Society in general, including within the Church itself.
“A lady does not enjoy sex.”
..which is a large part of why Brothels and Mistresses tend to crop up fairly regularly in anything examining Victorian England with any degree of authenticity. Wives were for reproduction, the Brothels and Mistresses(for those that could afford them) were for pleasure.
And as if that is not enough, on the other end of sex research spectrum you also get this:
http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=8485289&pid=26
With the byline of “Sex researchers say 27 percent of women don’t climax during vaginal sex.”
…where there is a very commonly held belief among many that anything other than the “Missionary Position” is sinful and should not be done.
So go back to all those chemical reactions that occur upon reaching climax, and realize that for all bout a very small handful of men, if they’re having sex, they’re going to climax unless something happens to stop it.
The Husband ends up with a biological/chemical need for wanting more sex, while the wife ends viewing it as “just another duty” and has been trained by society(or their faith group) that this is the way it is supposed to be. Putting that married couple on a course for the husband ultimately being very susceptible to other sexual outlets, because the wife has no reason to be interested as often as he is.
Another final item to take a look at is to revisit the Body Modesty topic, and see what the LDSSDF as well as other Christian Naturist groups have to report about their experience with combating pornography in their own homes. It is SIGNIFICANTLY less of a problem for them, and two reasons for that is logically very obvious–it removes the curiosity factor, it also removes a lot of the appeal on the “forbidden knowledge” aspect that is the typical gateway introduction for most people with porn.
Losing Faith:
Perhaps my 100% figure was rounded up from 99% — I’ll admit it. You successfully demonstrated that while the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with precision what “men” will be up to. Individuals vary, but percentages remain constant.
Your anecdote is important to remember — some people are very mentally disturbed. This is why I concluded my post with, The current state of pornography is a complicated issue and calling it evil or a plague doesn’t help anybody. All you do is demonize something that, unless you have some dependence on it, isn’t bad for you. Proclaiming some moral absolute on a mental health issue is just harmful to those involved.
YSA:
However, I doubt anybody is ever going to be able to demonstrate that there is a significant Brain Chemistry difference between “bonding with your computer screen” and bonding with your spouse,
My point was that there is no difference chemically. That is problematic b/c God intends humans to bond to real humans — not images.
@Justin
When I was talking about significant Brain Chemistry differences, the intent was speaking more towards the “Pornography causes brain damage” than the “chemical bonding” angle. That’s what I get for using it as a euphemism for sexual activity that distinguished between couples and solitary acts at that point in the post.
I personally have my doubts that even the “chemically bonding with pixels” angle is going to yield much in terms of anything when/if anybody gives it serious scholarly research and study rather than the dogmatic study it seems to be getting for most part currently. Though I do think it is one that should be pursued all the same, as it could yield very useful information all the same as it is a very interesting argument.
My dubious view of the chemical bonding angle, regarding porn, is also a large part of why I left the caveat about how “Psychological impacts are another matter open to plenty of debate.”
That being said, I will agree with Dr. Hilton’s assertion that sex which achieves orgasm(or in the case of the argument he was making: use of porn) is habit forming. Though I’m not sure I’ve had occasion to meet anyone who would claim sex isn’t habit forming. My time in the Navy gave me more than enough anecdotal evidence to satisfy me of that every time we spent more than a few nights away from home port.
————————-
My personal take on the issue of Pornography is that the vast majority of people who take this topic up from a religious/dogmatic standpoint is missing the forest for the trees. The wrong questions are being asked, so the answers most people get when they ask are less than useful.
The first real question to ask is:
Why are most children/young adults initially exposed to porn?
The answer I come up with is:
1) Curiosity about the human body, because most of them never get to see one in the nude.
2) Because knowledge of the (naked) human body is in the “forbidden(secret) knowledge” category of things, which creates its own appeal.
3) Accidental exposure, at which point the first 2 reasons become applicable more often than not.
or
4) Deliberate exposure to it by either a peer/sibling, or another person.
The first 3 go right back to the Body Modesty topic. Utah is perhaps one of the most overly modest(in outward appearance) areas in the US. It also is the leading consumer of Porn in the US. There probably is a likely and very strong correlation to be found there.
The 4th one is grey, as the peer is likely acting on the first 2 answers and simply decided to share with his friends. The “other person” can run the range from actual sexual predators, to associates trying to drag them into the mire with them, to relatives/neighbors simply trying to educate them about sex and the ‘other gender’ in a more controlled environment.
Which leads to the second question:
Now with the answer(s) to the first question, how do you address that?
I’m very convinced that addressing the first 2 items on the above list are perhaps the most effective means of countering the continuing spread and impact of Pornography. If curiosity about the human body ceases to be a factor, and the forbidden (secret) knowledge aspect of the naked human body is addressed at the onset… Before they get exposed to Porn, the prime “gateway activity” that get so many people started on Pornography is effectively sealed shut. As long as knowledge of the naked human body remains a cultural taboo, this “gateway to pornography” will continue to remain wide open.
Once the previously mentioned gate is closed, the only reason people then have to pursue pornography at that point is to pursue knowledge of sex itself. Which is another gateway that can be sealed shut if people were able to overcome the social conditioning that sex is a taboo subject that should not be discussed openly. (Note: Not to be confused with practiced openly)
If Mom and Dad, family and (married) friends, are able to be frank and forthright about discussing sex and the proper setting for doing it. Then there is no real reason for porn to become the goto resource for that information either.
At that point, with body curiosity and sexual curiosity(aside from the actual experience itself) addressed, what reason would a person then have to develop the habit of viewing porn beyond voyeurism?
———-
The big thing people seem to miss is that evil can be a very patient thing as well. It can appear to be working towards righteous aims when the reality is that achieving those seemingly laudable goals is going to have a counterproductive (evil) outcome. It is the reason why the scriptures council for moderation in all things, and why we are warned to avoid extremes, even in “righteous activities.”
Anon YSA:
I think you did well to mention the role the truths learned in the Body Modesty post relate to the topic of mortality. I would add that to the list of circumcision as the things that need to be addressed in order for pornography to be overcome among LDS.
However, I will ask about your use of the cliche that, the scriptures council for moderation in all things. I did a search for the word “moderation/moderate” in the scriptures and only found one that applied [the other one had to do with a moderate amount of rain]:
Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.
Philippians 4:5
The Greek epieikes is used elsewhere in 1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 3:2, James 3:17; and 1 Peter 2:18. In those places it it translated as “gentle” — in context of being the opposite of a perverse person or a contentious person.
Are there specific references you have in mind when you say that, “the scriptures council for moderation in all things“?
Good catch, I do remember the Philippians 4:5 reference as I do believe that was one I quoted in the Body Modesty thread when going over references involving modesty in the Topical Guide. That was probably the big key in for me on the old saw/dogma about “moderation in all things” with the scriptures. As I think about it, it’s probably more cautions about not doing specific things to excess in particular. Which specific thing being cautioned about varying depending on the scripture involved, such as the Word of Wisdom and dietary practices.
I guess this does provide another example of things people(including me) have been told “are in the scriptures,” but isn’t actually there, at least not in the form they would like it to be if nothing else.
Though Elder Dallin H. Oaks at least does have talks cautioning against excesses, even within righteous contexts. The one I have in hand thanks to it recently being cited to me elsewhere is a CES fireside on May 1, 2005.. Where he in turn gave an abbreviated version of an article he wrote in the October 1994 Ensign titled “Our Strength Can Become Our Downfall” as part of his talk. Which also cited Elder Boyd K. Packer’s October 1971 conference talk “The Only True and Living Church” where Elder Packer compared the Gospel of Christ to a piano with many keys which can be used any number ways. Except that for many faiths and people, they tend to fixate on just a few keys to the exclusion of everything else.
Elder Oaks continued even going so far as to compare some modern day faithful to the Shakers discussed in D&C 49:2 “Behold I say unto you, that they desire to know the truth in part, but not all, for they are not right before me and must needs repent.”
After I wrote the comment above about Egyptian and Abrahamic circumcision being different, it dawned on me that I’ve been taught that circumcision was a visible sign of the covenant people of the Lord. If the Abrahamic and Egyptian rites were identical, making both sets of penises look the same, how does this distinguish the Lord’s covenant people from their neighbors? It makes no sense to me then that the Lord would exactly copy the Egyptian practice.
Anon YSA, I didn’t mention body modesty in terms of pornography in my comments above because I thought I had already covered it with the body modesty post. But thanks for bringing it up again here, as it does play a significant part. There are many variables involved in this issue.
Losing Faith, you said, “This conversation is disturbing, I have been to this blog a few times and enjoyed what I read, but this is something completely different.”
Different is not necessarily evil or wrong. As stated on the About page, “Hopefully everyone who participates will learn something new or greater tolerance for different or opposing viewpoints.” Pornography needed to be addressed and I’m glad that Justin took the time to drag the topic into the open. Don’t you think it’s beneficial to fully discuss this topic?
Btw, I do not equate “the natural man” with every natural tendency we’ve been given by God. I have a natural desire to eat when I’m hungry. Is this the natural man in me manifesting? Am I an enemy to God when I eat? Did not the resurrected Jesus eat? And so on and so forth.
Justin-
Again, your naivety is unfortunate. The incident on my mission stuck with me and I have since been involved in helping others who have had similar experiences. The number you keep insisting is near 100% is most likely not. It is impossible to know the true number since there is no quantifiable measurement that can be taken but you write as if everyone in the world has similar moral standards to you, and you claim there are only a very small minority of “mentally disturbed” that are different from you. You remind me of the townspeople who laughed at Moshe, disbelieving his stories because they believed the people in the world must be like them (that is, have similar moral standards).
This blog has recently taken on the tone of the people it struggles against. It tries to parse the words and play with semantics of what the scriptures say or what others have said to make them align with what they want. In essence, it appears there are complaints about how the church renders an interpretation of a topic and then, using the same methods, this blog renders its own.
Don’t misunderstand me, I welcome new knowledge and insights into the scriptures. I seek after greater understanding, which was why I occasioned this blog, but there seems to have been a fundamental shift in the last little bit where greater understanding of the scriptures has taken a back seat to something else, though I am not sure what.
Losing Faith, I can only speak for myself. So, if you find any of my own writings that are not in line with the scriptures, by all means, correct me on it. You will be doing me (and everyone else) a great service. I have been corrected several times before on this blog and I am grateful for those who took the time to do so.
I too don’t quite understand what is incorrect about my thesis that pornography is a problem because it fosters people to connect with non-real things — instead of with a spouse. That I underrepresent the number of people who would like to see their own wife or daughter participate in a pornographic film does not, in my opinion, demonstrate my post is contrary to the scriptures.
Losing Faith — is there anything besides that one point you’ve already stated that you find objectionable about the original post?
Also, please don’t have faith in LDSA Blog — have faith in Jesus and read the LDSA blog from time-to-time, commenting when you feel inclined to.
Justin maybe you should change “and 100% will say, ‘No.'” to “and the overwhelmingly vast majority will say, ‘No.'”
I personally think that this post take a direct approach to find the real issues behind using pornographic material. It does no good for us to just tell everyone not to look at it. I think it related to repentence. When you repent or have a change of hear you have just that, a change of heart.
When a person is “one mouse click away” from viewing pornography; there is a difference between not viewing it because the prophet said so; and not viewing it because you no longer have a desire to view it.
Only by addressing these real problems that exist in our culture will we be able to help people change their hearts. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can change people. Our cultural norms wrested into the scriptures, and then labeled as the gospel cannot change or save people.
Note: The figure in question was altered in the original post to reflect the consensus of the comments.
“68.2689492137%” Hahaha. Classic!
@zo-ma-rah
I think the general issues as to why pornography is wrong has pretty much already been handled.
1) The primary intent of pornography(and a fair amount of broadcast TV today, as it ventures into what is essentially soft-core porn) is to incite a “lustful response” in the viewer.
2) Pornography by its nature tends to take a very disrespectful approach towards the people having sex. By either devaluing the persons involved, or the significance of the act itself. (A small amount probably does not do this, but it is very much the exception, not the rule.)
3) The more “hard core” pornographic material tends to be highly disrespectful of persons, and turns sex acts into something that is clearly not an “affirmation of life” or anything close to being considered “of good report.”
And upon reflecting on that, I’m going to have to differ with Justin on his definition of what Pornography is. If the intent of the content being provided lacks “incitement of lust” as an objective, it is does not qualify as porn by itself even if a sex act is being portrayed.
Which isn’t to say that someone else, upon obtaining access to said materials couldn’t use them for “pornographic purposes.” (Teen-aged males and their response to advertisements for Women’s underwear that include a picture of a model in it come to mind as a more obvious example)
It should be noted that neither Justin nor I seem to actually agree with what the legal definition is, where nudity/exposed genitals is often times the only requirement for material to be labeled as Pornographic. Although my definition can technically match up with the legal one. Seeing as many Pornographers actively trade on the fact that simple nudity/exposed genitals alone are often more than enough to generate that “lustful response” I was speaking of. Courtesy of how today’s society currently regards the human body.
YSA,
You state that your definition can technically match up with the legal one — which is “often times” only nudity/exposed genitals,
However, “If the intent of the content being provided lacks “incitement of lust” as an objective, it is does not qualify as porn by itself even if a sex act is being portrayed.
I’m trying to narrow this down — so is the presence of genitalia sufficient for pornography (which seems contrary to what was outlined in the Body Modesty post) or can sex acts be portrayed — the intent of the producer being the only sufficient condition?
Well an image of a full clothed women just standing there could be used for the “incitement of lust.” Is a picture of a full clothed woman just standing around pornography? There has to be a specific type of material that is pornography or it is just like the “war on terror,” with no real enemy, just anyone we seem to be scared of at the time.
@Justin
The big thing to look at was the closing comment I made in that post “Courtesy of how today’s society currently regards the human body.” For many people in society at large today, most of the body is best described as a “fetish zone” where if it becomes exposed to them, they will act on the “fetish” behavior and will want to act out on a “lustful response.” It is a widely known behavior, and people in the Pornography Industry act on that knowledge to make their money.
So while there is a fairly broad swath of “pornographic content” that in all reality shouldn’t be generating that “lustful response” in people, it is. It is why this topic is a very complex one to address, as a lot of it goes back to intent. (And also why I believe there won’t be any real solution to the issue until the walls erected around the topic of “body modesty” have been knocked down, sadly I think defense of chastity is likely to fail first, as people are focusing on the wrong things.)
A picture of a naked man, or a naked woman, or even a picture of a naked man and a woman together, is not necessarily pornographic by itself. However, if that picture was taken with intent to distribute it and sexually stimulate people(“lustful response”), the intent was pornographic in nature, and the picture is functionally speaking, Pornography.
Now if the picture was taken for the purpose of a trade that has need of full detail on the human body it clearly wouldn’t be porn. The legal system in the US even happens to distinguish such situations as being different from Porn, though problems with the “intent” angle causes issues all the same. Such as parents getting in trouble for having pictures of their children being naked in a bathtub due to naked children also being a fetish item for some very disturbed people.
But to add further complexity, we get back to the teenager with the pictures advertising womens underwear, or the less that honorable person with those “figure study” images. While the intent of the source material isn’t pornographic, the USE of the material is pornographic.
Of course, you also have the flip side, I know of people who have worked for Mainstream Video Game production companies as artists creating the CGI models and characters for the game. A substantial portion of their source material for figure study in a number of cases? Porn sites, because that is the best place to find video of a human body in motion without clothes obstructing the view. So the intent behind creation of their source material was pornographic, the particular use of that porn in their specific case however, was not.
——————-
Though for a sizable portion of what the Pornography industry creates, it should be patently obvious that there is clear intent to sexually arouse the viewer. There is no other reasonable explanation for what was being done otherwise. Unless there are better explanations why the photo series of that “benignly naked woman” suddenly transitions into her use of sex toys, self-stimulation, or sex acts with another person or persons… Or why the description of contents for the video or photo series makes strong allusions to sexual activities, if not outright mentioning them.
I’m with you loosing faith in LDSA-
This site has really gone down hill.
It used to have solid articles based on sound doctrine from the scriptures.
Now many of the articles seem preoccupied with wresting the scriptures so that mortal desires can be justified and can run wild..
Also many of the articles seem to just want to be controversial for the sake of being controversial.
This site is becoming the National Enquirerer of alternate Mormon theology.
LDSA you need to go back in time and read some of your old stuff and try to find out where and how you lost your way.
You have written some profound stuff in the past, but lately… yuk
Very sad
Luckily there are some other good blogs that have cropped up
Losing Faith #1 or #2:
Would you be willing to tell me where exactly this post,
(or some of the other recent ones like: The Garment, Marriage without a marriage license is ordained of God, Tribal Relationships, Tribal worship services, The seeds of the powers of godliness, or Body modesty is not a principle of the gospel)
wrest the scriptures, justify mortal desires, or arouse controversy for controversy’s sake?
FWIW, I found The Priesthood and An Alternate View of the Keys to be two of the most eye-opening scriptural expositions on those topics that I’ve read anywhere.
Dear Loosing Faith Family,
My wife and I hope that “you and yours” follow your collective conscience and stop frequenting this blog (sarcastic) or at least stop commenting with the spirit of narrowmindedness and accusation. (serious)
Personal opinions are always welcomed here and scripture study is strongly encouraged, which is why we will continue to frequent the site. But speaking of personal opinions…would you be so kind as to be more specific and leave links to those “other good blogs” you say have cropped up?
We’ll be watching.
Thanks.
The Chantdown Tribe
To: Losing Faith in LDSA Blog and Losing Faith #2
This blog has recently taken on the tone of the people it struggles against.
One of the wonderful things I read and feel from LDSA is that he is not struggling against anyone. He does struggle to understand and then convey that understanding. But when I read what someone writes I feel of their spirit. Perhaps I have the spirit of discernment of ones written words.
When Jesus provided free bread for thousands everyone loved Him. When he explained a deeper doctrine that He is the bread that returns us to God many turned away. Nothing can be more clear than that the Lord gives people only the truth people are ready for. If you need a scripture reference to believe that then here (Alma 12:9,10, D&C 29:30, Moses 1:42)
It is unavoidable that in a blog the writer can not control who may or may not be ready for deeper doctrines. In fact LDSA set up a bit of a protection for those who were not ready for deep waters. But I know what he feels. I feel it too. Time is short. It is not time to mince words. Who knows how much longer we will have this fantastic blessing to exchange information so freely. My own post was cut to half its length just to get the truth out as succinctly as possible.
And now by way of stating the truth so that others may see what I see I add these words. Your comments reveal something about your intent. Any number of people could disagree with what is being said and say what they disagree with and request an explanation and many do that. But you asked for no explanation. you not only disagreed but went on to find fault and berate the writer. Then proceeded to insult the blog. Does anyone sense in your words a desire to assist or correct the writer of the post or LDSA?
It is not just that you don’t agree, which is 100% your everlasting choice to do so, but you want to influence others. Your comment did not edify (D&C 50:23). No you want people to stop reading the blog and turn away from it. What are you fearing, what could be motivating you? What are you struggling against?
My words may be hard to hear. But I believe all can see their truth. May God bless you in your search for truth. May God hedge up the way against any efforts to suppress the truth.
“Your comment did not edify (D&C 50:23). No you want people to stop reading the blog and turn away from it.”
That was the impression I got, too. It made me wonder about a blog post that zo-ma-ah wrote in which he mentioned a First Presidency letter read recently in his ward’s sacrament meeting that counseled the members not to participate in self-help groups that challenge Church teachings, imitate the sacred rites and rituals of the church and invlove pairing of spouses with others, among other things. Those three listed points, though, caused me to wonder if the LDS Anarchy blog was under Church surveillance. I have pondered this many times with a close friend of mine and we both figured that if the blog ever started to have a real or perceived impact upon the membership of the church, that the First Presidency would have a letter read in sacrament meeting telling the membership to avoid it. My friend, in particular, for a long time now has believed this blog is being closely watched by the Church.
So, what was my surprise to read the recent comments by Losing and Loosing and I just gotta wonder if there is a connection or if these two are really just expressing their individual views without any guidance from anyone else. Like dyc4557, I can’t help but ask, “What could be motivating you?”
Another aspect of pornography that I find troubling is that it has seemed to have become the de facto means of sex education for an entire generation.
It is sad to think that many children’s first exposure to sex is going to come thru pornography. I’m not concerned that young boys today might see some breasts or genitals — I’m concerned that their ideas about what real women, real sex, and real-women-having-real-sex is actually like will be formed by pornographic movies.
A satisfying sexual relationship is based on trust, love, communication, and intimacy between spouses. Children should be taught that these qualities need to exist in a relationship first and then it spill over into the bedroom. Two people who love and respect each other enjoying a physical representation of that love — this is not pornography represents about sex.
Humans having sexual relations is a beautiful thing — What concerns me is that pornography goes on to influence its users to believe in a very graphic misconception of what those relations are really like and are all about. A computer screen is not soul-satisfying. A computer screen is not a companion. Pixels don’t touch you when you’re done. Pornography doesn’t love you.
Pornography has twisted the concept of sexual relations between humans too far. Sex, for many couples, becomes the elephant in the room — where the husband is not getting it because he’s not being sensitive and since he’s not getting any, he becomes even less sensitive. While the wife is feeling pressured and so gives the cold-shoulder, in which case she’s given even more pressure. The real issue is communication, the openness, the intimacy between humans.
Pornography won’t teach you that. In fact, it is the worst sex education teacher because it promotes self-gratification over the love for your spouse — which is the opposite of what sexual relations are all about.
In today’s society, it’s equally likely(if not more-so), that most children’s first exposure to sex is going to come through Prime-Time television or a (mainstream) Movie that someone else in the family brought home to watch.
Sex acts being shown on “normal” TV is becoming increasingly common event, though they’re still more likely to simply suggest it by having them leave for the bedroom, or show them in bed after they’re done. Though there are a couple shows out there that have already pushed beyond those bounds. Where you’ll find the actors under the covers with one on top of the other, and signs of physical exertion being plainly evident to the viewer.
You don’t need the traditional Porn anymore to get those “hits” anymore, it is an almost everyday thing now. To the point where most people aren’t even consciously registering that they are seeing what is being shown.
Well put Justin. Thanks for not sugar coating.
My husband was secretly involved in porn for many years. (He was the young mens president in our ward and would blame in on the young men using his computer when ever he got caught.) During this time he wanted very little to do with me sexually. At night rather than having a bedroom romp, he would lock his door and have “alone time.” Porn in this case turned my husband into a pathetic lover.
As soon as he got rid of porn sex got better.
This post over at Feminist Mormon housewives made me wonder, Does high porn use among LDS married men have anything to do with them being in monogamous marriages? I would like to know if those who practice polygyny have high rates of porn use among them, or if the porn epidemic is firmly attached to monogamy only…
In the post, I mentioned that:
Also, LDSA wrote in comment #22 at this Wheat and Tares post a while back:
I’ve wondered, in connection with this idea — what is it about female body hair that is considered undesirable?
What makes women feel the need to get rid of it, often through painful means such as shaving and waxing? Are the red bumps and ingrown hairs a fair price to pay for the prepubescent look that men supposedly prefer? I mean, body hair is natural, isn’t it? I don’t think many women read this site — but any that do, I’d be interested to know.
My research on the subject indicates that pubic hair shaving actually originated in ancient Egypt and Greece when prostitutes had to shave for both hygienic reasons and as a clear sign of their profession — so no man would confuse them for a non-prostitute. Although female body shaving was established as the norm between 1915 and 1945, pubic hair removal did not gain a strong foothold until the 1980s.
Most women I have spoken with about this subject, regardless of adult age, maintain some kind of hair removal ritual. Most indicating that they go completely bare — having a “landing strip” if anything.
I’m hoping we can get away from 1980′s fashion, the desire to look like a porn star, and the satanic idea that prepubescence is somehow sexy.
I wonder if the “Reefer Madness” approach to pornography is the right course. For instance, how will a young woman react if she hears that pornography is vile and exploits women but turns on some “yuppie porn” and sees a couple (male/female or female/female) having a romantic dinner, talking and then going home and having sex in a manner that depicts caring and love? How will couples react to a shaming discourse at church who have frequently used porn to warm up after a hard day at work or with the kids?
I am not saying porn is good — after all, you are paying people to engage in sex without marriage, but if it is attacked along the labels of a dubious term (addiction) then one runs the risk of turning members either into back-door porn users living in shame, Stasi-agent spouses searching their teen’s or spouse’s computer history, or people deciding to just ignore the venomous descriptions from the pulpit. the danger of the latter is that it might cause many people to get into the habit of ignoring more and more that is taught.
I largely agree with you John. As I wrote in the OP:
And things were even more grubby and under-the-counter before VHS tapes hit the scene — Rated-X movie theaters and all that nastiness.
Though there may be some advantages to a gerontocracy — in the ChurchTM this has largely meant that the talks we hear about pornography come from a group of men for whom that was how pornographic materials were obtained. What they say about pornography is largely disconnected from the reality of its use today.
I see the same problem in the talks about college educations — stating that it is a justifiable reason to take on substantial debt. However, while that may have been true when the GAs were in their 20s — we are currently over-producing college graduates and I know many in my congregation that have 20-40 thousand dollars in debt over their head.
I enjoyed this comment from a post titled Pornography. Masturbation. The Spiritual Story No One Wants to Tell:
I just stumbled onto your blog and this post. A couple of assertions made by LDSA caught my attention because I was having a similar discussion over at MormonMomma. The discussion begins near the bottom of the comments with my suggestion that the church could fight pornography on more than one front by acknowledging that it is ok/normal/healthy for women to have sexual feelings. I was firmly rebuffed by the women there. Their argument was that mens’ porn use is not related to sexual dissatisfaction. If you want to read some counter argument to LDSA’s premise that sexual satisfaction would eradicate porn use then click on over and read the exchange.
On a related note, what does anybody else have to say about sexual satisfaction in LDS marriages? I’ve only ever been married to one woman, but based on my limited experience I’d have to say the church’s programs (particularly the YW programs and their tactics for promoting abstinence and modesty) have an overall negative effect on female sexuality. I only know a few brothers well enough to discuss this kind of issue personally, but they describe a similar situation with their LDS wives. One of them notes that his Non-LDS ex-wife was much much different than his current Celestial bride. Sounds sad huh.
The existence of this book seems to indicate that it is a large problem for LDS.
I bought that book. My wife refused to read it.
The comments on this post demonstrate my experience with disagreeing with LDS women online. It is definitely not something I would recommend.
Our bishop gave us a copy of that book — I thought that it was very well done. The authors mention time and again how LDS sexualization leads to sexually frigid women.
In addition to that — I agree with LDSA’s observation that prevalent circumcision among LDS men also contributes to the lack of sexual fulfillment among couples — which contributes [I won’t go so far as to say causes] greatly to pornography use.
You said the women commenters made the point that, “mens’ porn use is not related to sexual dissatisfaction.” — and I would somewhat agree. I would just say that men’s porn use is not caused by sexual dissatisfaction alone. I felt sexually satisfied by and attracted to my wife — yet still was drawn into a habit of viewing pornography.
The complexity of the issue is kind of the point I was trying to draw out when I wrote this post. In the concluding words, I wrote:
Foo:
You have me thinking more on the issues I raised in this post — and I’ve written what ought to just be another post on the subject.
The standard “porn” rhetoric:
A local Christian radio program was discussing pornography – the societal damage it causes and the need for the state to regulate its production and sale. The comments from the show’s host as well as the callers reminded me of John’s comment above:
Many of the women callers characterized pornography as so dangerous because it shows women with unrealistic bodies allowing men to do unrealistic sexual acts to them.
While there is pornography that is produced that way – there is also a portion of the market with “amateur” women – meaning natural women that don’t have breast implants and do have curves/stretch marks/etc. Also, there is a portion of the market that does not produce videos that have the men do demeaning sexual acts to the women – but are produced so as to appear as close to a regular couple having regular sexual relations as possible.
How does “porn is a vile, soul destroying disease” rhetoric help a person who encounters and is attracted to this kind of pornography?
To me, this is akin to Eve reporting to the serpent that Adam told her that God had said they must not even touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge. By going too far in his rhetoric to Eve about avoiding that which was in truth forbidden – Adam did her a disservice. When the serpent was able to touch the fruit without dying, it planted a seed of doubt in everything Adam had said about God’s command. It only does people a disservice to give them either more or less than the truth.
A couple of the men callers on the radio show were police officers who wanted to point out the correlation between sexual assault cases or drug-related cases – and finding pornography. As though viewing pornography drives men to use cocaine and rape women. While I don’t doubt the relationship between a person being a deviant in one aspect of their life [drug abuse and violent crime, etc.], and being a deviant in another aspect too [pornography use] – we can’t conclude from that that because most rapists have read pornography at some point in their lives – that pornography causes rape.
It seems a bit strange to me that we should – just for the sake of modesty – be prepared to tolerate an unhealthy pressure cooker sexual atmosphere that seems to be turning out a fair number of these monsters on its own. Pornography seems to be the symptom instead of the disease.
A more nuanced approach:
Posts like this always move me towards a bit of caution with my words. I am not trying to justify pornography use. Much of what is said about pornography is true [unrealistic looking women, unrealistically horny women, as dangerous of an addicting substance as drugs, etc.] – but much of what is said does not apply to all pornography nor to all pornography users, and can thus be quite unhelpful.
I do think that sexual energy should be devoted to the connection between husbands and wives exclusively. A man hunched over in front of his computer screen is not sexy. But painting all pornographic material and pornography users with the same out-dated and broad brush doesn’t get this message across.
I concluded in the comments above that I think a viewing pornographic material with the intent of exciting oneself sexually to the point that sexual self-stimulation occurs is what causes one to commit adultery within the heart — as defined by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.
There isn’t sin in seeing another person and noticing that “Wow” he/she is sexually attractive — b/c much of that is in scientific/objective terms [conforming to the golden ratio, proportionality, symmetry, waist-to-hip ratio, etc.] — sin comes in when you use either the person directly [adultery in deed] or the image of him/her in your imagination [adultery in the right-brain-heart] to excite and stimulate yourself sexually.
The Lord intends that the hormones and chemicals that flood the brain when sexual excitement and stimulation occurs to be directed towards a real human being to whom you have been married.
Further, I must conclude that there is nothing wrong with depictions of people having sexual relations as such. There is nothing unclean of itself. The sin lies in that which is not real – that which does not continue/endure. To me, it’s not what is displayed on the pixels that is so bad – it’s the fact that millions of men and women are connecting themselves with pixels, instead of with real human beings.
I read and enjoyed this post — soI wanted to include its concluding words in the comments of this post.
From this post at HuntGatherLove, I read this paper on the Aka [hunter-gatherer] and Ngandu [agriculturalists] tribes. From the abstract,
A chart in the paper compares married Aka, with married Ngandu, and with married Americans — and the tribes were having two-to-three times more sex per night than Americans are. Which is funny given how we are a society obsessed with sex, but where the sexually unsatisfying marriage is a common joke.
Also of interest [and why I’m posting this on this post] is that the men didn’t masturbate. It’s funny — the idea of not masturbating would be foreign or laughable to most American men — yet the idea that married people aren’t obligated to have sex would be foreign to the Aka.
And because Americans aren’t having much sex, there has been a multi-billion dollar industry pop-up to industrialize sex and sell it to us — another thing many Americans couldn’t imagine not having.
I think a lot of what is behind this American peculiarity comes from our diet and from monogamy. Low-sex drive is often caused by poor nutrition.
You should check out this video that compares the effects of processed food and pornography on the brain.
I think approaches that move away from looking at things like overeating or porn-use as some kind of moral failing and beginning to look at them in terms of hyperstimuli messing with our brain’s reward pathways — are closer to addressing the real issue — instead of just breeding better hypocrites.
Also — here’s a post from HuntGatherLove on the Aka tribes’s parenting:
and their diet:
Re the large children and shaven pubic area: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201201/wiring-sexual-tastes-hairless-genitalsoops
Ascentury — thanks for the link — I wasn’t aware that this was something actually defined/described in psychological literature as an observable phenomenon — it was kinda just what I thought on the subject.
I’ll post a bit of the article below:
Indeed, some of today’s Internet porn users are undergoing unnerving changes in their brains and arousal patterns—a possibility now well explained by many experiments revealing the plasticity of the brain. These changes are difficult to reverse while porn use continues. In short, sexual cues that start out as insubstantial and meaningless as cobwebs can become cables, that is, can lay down brain pathways that are given high priority because they are associated with the intense reward of orgasm.
In past articles we’ve pointed out that these changes can be very disturbing if they are mistaken for changes in fundamental sexual orientation.
To rid the brain of an unwanted arousal cue, one has to cease activating the associated brain circuits—in this case by not masturbating to similar cues. Disuse gradually inhibits the relevant circuits, although it may not extinguish them completely. Flashbacks are not uncommon.
In porn, bodies and genitals are usually [fully-shaven], so one automatically becomes conditioned to privates and bodies without hair. [Then, any encounter with fully-shaven] genitals [can] trigger the porn user’s reward center’s urge to pursue the reward.
Most porn also involves anal sex, so the viewer is also conditioned to buttocks as a cue for orgasm. Any naked, depilated bottom will then trigger the urge to orgasm, whether it belongs to a male, female or child.
Pubic hair and prominent labia minora only develop with puberty. Both are signs of adult women. Straight men once typically wired their sexual attraction to adult females using the standard visual cues of pubic hair and normal labia (among others).
Indeed, older men on our forum say they don’t find shaved women especially appealing. Their first sexual experiences were apparently with normally endowed women, or their imaginations/magazines featured the same.
In today’s porn world, however, “shaved,” like anal sex, is [obligatory]. We now hear younger men saying they will have nothing (sexual) to do with an unshaven female. What has happened?
A sensitive brain can wire up to a new sexual cue with a few intense orgasms. Thereafter, such a brain will respond to that cue (whether with arousal or repulsion) before the brain’s owner is even consciously aware of the cue. In short, the brain’s reward circuitry ignites a powerful reaction before the person’s frontal cortex has a chance to dismiss the cue.
The hairless, juvenile trend is not lost on the female partners and would-be partners of today’s heavy porn users. They still hope to turn on their cue-conditioned mates. According to a 2010 study, labia portrayed in porn protrude less than labia portrayed in medical textbooks and other sources.
Result? Not just wax treatments, but also labia surgery to eradicate signs of sexual maturity are increasingly common. Using shaving and surgery, women are deliberately neotenizing their genitals, that is, intentionally making them look immature, juvenile.
Are we whittling away our aversion for sex with children? Is this change in conditioned visual tastes removing an evolved barrier that once discouraged adult sex with children?
Reversing tastes can be tough. It requires patience and absolute consistency in not fantasizing about, or climaxing to, problematic cues. Avoiding Internet porn’s constant novelty helps too, because intense stimulation itself can drive escalation.
You may be saying to yourself, “Oh please. I know the difference between a child and adult when I’m watching porn!” That isn’t the point. Pavlov’s dogs knew the difference between his bell and Alpo, but after a while they salivated when they heard the bell alone.
Brains are plastic. Once we wire up a cue, we have no way of knowing when it will trigger a reaction.
Sexual associations are subconscious, and, in some brains even the superficial ones are tenacious. For good or ill, our brains are plastic. That is, the sexual cues we employ to reach climax are not necessarily toothless, and sexual tastes are not set in stone (unlike underlying sexual orientation).
In short, we have more control than we thought. It’s time to exercise it. Who needs to find a friend’s prepubescent child a sexual distraction?
Human being is image of the Trinity. Human being is three bodies, interfaces, dimensions or whatever we prefer to name them: soul, which nature is mystical (mys), mind, which nature is psychological (psy) and flesh, which nature is physical (phy). Each one is also an image of the Trinity, Realm is fractal. But only mys has received the commandments from the Lord, so that it is not a good idea to explain human visible behavior through abridge its complexity to psy, to phy or to merely both. It is false and deceitful to shape human being as without soul or mystical own body.
Soul knows what is sin because soul is never hidden to the Holy Ghost. God does not like sin and He always advises souls to preserve them from satan touches. To trick the reality of human being is a sin. The soul does not ever feel pleasure, the soul get free and happy when its good deeds success for its Creator with whom is in mystical communion. What for does a man need to watch porneia before his sexual intercourse with his wife? In this context I do not find other answer than ‘for drawing in his psy and his phy the signed sinner hidden in his mys’.
‘If we love as Jesus Loves, so to say ‘love with all its refinement’, then we are just now and here blessed to serve people.’ -I wrote in some comment in this site-. I can not conceive me to give some gift to my lovely three-bodies human spouse after one flat-porneia byte-session. My spouse and I are One, I can not deceive her with such a kind of impure gifts. She is the flesh-channel through my Father gazes me and touches me, oh my God, I cannot stand on my feet with these kind of thoughts!.
Hi!. The Last Day our souls will be resurrected, to be followed by our own enhanced psys for our own phys to be properly glorified as Jesus and Mary are. What kind of washing machine is needed to load this fucker large planet?.
After I read this article I have been toying with the question ‘why must we not watch porneia?’ I rejected to look for this topic through Internet, I did not expect to find some fresh views to enlighten this issue. I was indeed enticed several times to face this question by direct access to porneia. So to say, I was being tempted to go into the question by assuming a scientific embodiment – I have been educated to manage problems in a scientific way -. I did not fall in the trick, I prayed the prayer of the Lady and this idea vanished each time quite easily.
After I woke up this morning the question arose again but the answer followed to it as flowing whispers. ‘You are connected to each other creature through Me -Jesus-. I am not thoughts and ideas, I am a person with thoughts and ideas too whom you talk with through the mystical nature of your soul joined to my One. Your part in this issue consist on to pray the prayer the Lady gave you TO PRESERVE new humans to practice fornication for making money by these kind of allures. Now I share with you a little bit of the pain burning my Heart to free fornicators, before I came back with my Glory.’
Really, that feeling enhances me and I accept it because He will never do anything to hurt me. But I assure to you that you must to be well prepared before to suffer these kind of feeling in your soul full of His Love. With a very intense sadness you will feel the pinch, running away from the wolf to face the teeth of the bear. Only by the prayer of the Lady you can escape from this kind of terror. You can say that this is a mere mental experience derived from a repressive culture -advocates of porno industry, porno workers, many gays, many lesbians and all depraved people say so- but … you better look for chastity and purity diligently, so that you kept yourself and your family away from porneia, fornication and adultery. This chastity and purity is the blood demanded by the Lord to apply to the doorposts and lintel of the house of your soul and of your beloved people (Ex 12:7).
For those who struggle to get rid of the unwanted images out of their mind here is a free resource that teaches you how to delete those images from your mind permanently.
http://www.healyourhome.org
Scroll down about half way and you’ll see a link to the training.