I don't know the answer. I think it depends on the person.

There might be a couple where they watch porn together and it is considered a normal part of their sex life.

Maybe a guy views porn and his wife accepts it and condones it.

Maybe a guy views to his wife's consternation, but it is open.

Maybe a guy is secretitive.

Maybe someone has a fetish that isn't fulfilled in his real-life relationship.

etc. etc. etc.

You don't have to view porn to become disaffected with your spouse. Porn is fantasy, like LOTR and WWE. I don't have to look at porn to know that my wife doesn't have the body she once had, and I don't need to look at porn to wish my wife would do things that she doesn't want to do. I'm not saying that porn is a good thing or a productive thing. I just don't think it's nearly as pernicious as many would have us believe.

Why am I an expert?

In my opinion, yes, it can happen becasue the porn problem destroys the healthy relationship as it grows. See Borg's post about it.

Is secretitive a technical term?

NonSeq's observations intersect with my discussion of representations of sexuality in media in my infamous "rated-R film post" from last year. If you're curious enough to go through the archive...

You don't have to be stupidly drunk or stoned to act like an idiot, but being either will increase the likelihood rather dramatically

Well, you must have modified your post, because my quote of you doesn't have the "of others". Of course, the "of others" could be their observations of your behavior.

Or did you modify it for me? Either way I believe the substance of what I said.

What me? All in good fun.

I don't have much experience in the field. The realm of my experiences is more limited than yours thankfully.

Of course, I remember porn for what it was once. Mine was limited, as a nonLDS to seeing your dad have the brown bag copy, to your mother's disgust, and stealing the neighbor's father's brown covered copy to oogle and something no parent would ever mention due to our Victorian era forties and fifties era parents.

Yeah my first memory of Mr. Kid across the street: "hey, Archaea come downstairs with me."

"Why?"

"Look what I got."

"Have you ever seen somebody who looks like that?"

"Ooh."

"hey want a beer?"

"To be a man."

"okay, gulp, yuck, spit that tastes like crap."

So entered the world of the average, nondescript seven year old into the world of porn and booze. Not much of an endorsement then or now.

As we used to say in high school: "Whoever smelt it dealt it". Do you have some personal experience with this issue?

When it comes to porn you couldn't be more wrong. There are fewer things out there more evil that are specifically designed by the Adversary to destroy the Family and destroy an individual's self worth.

Porn as you know comes in a variety of hardcore forms that lead to some of the worst evil around.

Can't there be a variety of experiences, just like alcohol?

For some, it can be pernicious (not my experience), and destructive. For others, it can a mild irritation or distraction. I understand why leaders urge all to stay away, just as I understand why we have the absolute recommendation to abstain from alcohol, so that the weakest amongst us, will have allies.

Yet, I am aware of persons that peruse it, have reasonably functional marriages and are successfully in business.

Apparently, your experience is of the pernicious kind.

I completely agree with this. The last time I looked at porn was about 7 years ago. It was like the Discovery Channel with humans. There is nothing about it that seems the least bit addictive. I understand alcohol addiction and I understand drug addiction, but I just don't understand how someone can actually become addicted to porn. Maybe I'm just naive.

First, I don't intend for this to veer off into a self-sustained harangue by MW about what is an addiction. Call it what you will, but I am referring to the repeated use of such materials.

Second, I agree with Arch also. Just as with any self-destructive behavior some people have the problem, some people don't. I don't like cigarettes. Never have and never will. No interest whatsoever. No one in my family, including those who haven't been inside any church for many years, smokes. Does this mean that anyone claiming cigarettes cause health problems are chicken littles? Of course not. So it is here. I am glad that you have no problem with porn. I have seen others that do, however, and it does cause problems.

Third, the point you and others raised that drew me into this thread was the idea that the porn problem is overstated or non-existent because you (and others) just don't see the negative effects of this problem. Again, I am glad you have avoided it but I can also tell you that I am aware of persons who have had serious and permanent disruptions in their lives as a result of porn usage.

Fourth, and this is not factual but purely opinion, I believe it acts as a barrier to greater spirituality. It tends to degrade rather than uplift and it tends to make base rather than make holy. (SIEQ's and tooblue's distinction between porn and nudity is not hard to grasp, btw, and I am certainly not talking about art.) This is not the type of influence I choose to have in my life or my family's life. Arch's choice of words is very illuminating: "I am aware of persons that peruse it, have reasonably functional marriages . . ." I certainly like to think that my goal for my marriage is more than mere reasonable functionality. Given the many barriers to a successful marriage, I choose to avoid this one and would suggest others do so also.

I agree with all your points. My only reason for limiting factors is that I'm not aware of anybody with more than a reasonably functioning marriage. It's not the standard to which I had hoped, but it is about all I can expect.

Again, my marriage is not beset with porn addiction, but perhaps internet sports board addiction.

I was hoping you wouldn't take my comment that way. I certainly don't mean to suggest that avoiding porn makes a marriage perfect. But I do feel pretty confident in saying that in most cases it doesn't really help.

I think this is well put. This reminds me of a post I read (on a local message board ) about a husband's addiction to pornography. This woman felt degraded that her husband was constantly looking at porn, so she decided to make herself "more available" to him, so he wouldn't feel the need to seek other outlets. She said that after having sex twice that day, he woke her up at 3 a.m. wanting to do it again. Since she was really tired (she had a newborn baby at the time and had been up already), she said no. He immediately got up, turned on the computer in their room, watched some porn and "took care of himself" right in front of her. On the outside, I'm sure they appear to have a reasonably functional marriage.

there are selfish partners on both sides no doubt.

There are some that availability means more than a couple a times per year. Unfortunately, no happy medium.

Wow...NS...you honestly don't believe someone gets addicted to porn.


Wow.....I have no response for that. If you don't believe it or can't see it then nothing I can or could say would reverse your thinking on that.

Of course there can be a variety of experiences, but to believe that someone cannot become addicted to porn is incredibly naive.

I've seen porn destroy more marriages in the Church than drinking or drugs. Ask ANY Bishop what they've seen destroy more marriages in the Church...Porn, drinking or drugs.....and the BIshop will tell you Porn.

Porn is a complete tool of the Adversary specifically designed to destroy families and ones own self worth.

Well, is anecdotal experience how we should set policy, or should it be set based on sound sociological evidence and studies. I would wager, money, and alcohol have ruined far more marriages than a man's misuse of pornography.

There is a thing such as sexual addiction. Chemical changes do result in men who consume pornography.

And although we like to simplify everything in terms of an us versus them battle, methinks we give Lucifer far too much credit for our own shortcomings. People create these things. The last time I looked at scripture, Lucifer never received a body.

One problem is that the church does teach us to obey, honor, and sustain the law. The problem lies in the fact that oral sex is illegal in Utah. I present to you section 76-5-403 of the Utah Code. Consider this the next time you are feeling frisky:

On the positive side, the law makes for a great excuse when you aren't feeling up to the task: "Sorry baby, it's illegal" :)

Do women need any more excuses? The excuse list is already longer than the NYC phone book. What's adding one more line to an already limitless list?

Rocky said marriages in the church. The church population self-selects to a lower incidence of alcohol abuse, I would imagine. You said marriages without qualification, which would not include the same self-selection. Thus, you and Rocky may both be right (although I have no idea of the actual aggregate numbers).

Rocky, I don't disagree with your general point here (say yes to oral sex) but I thought I would add some historical perspective for why many Mormon's at least historically had a very negative view of oral sex. Bishop's were for a brief period told by the 1st presidency in the early 80s (82 I think) that oral sex was "considered an unholy and unpure practice." This led to an increase in the number of Bishops asking married couples if they engaged in oral sex. About 6 months later, the 1st presidency issued another letter instructed Bishops to "don't ask and don't let people tell."

Source: Quinn, Michael, The Mormon Hierarchy : Extensions of Power

I know for a fact the biggest concern of the Brethren in the church is the exponential growth of the problems with pornography.

Oh come on. Do you really think that is an issue for anyone?

Well if that is the way the Church attacks it, it will fail. It needs to broaden its scope.

I'm unfortunate enough that everyone in my life seems to be bishop level in the church or above--several co-workers, friends, siblings, etc. My feeling from discussions from these and other observations is that adultery is the #1 cause for divorce in the church and that pornography is the #1 contributor to the adultery in these cases. I can hardly believe those that are writing the problem off here in this thread live in the same church and culture I do, because the problem is glaringly obvious to me.

Yeah you're right, Lucifer is overated. lol.

First of all I said IN THE CHURCH...and I'll take that wager anytime.

Yes, the Church should listen to Archaea......lol. That way they get a textbook example and can learn how to replace inspiration from the Spirit with arrogance of stubborn, unchangeable and WRONG opinions....because of course, like UtahDan, SU and CaliCoug, Archaea is always right no matter what.

The same time of people that would worry about it being illegal are the same type of people that would think it is inherently evil/wrong/immoral in the first place, so no, I don't think anyone worries about it.

I was trying for humor but sometimes my version of funny isn't the same as everybody else's version

To be fair, you have no clue what it is like to be the bishop of people who are single, alone, in their 30s and LDS.

You got a laugh out of me.

This thread has certainly evolved!
 

This topic has really gone places that I never imagine!

Reviewing some responses:

1) I agree that the problem with pornography is worse in the church, causes more problems (in the church) than that of alcohol or drugs. I don't have the numbers to back it up, but I get a feel that in general, our membership has been ingrained sufficiently long, that "drugs & alchohol" are "bad", against the WoW and have this challenge in manageable form.

2) Times change. Drugs & alcohol "used" to be a problem. Addiction could result, chemical reaction take place..problem. However, the adversary has a new tool. Porn. In a way, I can see a porn abuser becoming addicted rather easily. Once viewed, natural hormones released...get that "high" without thinking you're actually "taking anything into your body" <<like drugs or alcohol>>...but you ARE taking something into your body. Worse than drugs or alcohol...once they are gone...they are gone. But, IMAGES stay in your mind forever. Can be recalled at will. This 'high' can be 'recalled' without ingesting something. Verrrry dangerous.

3) Most 'men' <<speaking of men only here>> are more 'visual' than are women. It's in our makeup. Therefore, again, it is most likely MORE addictive than drugs or alcohol because it is the more near the same effect on 'most' males. Alcohol abuse/addiction is very different for people. Becoming an alcoholic is very addictive for very few people...some have had to purposely abuse alcohol etc. to the point where it had to become addictive. Porn..in my opinion, works immediately on most people. I would tend to believe that a very high percentage of viewers get the desired reaction that they were looking for upon their decision to look.

4) Combine this instant reaction <<hormones released>>, ability to be recalled whenever needed, convince a young man (teen/20's) ie. high sexual drive, you've got trouble...you've got someone that will easily become addicted.

5) If years of this ensues, can any women measure up? Physically? Visually? Sexually? You've got a problem.

6) Combine this with marriages where things aren't all that cozy. For whatever reason, if intimacy isn't what is should be for whatever reason...if a man either chooses to go there, or reverts back to it....you've got problems.

Naivity is NOT the correct response when countering the effects of porn. It is a reality, it is a major problem, it is I believe, THE main cause of ruining marriages, keeping young men off missions, keeping young men from postponing marriage/committing to meaningful relationships to eligible young women.

If one believes it is NOT a problem, I think you've got your head in the sand, and don't have a firm grip on what is going on in the world, and especially in the LDS world.

Why indeed? ;-)

Is porn the problem or is there a deeper issue that needs addressing? I have no idea as to the magnitude of the "problem", because it's really not a temptation for me. However, I'm aware there are sexuality issues within the culture of the Church that are being ignored almost completely. And perhaps these core ignored issues relate to the actual problem which is covered up by porn. Is porn just a camouflage for bad sex due to Victorian repressed sexuality?

#3 is not as true as many people want it to be. It fits nicely into Enlightenment biases, though. Women's pupils dialate to the same degree as men's do when they are presented with sexually attractive objects. Men and women process visual stimuli in different ways, but both have a strong visual response to sexual stimuli.

Ideas about visuality and masculinity are rooted in the assumption that males are more reasoned and rational, that they are, to use the enlightenment terms, more empirical and objective. This bias has been used to keep women from holding public power (the Victorians really took this to the extreme--Victorian women came down with the "vapors.") and to define activities associated with the feminine as frivolous, sensuous, and irrational. To the degree that this is true it is in large part because we have culturally made it so. We have naturalized ideology and treated it as objective fact.

Culturally speaking, this comes to a boil with a simple fact: the male gaze has a cultural acceptance that the female gaze does not. This derives from the fact that our culture is very much patriarchal and is the rationale behind such fascinating phenomena as both men's pornographic magazines and women's fashion magazines having hyper-sexualized women on their covers. Women's sexuality is being constructed on masculine terms. These covers tell men what to like and women to be what men like. The rise of "Men's Health" culture may reflect that women's gaze might be being rehabilitated. The jury is still out on this.

Another result of our patriarchal culture is that female sexuality is constructed with much greater specificity than is male sexuality. Sure, there are "hunky" guys, but women's expectations of male attractiveness have many exceptions and have greater variation. Female sexuality, on the other hand, is obsessively precise, is in some measure infantilizing (women are encouraged to shave legs and arm pits, to be pre-pubescently thin, are encouraged to look youthful, and should be "moist"--an obsession that has its roots in fertility and menstruation). So many women have come to construct their own femininity on masculine terms--welcome to hegemony. It should be no surprise, then, that both women and men have come to think of women as less visual. Our culture discourages women from exploring their visuality. It punishes them for doing so.

Study after study has demonstrated that human sexual behavior has great commonality with the sexual behavior of other primates. Female primates will stick out their chests and posteriors to attract mates. It is not a coincidence that this is the same posture that occurs when a woman wears high heels. Similarly, primate males will flex their arms and chests, and will display the food they have gathered to attract females. One need spend only about two minutes in a singles bar to see men doing this with their postures and wallets. These behaviors are in some sense inherited. Problems arise when the behaviors of one sex are used culturally to trivialize that sex, and when behaviors of attraction are compelled in otherwise neutral contexts. Men put on tuxedos for special occasions, but women put on their sexuality every day. If a man looks unkempt he will be given a pass in many situations--he may even be applauded. If a woman goes out without makeup and without her hair done and wearing sweat pants, many people will semi-consciously disapprove of her and some will wonder if she's having her period. Maleness is normative, femaleness is not. In a broader sense you have the "Cougars" and the "Lady Courgars."

So women's sexuality is used against them and visuality is no exception. Many women recognize this on some level and so are caught between resenting their own sexuality and embracing it at the risk of cultural disapproval. Symbolically, our culture still sends women to the edge of the village.

Historically speaking, the priveliging of sight over other senses that has arrived with the Enlightenment contributes to the porn problem. Sight is a distancing sense, a sense that always communicates our seperateness from others. In that sense (literally) porn is alienating. It is also a commodity and so is about the repetition of sameness. Sex, on the other hand, is about all of the senses and like natural reproduction, is about the repetition of difference. Check out my rated-R post (or I can board mail it to you), for more detail on this. I'm just summarizing here.

Very enlightening, Professor. Or should I say, very, post-modernistic.