Topics you never hear at Church

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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

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.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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

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

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

What's equally funny...even at this stage in my life, when I meet with a Bishop....in my dating life they still tell me the same things they tell the 16 year old....

When you date go on a double date.

Never be alone in the same room.

etc..etc..etc...... I just smile and let the bishop say his piece, cause they don't have a clue what it's like to be single, alone, in your 30's and LDS.

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.

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

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

You got a laugh out of me.

[The Borg]

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.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

Why am I an expert?

Why indeed? ;-)

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by The Borg

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.

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?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by The Borg

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.

#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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

#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.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

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.

Drum 1 Rocky 0