Suppose your marriage is afflicted with that everyone’s-talking-about-how-they’re-suffering-in-silence Mormon epidemic know as “your husband’s porn addiction.” Suppose you’re absolutely convinced that that is the problem, and if he won’t stop, then your marriage will be destroyed — nothing can persuade you otherwise. But he can’t seem to stop, or refuses to.
Then there are two possibilities: (1) you’re wrong, and hence you’re choosing to throw your marriage in the garbage, or (2) you’re right, hence your marriage is toast. either way, there’s only one course of action: start getting your finances in order because you’re heading for divorce court. If you have children, then you should also look into low-cost savings for your child’s future.
But let’s say that you’ve decided to entertain the possibility that your marriage can be salvaged. I’ve had so many people contact me for relationship advice (not just about this, but on lots of different problems), that I’m starting to get worried that I’ll be arrested for practicing marriage counseling without a license, so I’d like to start by quoting Jonathan Blake‘s comment which he posted here:
Pornography/masturbation and the shame associated with it were a huge part of my youth. I took the GAs counsel to heart. This resulted in self-loathing and even suicidal thoughts on occasion. I was vulnerable to this shame because I wanted to do the right thing. It was a big deal for me. I considered myself a sexual addict for a long time.
Years later, I leave the church for reasons unrelated to pornography (trust me). This gives me the opportunity to disregard the messages from the LDS church and culture that have been telling me that I’m evil, disgusting, unworthy, etc. for viewing pornography and masturbating. I allow myself to take a relaxed attitude on the issue for the first time in my life.
As I began to explore different avenues for understanding my emotions and experiences, I discovered the world of tarot reading. This practice offered me a new perspective, one that was free from the guilt and shame I had carried for so long. In tarot, each card became a mirror reflecting my inner thoughts and feelings, providing insights and clarity that I had never found in the rigid frameworks of my past.
One particular reading, where I asked will my ex come back, helped me delve deep into my own heart, examining not just the potential future of my relationships but also my readiness to embrace such a possibility with an open and forgiving mind. The cards didn’t judge; they simply presented possibilities and encouraged introspection. It was liberating to engage with a tool that validated my experiences without casting me into cycles of self-loathing.
Just as djinn said, poof, the sexual addiction evaporated. The difference was like night and day. A almost unbearable burden had been lifted. The key ingredient in my addiction was gone: shame.
This may be hard to swallow, but mainstream LDS ideas about pornography are part of the problem. Taking a more balanced view was key for my recovery. If the LDS people want to overcome their addiction to porn, the first step is to cut out the teachings and attitudes that fuel shame about an innate and beautiful part of what it means to be human.
With that in mind, let’s consider both sides without dismissing one as a priori wrong. Masturbation (with or without porn) may be (1) the root problem (2) a symptom of another problem, or (3) not actually a problem. I’ve written a couple of new posts to help spark a discussion between you and your spouse which may help if you’re both willing to agree to read them with an open mind and consider them: Fidelity, Autonomy: Where does your body end and your spouse’s begin? and For married Mormons: Where does OK end and sin begin?
I hope this helps and you won’t, y’know, turn me in to the Marriage Counselor Licensing Board. 😉
I’m personally more worried about a porn habit than masturbation – although the two can often go together and mutually reinforce.
The porn thing is just degrading to your wife – both in how you see her, and how she thinks you see her.
And you don’t need a General Conference citation to reach that conclusion.
Actually, Seth, I wouldn’t want a GC citation for that. I’d prefer a peer-reviewed citation for that, as this peer-reviewed article indicates pornography is associated with more feminist views and not sexism (or degrading women):
Garos, Sheila, James K. Beggan, Annette Kluck, and Amanda Easton. 2004. “Sexism and Pornography Use: Toward Explaining Past (Null) Results.†Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality 16:69-97.
As the above article illustrates, the empirical literature has something to say about pornography use. Pornography is associated with less sexist attitudes, though that is explained via a third variable – political tolerance. People who are okay with pornography also tend to be more feminist. I also interpret this to mean that Jonathon Blake’s experience is not unusual: once the stigma is removed from using pornography for sexual stimulation, the “mystery” and “danger” surrounding it disappear. It becomes a tool that serves a specific function, like a hammer for pounding nails (okay, that’s an odd pun/metaphor). 🙂
Pornography generally only has a compelling addictive draw for those people who believe pornography is illicit or a sin (there are exceptions, of course). For people who have no problem with sexuality, nudity, or pornography, it usually isn’t an addictive problem.
As far as pornography ruining marriages… If the wife doesn’t condemn it and it doesn’t prevent him from being sexually interested in her, what’s the problem? Honestly? Men do, statistically, have a higher sex drive then women and like to get off more, on average, than do women. Pornography is only threatening if it completely replaces sexual intimacy with one’s spouse. If it is used to enhance sexual intimacy or “fill-in” when a partner is not interested, what’s the harm? I hate to say it, but the best solution here IMO, is for the wife to start watching the porn with her husband – most men think that’s a major turn on as it makes the wife seem as though she is into sex and sexual experimentation. Plus, the wife gets to make sure he isn’t into anything super freaky (great South Park episode on this recently – when the internet goes out – http://gawker.com/380877/south-park-the-day-the-internet-stood-still?autoplay=true ).
I’d agree with profxm and the statement by Jonathan Blake. For me it wasn’t that it was degrading to women (I’m gay), but the guilt the church/society foists on you really is what makes it addicting. Once I no longer had that faith-based belief in the church, I had no problems with porn or masturbation.
I think that the church is crazy for considering masturbation a sin, and I think that recently, the church has realised that it’s not that big a deal. I think that porn can potentially be problematic, but I also think that the church is creating far, far more problems than it is solving by making porn so taboo and shameful. I think that part of the problem with the church is that in the making of porn, “commandments” are being broken, even if a husband and wife are viewing the porn.
By no problems, I mean that porn wasn’t addicting, and masturbating didn’t produce a shame-response which fuelled the negative feelings that often lead to obsessive behaviours like porn addiction. When I changed and began viewing masturbating simply as a natural thing that most men do, as a consequence of a high sex drive (with perhaps no partner to engage in sexual contact with), it lost the negative, “sinful” label.
Ummm… Did you get what I said last sentence?
I said you DON’T need a GA quote.
Plenty of feminists condemn pornography for reasons unrelated to Sunday School CV. The big problem with the stuff is that it’s creating a sexually disinterested male population. An orgasm is a pretty powerful Pavlovian stimulus. Arguably the most powerful one we have.
When you divorce that stimulus from real women, real women have an increasingly difficult time getting any response from a guy at all. And the women are pressured to perform more and more sexually extreme acts to “keep their man interested.”
Girls at college keggers are now expected to make out with each other to arouse the guys in attendance (you even get crap like this in Provo on occasion). Oral, anal, three ways… Ritual humiliation. Whether she feels like it or not. Because that’s what it takes now to keep these selfish, sexless eunuchs “buzzed.”
Pathetic.
I don’t even buy the initial premise. For background, while I fell off the LofC wagon big time post mission, my marriage has been going great now for over two and a half decades. Many Mormons and GAs misuse the word addiction, like spouting off absurd nonsense about sex addiction. Given that sex is essential for life, Mormons might as well be spouting off about addictions to clothing, shelter, food and other essentials. Porn is a substitute for or precursor to sex, so I put porn “addiction†into the same intellectual masturbation garbage heap.
My advice to the gal is ask the “addict†that you view porn together and give him all the sex he wants. Don’t say he can’t view porn or else; that’s creating a forbidden fruit that he’ll eventually have to eat. Every guy has his energy limit in that department, so give him all he wants and he’ll be spending more time with you and less and less time with porn.
If you say it’s too much effort, then you’re just looking for a way out of the marriage, and his porn is your excuse to end it. I can’t help a marriage that’s already over.
Seth:
As for feminists condemning porn, I’ll let chanson handle that particular issue. Suffice it for me to say that not all feminists share that opinion, and the ones who do aren’t necessarily correct simply because that may be the majority feminist opinion.
Thanks for conflating men who use pornography and serial date-rapists. Personally, I’ve had no problem being respectful of my wife’s boundaries. Why? Our relationship is built on mutual respect.
The problem with the men that you seem to think are typical porn users is that they don’t have any respect for women in the first place. And it’s not because of porn. It’s that they were taught that women were objects from an early age.
Men of this kind have been degrading women for far longer than the explosion of porn has been around.
chanson:
Thanks for this post. I cringe every time I hear about “porn addiction.” It’s just disguised self-loathing or an excuse for control.
Who said I conflated them with date rapists? Where’d you get that from?
The big problem with the stuff is that it’s creating a sexually disinterested male population.
Are males really more sexually disinterested? I personally doubt it in general, but if a subset is, how much is driven by pornography and how much by an increase of misandry.
One theory I’ve had is that a subset of men are tired of dealing with women and the availability of porn allows to relieve their horniness without having to deal with the opposite sex.
But what about “female” porn–chiefly romance novels, but other stuff as well? Are some women creating unrealistic expectations about relationships and thus driving men away?
Actually several studies talk about porn reducing the incidence of rape. But that doesn’t really negate my point.
Seth said…
“The big problem with the stuff is that it’s creating a sexually disinterested male population.”
What makes you believe men are not interested in sex?
“An orgasm is a pretty powerful Pavlovian stimulus. Arguably the most powerful one we have. When you divorce that stimulus from real women, real women have an increasingly difficult time getting any response from a guy at all.”
Wouldn’t this make pornography a better alternative than masturbation?
“Girls at college keggers are now expected to make out with each other to arouse the guys in attendance (you even get crap like this in Provo on occasion). Oral, anal, three ways… Ritual humiliation. Whether she feels like it or not. Because that’s what it takes now to keep these selfish, sexless eunuchs “buzzed.â€
Pathetic.”
This is just as much the girl’s fault as it is the guy’s fault. She doesn’t have to participate in such activities…unless you’re saying she has no other choice in which case how can you blame the guys for looking at porn if you can’t blame the girls for engaging in potentially very destructive behaviors.
I assume you are going to say that this is not what you meant but this is how you came across to me.
I think porn is not all that appealing but I do agree w/ the others who said that the church appears to HELP create addicts out of ppl who would not normally have demonstrated addictive behavior. This is just my simple opinion based on ppl I know, including myself, and even many of the posters in the bloggernacle.
Thanks Jonathan, you’re right this is my area of expertise. 😉
I actually know which article Seth is referring to, or at least which one started the new anti-porn-feminist theory. It’s a little disturbing to see it has now entered the public discourse to the point where it can be referenced as “what feminists think” without any citation.
Problem #1 with the new theory is that it was put out by the same people who brought us “porn is the theory, rape is the practice.” Without skipping a beat. The evidence finally sank in that their “porn leads to rape” theory was dead wrong, and instead of responding by rethinking their theories about rape (as one might expect if their real concern had been rape), their first concern was to find a new excuse for hating porn. They’ve clearly demonstrated which was their primary issue.
For the second big problem, MormonZero hit it on the head: no one is making these women do anything. They are autonomous humans who are qualified to make their own decisions about what they do with their own bodies. Real feminism says give women as many choices as possible and then grant that they are the ones who should make the decisions about their own bodies. It’s only in the “black is white and war is peace” dictionary that denying women’s sexual autonomy becomes feminism.
Claiming that women have no choice in this matter denies some obvious realities about male sexual and romantic responses. Sure, some guys like these obvious displays of sexuality. But even in our modern porn-infused world, most don’t. Most prefer to have a relationship with a girl who is more modest, but the fact that girls can now sew some wild oats and still expect to find a relationship with a respectable guy means that the ugly prejudice that “there are girls you do and girls your marry” is slipping away. A girl can choose to make a big display of sexuality or choose not to — either way there are plenty of guys who will applaud her choice.
Why do some young women choose to go a little wild sexually these days? Because they have to? Or because they can? Without fear of retribution or stigma. Decrying an increase in women’s sexual choices and autonomy isn’t feminism.
Chanson, you only think it’s an increase in autonomy.
It isn’t.
The only difference is that now it’s different people doing the oppressing.
Really? And what makes you think they’re being oppressed? Did they tell you they are?
Some college-age girls choose to behave this way, some choose not to. Either way, they claim they’re making their own decisions. I don’t see why you think you’re justified in second-guessing them and telling them their own choices don’t count, unilaterally deciding for them that they’re not qualified to know their own minds.
Yours is a common attitude, but it’s paternalism, not feminism.
Who says I’m telling them what to do?
So I can’t even make a statement about moral behavior without some adolescent rejoinder of “you’re not the boss of me?”
Lets’ get a couple things straight here:
1. I do think that bishops and other leaders ought to take a softer, less pressuring and guilt-inducing approach on the masturbation issue.
2. If a couple wants to use erotic material as a part of their relationship, I’m not concerned about that. As long as it’s a sharing sort of thing, why not? I don’t have a gripe against various methods of stimulation in that context either.
But if you want to try and make the sweeping point that porn is okey-dokey, no, I’m not going there with you. Sorry. Nor do I think that the majority of porn use going on out there is some “harmless and natural thing.”
And to try and claim that women’s new “liberty of sexual action” isn’t oppressive is incredibly naive. Try actually studying the porn industry and how it works sometime.
It makes your blood run cold.
“Problem #1 with the new theory is that it was put out by the same people who brought us “porn is the theory, rape is the practice.†Without skipping a beat. The evidence finally sank in that their “porn leads to rape†theory was dead wrong, and instead of responding by rethinking their theories about rape (as one might expect if their real concern had been rape), their first concern was to find a new excuse for hating porn. They’ve clearly demonstrated which was their primary issue.”
Chanson, what evidence do you actually have of this? Or are you just saying this because you want porn to be OK simply as an over-correction for the Puritan culture of sexual repression you feel you’ve left behind?
Secondly, I never presented my remarks as “what all feminists think.” I don’t care if most of them think this or not. I think this. That’s what I was saying.
Sorry, I keep thinking of things after the fact.
College age girls are actually reporting a lot of sexual pressure and dissatisfaction with the new dating scene. They report that they are expected to behave like porn stars if they hope to keep a man interested. I’ve heard this from plenty of quarters.
Some freedom.
Another idea that I see a lot is that pornography is progressive, that looking at nude photographs necessarily leads to more personally damaging forms of porn. Someone may get blasé about porn but that doesn’t imply that they then seek out porn that they once found repulsive. The analogy to drug tolerance is false.
Personally, I don’t think all forms of porn are OK, especially for the sexually inexperienced or impressionable. The same goes for romance novels. Both can, I think obviously, shape what people expect from romance and sex. They can be fun diversions for those who can keep them in perspective as fantasy.
Maybe it’s false for you Jonathan and several other anecdotes you are aware of.
But it is true for a lot of other people.
I admit that I know very little about differing feminist theories or psychology in general, so what I’ll say is just my own opinion.
First of all, Seth, when was the last time you were at a “college kegger”? You seem to be presenting a lot of anecdotal evidence as fact, and I think that is a main reason why so many disagree with you. If you(and others) presented more of your “information” as your opinion, rather than fact (as you sometimes tend to do) it would be easier to defend your position and your statements would probably be attacked less.
That may be, but they are still choosing to behave in that way. If a guy is treating/expecting you to perform like a porn star, you might reconsider if that’s the kind of guy you want to be dating. There are going to be lots of men who don’t expect or want that kind of behaviour. Now, this may be common in places like frats (I don’t know, I’m just guessing), but there are many other places to look for dates. My point is, if a girl doesn’t want to do something a guy wants her to do, then she shouldn’t do it. Don’t blame the guy for what the girl chooses to do. You can criticise the guy perhaps for his unrealistic demands, but the woman who willingly gives in to those expectations is just as much responsible.
Women have as much responsibility for their sexual activities and choices as do men. It is not only unfair, but sexist (and inaccurate) to put the blame on “sex-crazed” men only. Everyone’s only responsible for their own actions, not anyone else’s (except perhaps in very extreme situations – of which this is not one).
Seth, you’re claiming the right to decide for people whether they’re oppressed or not, ignoring their claims to the contrary. By the same logic, I can unilaterally decide that you’re oppressed by your Mormon overlords, and that I’m doing you a great kindness by trying to free you from your oppressive Mormon beliefs, regardless of your opinion on the matter.
Lots of people try to decide for other people what’s best for them. Sometimes they try to justify it by claiming the person who made the (supposedly) bad choice is oppressed. Sometimes they’re right to think this, but sometimes they’re wrong. Thus we need to have some objective criteria for distinguishing between “oppression” and “not oppression”.
In this case, are these young ladies being forced? No. Do they lack realistic alternate options? No. So what does it even mean to claim they’re oppressed in this case?
p.s. Thanks for calling me an adolescent for arguing the feminist position that economically empowered women are qualified to make their own choices about their own sexual behavior. More silly female thinking! I should learn that Daddy knows best.
p.s. Craig is right that the key is that they’re not required to do this, and they’re not required to date they guys who like it. Men are interested in relationships too, and they have as much competition to make themselves desirable as the women do. If women really hate this stuff, then guys who don’t expect it become that much more desirable. Supply and demand works both ways.
Seth said…
“An orgasm is a pretty powerful Pavlovian stimulus. Arguably the most powerful one we have. When you divorce that stimulus from real women, real women have an increasingly difficult time getting any response from a guy at all.â€
I thought on this some more…wouldn’t this make it all the more dangerous if a person kept associating orgasm w/ guilt, shame, and depression?
“But if you want to try and make the sweeping point that porn is okey-dokey, no, I’m not going there with you. Sorry. Nor do I think that the majority of porn use going on out there is some “harmless and natural thing.â€
I don’t think anyone is trying to make a blanket statement about porn being harmless…From what I can tell most are simply saying that it has more potential to be addictive if it is associated w/ guilt and shame and that women have a choice of whether to enter the porn industry and is therefore not female oppression. Is that not what ppl are saying?
“And to try and claim that women’s new “liberty of sexual action†isn’t oppressive is incredibly naive. Try actually studying the porn industry and how it works sometime.”
I have…I wrote a paper on it once (maybe I’ll post it sometime)…there are some women who believe that it has been a tremendous opportunity in their lives; others say otherwise. Yes, there are some despicable things that are done and that are not right.
However, many of the problems in the porn industry can be parlelled to the sports industry, politics, big business, and even day to day jobs, which oftentimes affect us more deliberately and directly than the porn industry does. I am not trying to condone bad things but there are people who do things in a correct and legit way, even w/in the porn industry. If you are not being treated in a way that you feel is right or are being asked to do things you would’nt want to do then get a different job.
“College age girls are actually reporting a lot of sexual pressure and dissatisfaction with the new dating scene. They report that they are expected to behave like porn stars if they hope to keep a man interested. I’ve heard this from plenty of quarters. Some freedom.”
I’m in college and there are also college girls that are happy that they can enjoy “some freedom” over their sexual lives; they can choose what they want to be: celibate, sexually active, whatever. I have also heard this from plenty of quarters.
In the end though men and women are responsible for their own choices. We can’t say men watching porn make women perform sex acts they don’t want to participate in, otherwise you then have to blame the women for being in the porn and thus making men watch porn, which then you have to blame the porn producers who film the porn for making women be in porn and so on.
But perhaps this is the same mentality Dallin Oaks was taking when he said that women become porn when they don’t dress properly.
Also — taking a short visit to reality world — do you have an example of a dating scene that everyone in it (or even a majority) is satisfied with?
Well, that’s what a feminist might say. Someone who thinks women are capable of making their own choices. A feminist would say that you should never do stuff you hate just to snag a man because what kind of relationship are you setting yourself up for? No relationship at all is better than a crappy one. Your self-worth doesn’t depend on snagging a man.
A traditionalist says: “Men wanting X is oppressive to women because obviously women have no choice but to do whatever men want.”
Having a choice of entering or exiting a situation does not mean there is not “oppression.”
Come on, a lot of you guys are ex-Mormons. How impressed are you by the argument that you always have a choice about leaving or staying in the Church, therefore, quit whining about it?
I doubt you’re very impressed at all. And neither am I. I find the argument that these women are making a “free legal choice” to be utterly unconvincing regarding whether there really is gender oppression going on or not.
And where did “daddy knows best” come from. Give me one instance where I was advocating paternalistic oversight of women’s lives. Give me one example, cause I must have missed that one.
Seth,
I agree that in the example you cited, the fact that the women technically have a choice to leave isn’t sufficient to show that the situation is just. I hope, for my daughters sake, that such situations are, as I suspect, isolated and avoidable.
“Having a choice of entering or exiting a situation does not mean there is not “oppression.—
For oppression to exist there has to be some form of a catalyst. So where do you believe the oppression is coming from?
profxm, I doubt that pornography makes
peoplemen more tolerant of women. One can account for this correlation if one reverses the causality: people who are obsessed with sex worry about porn endlessly. Their fear of sexuality requires them to dominate women.People who don’t fear women, won’t be obsessed about porn.
In other words, people’s attitudes about women determines their attitudes about porn, not the other way around.
Having lived in the barracks several years, I can tell you from first hand experience that pornography is not an intervention that endows men with more respect for women.
People who dress their daughters like Britney Spears are obsessed about sex. Religious fundamentalists who think of women as walking porn are equally obsessed about sex.
The attitudes are exact inversions of each other, which means they negate each other’s sense of propriety but the attitude about women remains constant.
I do think, however, that art can reinforce positive attitudes about the human body. One of my favorites is Yves Klein’s Blue Venus.
Art requires perspective and makes for better inspiration and conversation than pornography, which is merely utilitarian.
The “catalyst” is the expectations that surround the women.
If someone in the LDS Church can feel oppressed by the need for a white shirt and tie, and the need to “bear testimony” and “be happy,” I guarantee you a girl can feel oppressed by the expectations of the guys she interacts with.
The fact that some women may have bought into the expectations doesn’t change my point either.
Just to be precise, Pavlovian responses are about conditioning behavior. It does not apply to pornography since guys do not need to be conditioned to get aroused by looking at attractive females.
If you can get a guy to consistently produce an erection by looking at items that are not inherently sexual such as peas or ice cubes, like the dog whose saliva starts running at the ring of the bell, then you might have a case of conditioned behavior in Pavlov’s sense.
People do stupid things all the time, even adults. Making out to impress guys is pretty stupid. People get to be stupid in a free country but that does not mean that the rest of us can’t criticize stupidity.
Having said that reports about young people’s stupid behavior are usually exaggerated. That kind of behavior is not the norm.
I agree with that, Seth. FOX and other trashy TV bear more responsibility for those feelings of inadequacy than porn. Images of naked women are everywhere in Europe. I bet you that the problem you are referring to is much more prevalent in the United States than in Europe.
Post-Soviet Europe can be pretty wild though.
“The “catalyst†is the expectations that surround the women.”
Okay, this does make some sense; much less generalized.
Now, which expectation do you think is worse? Women being more sexual or men being less sexual?
“………..I guarantee you a girl can feel oppressed by the expectations of the guys she interacts with.”
If so, it’s due to mismatched desires, which is only a real issue in long term relationships that were never meant to be. When you hear about with-the-program LDS married couples who suffer issues like that, I’m surprised more don’t question the LofC as promulgated by the LDS church, which stopped making sense to me a long time ago.
There’s no “expectation” for guys to be less sexual in my comments. It’s just a result of guys who’ve divorced sex from reality – it’s entered the world of fantasy. So, to compete with that unrealistic expectation and vision that guys harbor, the women feels the pressure in numerous subtle ways.
Merely having expectations placed on you is not oppression, otherwise everyone is oppressed constantly all the time by their families, friends, schools, work, etc. The word becomes meaningless.
I see, so you get to decide which women made choices for themselves and which ones are “buying into expectations,” hence need to be protected from their own choices.
Fine. But it’s not feminism. It’s treating women like children. That’s all I’m saying.
Fine, but that has nothing to do with feminism.
Let’s turn it around: Imagine a young guy feels like he needs to do dangerous, daredevil stunts in order to get attention from girls. Or he needs to go into massive debt to buy a super hot car that he can’t afford because it affects the number of women who will date him and which ones. Would you say he’s “oppressed” by these expectations?
If he claimed “No, I actually like doing risky stunts” and/or “I think going into debt over this car was a good choice,” would you dismiss his claims? Would you decide for him that he must be “buying into expectations”?
Jonathan — So you agree with me that this is about a father’s natural instinct to protect his daughters from sex and inappropriate suitors.
Chanson, what exactly do you think I’m trying to argue here?
Spell it out for me, because you’re losing me with most of your comments. It’s like “where did that come from?”
I’m saying that you may believe that the situation is wrong for one reason or another, but that the words “oppression” and “feminism” don’t make sense here.
Please answer my question in #39. Seriously. Maybe it will clarify my point.
As an empirical matter, there is no doubt that young men and women are subject to pressures, which induce them to engage into behavior that is not in their best interest, especially when it comes to sex.
I don’t think that pornography plays a big role. Television soap operas, sitcoms, and music videos are much more influential in that regard. Pornography might reinforce some nonsense.
The real question is: why would young people be so vulnerable to obvious nonsense? In part, poor judgement is the nature of being young. The combination of raging hormones, a developing brain, and the lack of experience account for much.
However, it is interesting that American teenagers consistently fare worse than their Japanese and Western European counterparts. That is not all that surprising given that our secondary education system is obsolete, that two thirds of our children do not graduate prepared for a 21st century job (Gates Foundation), that we
contain “middle class” children in suburbs where they are isolated from public affairs, markets, and each other, and that we tolerate an increasing underclass that lives in worse conditions than in the southern Indian state Kerala or Costa Rica.
If our children were raised on a steady diet of the BBC things would not be perfect but young people would be better prepared to understand their place in the world.
For all of America’s strengths, pragmatism and anti-intellectualism do have a price when it comes to developing young people’s judgement.
Compared to all that the pressures that might emanate from pornography are a minor problem. In fact, if people were properly educated and had experienced reasonable and humane notions of gender and sexuality in their families then pornography would not enjoy much authority in matters of sex but would merely be a spectacle, which young people would consider ridiculous regardless of its titillating attraction.
chanson,
So you agree with me that this is about a father’s natural instinct to protect his daughters from sex and inappropriate suitors.
I can’t discount that this is part of my motivation for worrying about porn (with one small change: to protect my daughters from inappropriate sex and suitors). I imagine that if I had a son, I would still be concerned that he grow up with healthy attitudes toward sex.
Before the larger point gets lost in the discussion of details: I am skeptical that there is such a thing as a porn addiction. If it exists at all, it will be rare.
In most of the cases that Chanson is referring to, the most effective remedy would be proper biology education of Mormon (men and) women.
I think porn addiction is real, but it is a largely psychological addiction. If you change the underlying psychology, the addiction goes away. Specifically, if you can remove the shame and fear surrounding porn for most religious people, porn addiction ceases to be a problem.
Hellmut, here’s the actual article:
http://mainstreetplaza.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/garos-s.pdf
I think everyone should read it and decide what they think for themselves. As I stated in my original comment, there is empirical data that can be brought to this discussion, but it isn’t being brought to the discussion.
From the article,
In short, feminists have mixed views. Now, the empirical evidence,
Let’s stop pretending we all have answers and actually go to where there are answers. There are literally thousands of researchers working on these issues. And, the evidence that is available says: pornography does not make men look at women as objects or denigrate women.
Other fact claims in the above discussion that warrant peer-reviewed references:
-College-aged girls are engaging in pornographic behavior to attract men.
-The interaction between porn use and religion leading to guilt. What’s more, taking religion out of the equation and seeing a cessation in guilt.
-Is the majority of porn use harmless and natural? (Seth #15)
-Is the porn industry universally oppressive to women (and men)? (Seth #15)
-Are college girls dissatisfied with the new dating scene? (Seth #17)
-Do different types of porn have different effects? (Jonathan Blake #18)
I could go on, but I hope I’m making the point clear: There is a lot of bloviating going on here, but these are empirical questions. If the data doesn’t exist, fine (let me know and I’ll do the research myself). But if it does, let’s bring it to the discussion!
ProfXM — Thank you.
The new “feminist” anti-porn theory — about porn obligating college-age women do things they themselves find degrading — is based on unfounded claims and anecdotal evidence, just like the old “porn leads to rape” theory was. That’s the bottom line here.
Though I’ll add that I’m shocked to see so many of you guys so willing to believe unfounded (and insulting) claims about women’s supposed inability to act according to their own will when it comes to sex.
profxm: I fully agree that all those claims need some sort of support – especially as some have been making sweeping claims without real (non-anecdotal) evidence.
You mention “The interaction between porn use and religion leading to guilt. What’s more, taking religion out of the equation and seeing a cessation in guilt”.
I posted simply about my own experience, with a specific religion. I have had conversations with several others who have had similar experiences, but I certainly wasn’t making any “fact claims” based on my experiences, as I haven’t done research on the topic, and I do believe I made that quite clear with phrases like “I think…” and “In my opinion… .”For me…”, etc.
I think that the main problem with this (and other) threads is that too many are stating their opinions as if they were legitimate peer-reviewed, double-blind studies, rather than simply their opinion. I don’t know whether some are just not backing up their claims with data (as you mention profxm), or whether they’re not aware that they’re not making it clear when they’re just stating their own opinion, and not some sort of fact.
Jonathon-
What is the difference between a Psychological addiction and any other addiction?
I also disagree that taking away shame can make any type of addiction, (alcohol, drugs, sex you name it) easier to deal with.
Certainly, without shame tossing one off in the shower before going to work won’t make you feel like a perv, but when you choose the toss off instead of a romp with your wife then you have a problem. In that case shame is a good thing.
Craig, well put. Anecdotal evidence is always a good start and there is no way I or anyone else can deny personal experience. I don’t want to give the impression that I am. There’s just a fine line between saying, “In every case I’ve ever heard of…” and “This is the honest to goodness truth…” In order to claim the second, you should have solid evidence. I think a lot of people were claiming it without the evidence. Personal experience is, as you point out, exempt.
🙂
What is the difference between a Psychological addiction and any other addiction?
Meaning that from my experience 🙂 a psychological addiction has very little if anything to do with physiological dependence. A nicotine addiction has a large physiological component. An addiction to porn, not so much.
I have nothing but personal experience to back me up, but I assert that the affects of viewing porn are just as physiological as smoking a cigarette. When something becomes an addiction it is physical. So, if you are trying to break an addiction to chocolate ice cream you will have physical withdrawal, just as you would for porn addiction or crack.
Some addictions are just easier to break than others.
IMHO, natural bodily drive such as sex and eating more commonly become addictive when associated w/ obsessive emotions and feelings; especially negative emotions. The pleasureful feelings are used to cancel out the negative thoughts…like a person suffering OCD…except it is not a chronic condition. It can thus be fixed by simply fixing or replacing the negative emotions. Examples here may include Craig, Jonathan, and also myself who used the posting name of “Struggling” while being introduced to the blogging world here…
http://theculturalhall.com/?p=84#more-84
Does this prove anything…no…but it has worked for more than one person. If the ppl on the cultural hall never introduced me to the idea of shedding the guilt instead of the behavior I am not sure what I would have done.
In my case I believe the addiction was a symptom to the problem and not the actual problem. In fact, I look back and I don’t think I was even addicted…I only thought I was becoming addicted.
And for the record, I believe women are more than capable to choose for themselves the RIGHT life for them…my main concern is that they understand the responsibilities and consequences of their decisions. I don’t believe men make women do anything that they don’t either want to do or choose to do anymore than I think women make men want or choose actions they don’t want to do (I am not saying men and women can’t influence each other); sexuality is just part of human nature and both men and women choose how they wish to express that nature and…if the men were forcing these women to engage in sexual behavior then they should be charged w/ rape…
Haha, I was just reading Foxnews and their “Sexpert” had this to say on porn addiction…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357323,00.html
I just wrote a post about addiction in general here. I can peer reviewed studies about addiction to alcohol, if anyone would like me to post them.
I’m not saying that porn addiction isn’t possible. I too am just highly skeptical about what’s really going on.
I think this is an important topic. I appreciate chanson bringing it up.
I’m also reminded of women being put on a pedestel here. No offense to Seth (or anyone else), but women are not shrinking violets that need to be protected from the evils of the world. Who are too fragile to not be sucked into depravity.
I believe this is a paradigm shift for our culture – moving away from protecting women and allowing people to make their own decisions. I will write more later.
Chanson, what does free will have to do with being oppressed or not? And where did I ever suggest curtailing women’s freedom of choice.
I just don’t get why you are attributing this argument to me when I never made it.
Aerin — Thanks! Finally someone else questinong the assumption that women need to be protected from their own weakness in terms of being sucked into depravity.
Seth —
This implies that college-age women are “behaving like porn stars” against their own desires (or will) because of some sort of “oppression”.
No, it says that they are being pressured to do so.
So what?
Seth, you used the word oppressed/oppressing twice, and in comment #5 you attributed your theory to feminism. I counter that what you’re describing is not oppression, and calling it oppression is not feminist, nor is the rest of your (anecdotal-evidence-based) theory about why porn hurts women. That’s all I’m saying.
I actually don’t care whether you hold these opinions about women needing to be protected from themselves when it comes to sexuality as long as you don’t attribute it to feminism. As a feminist, I object to seeing condescending paternalism being mislabeled as “feminism”.
I look back and believe that I was addicted, but it seems unbelievable because the answer was so simple and so effective.
For what it’s worth, I don’t believe that only women are weak. I’m not a father seeking to protect my weak daughters. I am one person who is concerned about an unhealthy situation. All human beings are weak when it comes to the situation. Situation can have a huge influence over what we do.
It seems like many of us here are coming at it from the opposite view: put a person in a situation and they will choose based largely on their internal traits. The truth, of course, lies somewhere on a spectrum between those poles.
So what may be interpreted as paternalistic concern for frail women is, in my case, really a recognition of the frailty of all human beings and a concern for their health.
Jonathan — I think we’re splitting hairs here, but what you’re saying sounds dangerously close to saying “Of course I can be trusted to know what’s best for my body with respect to relationships, sexuality, porn, etc., but my daughter? No way!”
I want my kids to have healthy attitudes towards sex too, and I can’t pretend like I know the answers because I’m learning this on the job too. However, I can give you the following warning:
If a daughter is a little bit spirited (assertive, willful), and she thinks her father (or her church) sees her as an innocent who needs to be protected from herself and especially from all suitors, then often she stops seeing Daddy as a source of wisdom and assistance. Daddy instead becomes an obstacle. An obstacle that is, frankly, quite easy for a clever girl to go around.
“I counter that what you’re describing is not oppression, and calling it oppression is not feminist, nor is the rest of your (anecdotal-evidence-based) theory about why porn hurts women. That’s all I’m saying.”
Yes, but you’re not establishing it by anything other than bare assertion.
Why is saying that women are “oppressed” paternalistic? Why does merely talking about a pattern of oppressive expectations make me “on a quest to dominate women?” I don’t get it.
I still don’t think you’re getting the point I was making. You seem to be arguing with someone, but I’m growing less and less convinced it’s me.
Seth — you’re right, we’re talking past each other and the person I’m arguing with isn’t really you. 😉
The thing is that there’s a perception in popular culture that the “feminist” position on porn (and on sex work in general) is to try to suppress it entirely. I disagree. I think these ladies’ views are based on traditional, patriarichal beliefs about sexuality, and they’re causing confusion by creating a new lexicon of pseudo-feminist terminology to justify their old-fashioned views. For more details on this, see Yes means yes, A feminist in favor of porn?, Questioning Objectification, Porn and me.
If you’ll merely agree with me that your claims reflect your Mormon values (not feminist views), then I have no further quarrel with you. 😉
p.s. The fact that you apparently don’t know what I’m talking about demonstrates pretty clearly that this isn’t about feminism for you. Anyone who has more than one toe in the waters of feminist theory is quite familiar with this controversy. 😉
I think we’re splitting hairs here, but what you’re saying sounds dangerously close to saying “Of course I can be trusted to know what’s best for my body with respect to relationships, sexuality, porn, etc., but my daughter? No way!â€
I think the basic misunderstanding lies in what I plan to do about my concerns. I have strong libertarian sensibilities and will allow my daughters to make their own mistakes (like I would my hypothetical sons).
At the same time I have a responsibility and desire to make the world a better, fairer, kinder place for my daughters and, failing that, to prepare them for the unkind realities of life. Does that make me a male chauvinist who paternalistically protects my poor, frail, innocent daughters?
I get the feeling we wouldn’t be having this conversation if I had said the same things about sons, which is itself a kind of double standard.
Jonathan — Preparing them, arming them with information, etc., is a great idea, and the responsibility of every parent.
I couldn’t agree more. If you’d expressed concern for all your children equally, I wouldn’t have said a single word to you. You guys are the ones who started discussing the importance of protecting specifically girls (not kids in general). I just hate that kind of double-standard. 😉
Chanson, I don’t think it’s a uniquely “Mormon” viewpoint. I do think there is a “feminist” argument to be made for arguing that porn is a bad thing generally – not that women should be “forced” or frowned-upon or stigmatized, or whatever else – just that it’s a negative thing. Period.
I don’t think it’s easily dismissed as “patriarchal baggage” either. What does patriarchy have to do with objecting to a gang-rape re-enactment?
Have you actually waded into the porn that is currently available and prevalent? I have a hard time understanding how any enlightened being could argue that the majority of this stuff is anything other than “filth for the soul.”
What does whether the actors are being paid well, or whether women are being allowed freedom of sexual expression have to do with making the observation that modern porn depictions are generally not respectful of the human condition?
You act like I’m some sort of BYU Honor Code nazi or something who is all set to start shutting down strip clubs tomorrow. That has almost ZERO to do with anything I’ve said here.
Most of the porn out there is not uplifting, is not worthwhile, and is certainly degrading of both women and men alike. And you don’t have to be channeling Boyd K. Packer to reach that conclusion. That’s the only point I’m making here.
p.s. to Jonathan regarding the double-standard:
A lot of so-called “feminists” attempt to claim they can affirm and celebrate female sexuality while treating male sexuality like it’s evil, inherently selfish, degrading/hurtful to women, etc. One of my #1 issues has consistently been to explain that it doesn’t work that way. For straight people, the two are fundamentally linked — they go hand-in-hand. When you push one off the cliff, the other goes with it.
If you follow my blog at all, you should know that. Please review the articles I linked to in comment #64.
Seth, please, quit while you’re ahead. Mormon values, traditional values, same difference.
I didn’t say porn is uplifting or that nothing in it is bad, nor did I accuse you of being an honor code Nazi. If you want to discuss the nuances of the feminist theory of porn, then start by reading the four articles I linked to in #64 so you’ll know where I’m coming from, mull them over calmly for a day or two, and then we can talk. 😀
OK, one more p.s. to Jonathan:
In response to Seth’s comments you could just have easily have written:
But you didn’t write that. Why? You do have a son, don’t you? Or am I remembering your situation wrong…
For myself, I have this worry about my sons constantly. How do I instill in them responsibility and consideration for themselves and their partners? What if my lassez-faire attitude gives them the (wrong) idea that sex is no big deal, has no risks associated with it, etc.? These aren’t just worries for daughters.
I mean, I think I’m raising them in a good way, but I don’t know — I haven’t tested it. Maybe we can go back to being allies as we tackle these questions for our respective kids. 😉
I’m ahead?
I’m ahead?
Well you were until that last comment. 😉
You caught me loosing my cool and posting stuff that wasn’t necessarily clear or relevant. I hate it when I do that…
But you didn’t write that. Why? You do have a son, don’t you? Or am I remembering your situation wrong…
Only a hypothetical son. That’s why didn’t mention him. 🙂
It seems like this discussion has been all over the place.
I find myself partially agreeing with Seth, I have heard of some pretty disturbing porn out there. Now, I’m someone who believes strongly in free speech and freedom of expression. I will say, I don’t think that’s the type of porn we are talking about (I could be wrong here) – specifically, some types of fetish. Yes, it’s not my place to judge, but some of that stuff sounds disturbing, even to me. So defining exactly what we’re talking about in terms of porn here might be helpful.
Btw – we haven’t defined porn either. For example, I was discussing the sports illustrated swimsuit issue with my husband. Some people would consider that soft core porn. It’s not just naked women – is David by Michaelanglo porn?
Also – just to clarify – it doesn’t sound like anyone is arguing that simply looking at porn makes one an addict (right?).
It’s that porn itself and looking at porn is oppressive to women?
As far as things being uplifting – as an LDS member, I tried to stick with “uplifting” music and movies – as that’s what I was told.
What the exact nature of uplifting is – is debateable. One person might say that all rock music is not uplifting (I actually heard that). Just because something is not “uplifting” doesn’t mean it’s inherently sexist or discriminatory. Would Schindler’s List be considered uplifting? I still think it’s a powerful film that deserves to be watched.
Parts of my comments are being cut off – I don’t think this is just my browser? Any suggestions would be appreciated.
You don’t have a son? D’oh, mibad. OK, I misinterpreted your earlier comment — ignore that other stuff I said to you…
aerin, porn is notoriously difficult to define. So, defining it isn’t going to be easy (maybe: media designed to evoke sexual arousal? which would include written word, radio, etc.?)
Anyway, certainly there is porn that is degrading and scary. If you read the article I posted earlier, it referred, specifically, to non-violent porn. The violent stuff has different effects, though those effects are surprisingly not very long-lasting (i.e., watching violent porn makes you feel aggressive and does make men treat women poorly, but not permanently – the effect wears off without continued exposure to violent porn).
That said, there is a lot of porn that is not violent, unless you take the ultra-extreme position of some (a small, small minority) of feminists who consider heterosexual sex violent (e.g., it’s penetration, which is like stabbing, etc.). Most people don’t consider heterosexual sex (or homosexual sex) in its simplest form, violent. If that is true, then a lot of porn is non-violent. Based on that classification, the article I posted indicates that porn does not degrade women in men’s eyes (or men in women’s eyes) and it does not lead to less-feminist attitudes.
This is why I (and chanson) so adamantly disagree with Seth on this issue. Seth is categorically describing porn as:
-not uplifting, is not worthwhile, and is certainly degrading of both women and men alike
-porn is a bad thing generally
-it’s a negative thing. Period.
-the majority of this stuff is anything other than “filth for the soul.â€
-modern porn depictions are generally not respectful of the human condition
This is opinion, and IMO, uninformed opinion as well. Seth is saying this is common knowledge, “And you don’t have to be channeling Boyd K. Packer to reach that conclusion.” He’s even saying this is a moderate position and you don’t have to be an extremist to think this way.
Both chanson (I hope I’m reflecting her views; if not, she can clarify) and myself are saying:
No, Seth, porn does not have to be demeaning or negative or bad at all. And, there is porn that is not. Violent porn, porn that re-enacts violence giving the impression it is against the will of someone involved, is not “uplifting” (to use an awfully ambiguous term), but I wouldn’t even apply that label to fetishes, as some people willfully participate in sado-masochistic relationships and like this type of porn. Categorically describing all porn as negative, as Seth has done, reflects a traditional viewpoint that was common in the 1950s. It wasn’t common in the Greek and Roman eras. In tribal societies and in the US prior to the 1900s kids watched their parents have sex all the time – one room homes means there’s only one place to f*ck: in front of the kids! (It’s only since sex moved behind closed doors that people have become so uncomfortable about sex.) This position also reflects an insecurity about sexuality.
What’s wrong with sex? If there’s nothing wrong with the act of sex itself, what’s wrong with watching other people have sex? Honestly, someone give me a moral or ethical objection to observing people having sex? If your objection is, “My religious leader said it is bad,” I won’t accept that. You have to base it in modern ethics:
-Is porn violating someone’s autonomy? For the most part, no (yes, Seth, there are exceptions, but exceptions are not the rule).
-Is it offensive to general sensibilities about what is right and wrong? For the most part, no (yes, Seth, it is offensive to some, but not to a lot of people).
-Is it demeaning toward men and women? No more so than regular sex, so no.
If you want a good argument against porn, the only one I can come up with (aside from the violent and bizarre sh*t), is that it may not realistically reflect sexual pleasure. Often porn depicts women getting aroused from basically any position, when statistically scientists have found that most women require clitoral stimulation at pretty specific angles to be aroused (some are also highly aroused by vaginal stimulation). If I was going to criticize anything about porn it would be that. Otherwise, it’s people having sex. Why is people having sex objectionable?
ProfXM — I agree completely.
Also, I’d like to clarify the point I was so clumsily trying to make earlier:
I don’t like the assumption that straight sex divides naturally into perps ( = males) and victims ( = females). Sure that happens, but it shouldn’t be the default interpretation.
It irritates me when bystanders see a woman expressing sexuality (in some way the bystander doesn’t like) and immediately conclude: “Oh, that poor, tragic victim! Where’s the evil man who made her do this? He must be around here somewhere!!!” That kind of knee-jerk reaction does a disservice to both genders.
If the woman is an adult who has a variety of options, and if you consider her a mentally competent full-fledged adult human, then you need to give her the benefit of the doubt that she is capable of acting according to her own volition (not forced or opressed by some supposed male perp). Even if to you it looks like she’s acting against her interests.
Also, I’m a little confused about Seth’s position with respect to the FLDS. So you think the FLDS women aren’t oppressed, but women in college who are (supposedly) expected to “behave like porn stars” are?
My position on both is consistent. For me, the mark of whether it’s oppression or not depends on whether the person has realistic alternatives. With respect to the adult women in FLDS (not the minors, that’s a different story entirely), my ideal solution is to ensure that an escape route exists (in terms of education and revised marriage laws that would allow them to sue for divorce), and then help those who want to leave. Don’t presume you’re a good guy by playing “rescue ’em all” as if they had no will of their own or as if their will were irrelevant. It’s the same for the sexy college girls, except that in their case it’s about fifty million times more clear that they have a vast array of alternatives and options and they know it.
This whole thing makes me jealous of gay people. Sure adult gay people have outsiders second guessing their sexuality for them and trying to save them from their own (supposedly wrong) choices. But at least in the case of gay people, their would-be saviors don’t delude themselves into thinking they’re being progressive…
“This is opinion, and IMO, uninformed opinion as well.”
What do you know of how informed my opinion is profxm?
Chanson, where did the FLDS thing come from?
As for the coerciveness of the porn industry, I’ve seen enough documentaries of Playboy, Girls Gone Wild, and others to conclude that it’s a lot more pervasive than you seem to think it is. Who is the uninformed one here?
Not that this really matters. I imagine there is a possible world were the porn industry could be conducted ethically… theoretically…
But what of it? I’m saying that it does create a culture of expectations that both men and women live in that can most certainly be oppressive (to both, by the way).
And rightly so. 🙂
Actually, that’s not quite accurate. Some are quite, incredibly, and unbelievably deluded. However, most who are trying to “save” us, don’t give a damn about progress, and seem intent in living in the distant past (a past that never really existed).
I do agree with you that in the community, all of this is much, much less of an issue.
Seth, If I understand you right…you are saying that the expectations of/within/portrayed by/etc. the porn industry are coercion/oppression.
Thus, the expectations (oppression) must have some sort of authoritative power over the individual(s), which oppresses or limits the progress and choice of the individual(s).
My questions
1. Which individuals are being oppressed by expectations?
2. Who/What are the authoritative powers using expectations in an unjust and excessive exercise of power? When are expectations unjust and excessive?
3. In what way are the individuals in #1 being limited in their progress and/or choice by the unjust/excessive expectations?
In the case of expectations=coercion there is some form of threat of violence or intimidating behavior that induces a person into immediate fear of the consequences and thus compelling that person to act contrary to his or her will.
My questions
1. Who is being coerced by expectations?
2. Who is using expectations as a violent threat or intimidating behavior to force others to do things contrary to their will? What are the violent and/or intimidating behaviors being used?
3. Due to the expectations, what are people doing that is contrary to their will?
IMO, to really get any further w/ this discussion these questions have to be answered.
You don’t need violence, or coercion, or any kind of “force” at all, to have “oppression,” which is a point I made earlier.
I never said that oppression needs to have violence. Please re-read.
“Thus, the expectations (oppression) must have some sort of authoritative power over the individual(s), which oppresses or limits the progress and choice of the individual(s).”
Authoritative power, yes.
Might I add that oppression limits the progress and choice of the individual(s) in an unjust way. This was implied,however, in question #2.
Then what do you need?
I’ve explained clearly my criteria for how to distinguish “oppression” from “not oppression”. I asked you (back in #21) to explain your definition of oppression clearly so that we can decide who (according to you) is oppressed and who isn’t. So, what is it?
If “expectations” are sufficient, you haven’t demonstrated that the “expectations” placed on college girls by guy are any stronger or more onerous than the expectations placed on them by their parents, their professors, their church, etc., You also haven’t demonstrated that the sexual expectations placed on them are stronger or more onerous than the sexual expectations that they place on their male counterparts. Do you think college-age males are oppressed by expecataions?
This ties in with the same question: can you explain to us who you think is “oppressed” and who isn’t?
You may recall we had a pretty heated discussion here about the FLDS, and you and I agreed that their constitutional rights had been violated. Part of the complexity of the question, however, is that there’s probably some really bad stuff going down at YFZ. You were silent about that, but now you seem awfully concerned about some college girls who theoretically have some expectations placed on them. So, naturally, I ask you: Do you think the FLDS women are oppressed?
Bonus question: Am I oppressed? My husband expected me to put the kids in bed last night when I would rather have been in my own bed reading a novel.
I think oppression can be present whenever someone is surrounded by expectations or an environment that they feel, in some sense, powerless to change or alter.
An example… I lived in one of the “wilder” apartment complexes in Provo back when I was an undergrad. There were a lot of things going on there, but let’s keep it simple for discussion’s sake.
They often invited friends over and viewed R-rated movies in the evenings.
So, this is my home right? But I come out to get a sandwich from the fridge and there’s American Pie 2 over there across the room on loud volume (of course) – loud enough that I can hear it in my bedroom.
Was that oppressive?
Yes. I didn’t really have much say in having the thing turned off. Sure, I could have made a stink over it and one of them, no doubt, would have moved on in life to write unflattering character sketches about the stupid “Peter Priesthood” who never let them have any fun. But I was outvoted, and it was their space too, right? So I just put up with it and never said anything.
But it isn’t simple of course. I wasn’t always driven away by the environment surrounding me. Sometimes, I actually watched quite a bit of the movies. Good Will Hunting, for instance was obviously a quality piece of filmwork and I found it rather moving – although the constant stream of profanity was… well… oppressive.
So it’s not like I was always being put upon. Or that I never derived anything positive from it.
But I did feel like parts of my life were really out of my hands, and completely dependent on the expectations and biases of others.
This is a mild example. I don’t feel particularly wronged by that experience and it’s not like I spoke up, tactfully or otherwise. In fact, I was even complicit in a couple instances.
I merely use it to illustrate how oppression can occur with those who find themselves in an environment they can’t readily change surrounded by expectations from others that they don’t like.
I don’t think this should be a hard concept for you guys to grasp. You’ve lived in the Mormon world with it’s expectations, and many of you found that “oppressive.” Why is it so hard to understand that maybe some of us find parts of your world oppressive as well?
Or are you seriously making the point that oppression can only happen when there’s a General Authority quote attached to it?
Chanson, re FLDS
I’m quiet during a conversation when I feel like the people having the discussion are covering the bases pretty well without me.
I do consider the FLDS women oppressed by their own culture. But I ALSO understand how they would feel under siege from YOUR culture.
From Merriam-Webster, oppression is “unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power”.
I think your additional criteria is a useful one: you are also in a situation in which you have little freedom to change what is happening (as a sociologist I’m always down with thinking this way).
This leads me to ask, “You were oppressed by roommates watching R-rated films?!? And, you were powerless to change the situation?” I had no idea BYU was so oppressive; based on your story, they make you live in a specific dorm and give you no alternatives, like: going to a different university, going for a walk, asking for a different dorm, etc.
I’m reminded of the scene from Monty Python’s The Life of Brian (R-rate) in which Brian is imprisoned and his fellow inmate mocks his treatment, “Oh to be spit upon. I wish they’d hit me, just a little hitting would be nice. You young ones have it so easy these days.” he says while chained to the wall.
Seth, I don’t mean to be demeaning here, but this is pretty bizarre. We don’t always agree, but usually I can see your perspective on things. I fail to see how living with roommates who watch R-rated films is even remotely oppressive. When I think oppression I think of Iraqi’s under Sadam or Jews in Nazi Germany. Based on your added criteria of having no recourse to change the situation, much of the porn industry is not oppressive. Very few women or men are forced into working in the industry. Prostitution is arguably a different story, but porn?
I just did a lit search (rudimentary, yes), on porn and came up with very little. Even so, here’s an article that talks about women making more money than men in porn, though not everything favors them:
http://mainstreetplaza.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/porn-pay.pdf
And here’s an article describing how quotidian making porn is from an insider:
http://mainstreetplaza.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/porn-work.pdf
If the key criteria to oppression is lack of choices, porn actors/actresses are absolutely not oppressed. Likewise, girls in college who DECIDE to act this way are not oppressed. Let me remind you, Seth, I’m a sociologist – and most conservatives describe sociologists as studying ways to limit people:
“The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors— psychology, sociology, women’s studies— to prove that nothing is anybody’s fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you’d have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view.” * P.J. O’Rourke
Well Seth’s definition (in which people merely “feel” powerless to change their situation, but in reality could easily change it with a little imagination) is at least fairly consistent. If his roommates watching R-rated movies is oppression, then by his definition, “oppression” includes annoyances that are ultimately not that big a deal and which the “oppressed” people can be reasonably be expected to handle on their own.
Of course by this definition, it no longer makes sense to talk about fighting oppression in general. Also we’d need a new word for cases where people actually are powerless to change their situation…
as i (non-professional) understand Porn, for guys it represents living a Fantasy. For many guys, the female form is something that represents intrique, curiosity.
Some LDS (guys mostly but some gals) say that social ‘wholesome, non-sexual ‘ nudism is a substitute for porn, brings realism into mind instead of ‘the fantasy’.
interested ppl can Google to find the sites.
Find & fix the fantasy, Porn becomes superficial & BORING.
I guess porn ‘could’ be somewhat therapudic for couples without hang-ups…
I agree with those who posted here that the church stmnts make it difficult for ppl who might otherwise be O.K. with it…
What about a word for people who believe they are unable to change a situation? I think there’s a good case to be made that this is oppression.
Or how about situations where we could decide to act contrary to expectations but the price is excessively high? I could decide not to file income taxes next year, but… Sure, that’s an example of coercion, but I do have a choice. Like so many other things, it seems that oppression is a spectrum and defies easy definition.
Suppose you’re in an abusive environment, and you could theoretically attempt to leave, but after leaving would being captured an punished and/or having no hope of finding a livelihood hence you would likely die of starvation and exposure. In that case, I would call the situation oppressive, and I’d recommend measures to help create viable alternatives.
OTOH, for adults, you can’t realistically do much better that hand them the key and persuade them to use it. The good guy doesn’t grab them by the scruff of the neck and throw them out the door because — a little humility here — you may be wrong.
Interestingly, fMh has just started a new thread on this very subject!
I didn’t know an R-rated movie (which most certainly is NOT pornography) is the cause of oppression.
But for TBMs I suppose R-rated movies are porn, just like a person having a sip of coffee is akin to shooting up heroin.
But for TBMs I suppose R-rated movies are porn, just like a person having a sip of coffee is akin to shooting up heroin.
Ha!
profxm, I guess you missed the part where I said this was a rather mild example. Or did you ignore that on purpose?
If you want to trivialize my objections to my environment, how about we turn it around and trivialize your objections to the Church environment?
Do I have any takers on that one?
I think it’s reasonable to compare these two (Seth by his roommates, Exmos by LDS, Inc.) in terms of degree of “oppression”.
For me, neither one would qualify as oppression. Exmos complain of the psychological harm done to them by the church environment, but the fact that it’s so commonplace to leave the church (and the fact that people can do it easily without material consequences) means being raised Mormon doesn’t qualify as oppression by my definition of the word. Both may well be “oppression” by Seth’s definition.
I still think, however, we should be using a different word for feeling oppressed (psychologically, without actually being oppressed) to distinguish it from very real cases of oppression around the world (such as places where people can get stoned or beheaded without a trial, or where dissidents routinely disappear to be tortured and/or executed, etc.).
“When you divorce that stimulus from real women, real women have an increasingly difficult time getting any response from a guy at all.”
Well, just from MY experience, though I am a 48-yr-old, average looking “real” Mormon lady, tending to dumpy, I don’t find it is difficult getting a response from guys, even much younger, modern-day, scarred-from-shocking-media ones. And it doesn’t take a kegger, sexy clothes, kissing girls, or much more than a lifted eyebrow. So please.
I wish I’d gotten in on this thread earlier, but after reading the comments I do want to say how impressed I was by Chanson’s balanced treatment in the original post saying that porn/masturbation could be “(1) the root problem (2) a symptom of another problem, or (3) not actually a problem” in a relationship. I don’t want to dismiss Seth’s very real fears about addiction. It does happen. Thus all the concern by the LDS Church. But just as real is the possibility that overregulation and overwrought concern about porn issues is causing pathology in marriages, especially LDS ones. Masturbation and porn are not degrading to the partner in and of themselves, and can be present in healthy relationships.
I’d be interested in knowing all of your views on how you think a church could appropriately respond to the porn/masturbation issue. Should they “stay out of the bedroom” completely? Can they warn of possible dangers while striving not to exacerbate guilt? Is it even possible for religion to celebrate sex and the human body while the danger of addiction exists? What would this look like?
This is an interesting question, and not a simple one at all. For me, I would be very wary of a “one size fits all” approach in the bedroom (precise guidelines like “doing X in your bedroom is wrong, doing Y is right; do it exactly X times a month; do it only/never after a romantic dinner”) because people’s romantic, sexual, and emotional intimate responses vary pretty widely. I know I sound like the evil “moral relativist” but I’m not really: my “moral” constant is to make a good faith effort to be understanding and considerate of your partner (and insist your partner does the same for you).
It’s an even more complex question when we start talking about what a community of shared values should be teaching the next generation about sexuality. Our culture is changing so fast now that even parents who don’t want to just roll back the clock to simplify things are kind of at a loss as to what they should do. (Your post comparing your daughter’s upbringing to that of the FLDS is a good example of trying to tackle these sorts of questions.)
It’s probably time for a new top-level post here at MSP, perhaps on sex ed & values. If you want to write us a guest post, just say the word. 😉
Regarding couples with an existing P/M problem, I can outline my theory. (ProfXM will get on my case for not backing this up with evidence 😉 but I’m just throwing this out as an idea, not as proven fact.)
I will define “problem” as either one partner is turning to P/M when he (is it always he?) would be welcome to make romantic/intimate approaches towards his partner and/or when mutual worries over P/M are hindering intimacy.
My first recommendation would be to just try out a guess that P/M is not the root problem. The reason for this is that if it’s a symptom of something else, I think that focusing on P/M can exacerbate the root problem. Here’s the scenario:
Suppose intimacy, trust, or communication have broken down for some non-P/M reason, and one spouse (I’m just going to say “he”) has difficulty talking to his partner about it and/or reaching an agreement. He turns to P/M for comfort and physical release. If his partner then says “We can’t even begin to talk about anything else until we’ve cured you of P/M!” then he may well feel attacked and further misunderstood, and no progress can be made on the root problem.
So one possible first approach would be to try guessing it’s something else, ignore the P/M for the moment, and look around to see if any other disagreements (familial, financial, family/household obligations) could be resolved, and generally try to rebuild intimacy and communication.
This may well solve the root problem and make the P/M symptom go away. If you give it a sincere good faith effort and it doesn’t help, then you can always change your approach (and try dealing with P/M in addiction terms, to see if that helps).
The way I see it, there’s no harm in starting out with the guess that maybe P/M isn’t the root problem, just to see if the intimacy issues can be resolved in another way. Worst case scenario, you lose a few months before beginning to treat it using the addiction model.
CLH: (and the fact that people can do it easily without material consequences)
You are WRONG, so very,very WRONG.
leaving is Painful and often Expen$ive…
OK, so GNPE agrees with Seth. 😉
CLH: Yet, we often read of ppl being told to put their G’s on ‘right after’ having sex…
(gasp) Is there also a time limit ‘before’? IOW, (a couple) takes their G’s off anticipating ‘having a good time’; may be the middle of the day; may be (gasp) at a park, or ?
Suppose the phone rings; the neighbor stops by? suppose there’s a delay?
I think ‘on the ground’ these policies/explanations fall way short.
the letter of the law killeth, the Spirit ™ gives life…. (I guess)
GNPE — I have to admit, I’ve never thought about this problem. It sounds quite inconvenient, but seriously, I don’t think it qualifies as oppression.
CL: how about… oppression as a general climate-feeling of intimidation, of having to rely on external guidance for minute details?
It is my hypothesis that in dictating-mandating so many details to the membership, LDS, Inc. has or Certainly is in danger of taking away a ‘fundamental’ sense of Right/Wrong, Good & Bad (as they are or may be).
whether this is ‘intentional’ or not, I can only describe what I actually see; in my case, there seems to be Plenty of evidence…
“It is my hypothesis that in dictating-mandating so many details to the membership, LDS, Inc. has or Certainly is in danger of taking away a ‘fundamental’ sense of Right/Wrong, Good & Bad (as they are or may be).”
I agree with GNPE on this point. I think with the amount of micro-management that goes on in the church some members don’t get to develop self-awareness. Thereby hindering their ability to know when they are messing up.
I know very few organizations that exist to further spiritual growth that don’t have rules. In Zen, for example, the precepts that I think deal with sex and maybe porn are: don’t misuse sexuality and do not take in intoxicants. You can either see those as being very vague or very specific and controlling. I have to find out how those rules apply in my life, not how they apply to anyone else’s.
thanks dude.
I lean toward chanson’s side on this one. I don’t see porn or the church being oppressive in the general sense…I do see instances where ppl in the porn industry perhaps are oppressing or taking advantage of someone unjustly and I have also personally seen this in the church.
In regard to BiV’s questions…I believe the church should stay out of ppl’s personal lives as much as possible. The more you define, the more the dominoes continue to fall and expectations are created where the church populace expects the church to answer every question and then you get questions like, “Is it okay to do this if we’re married?” or “If you do this do you need to go to the bishop?”
As for a template for teaching this I would look no further than Matt 5, Jesus’ sermon on the mount. He emphasizes doctrinal principles in relation to human emotions and desires rather than the behaviors themselves. Thus, a person receives the necessary knowledge they need to make right decisions; for this to truly work we would have to emphasize the don’t judge part as well, so as to avoid serious conflict when two persons apply the same principles but acquire different answers–hopefully creating a spiritual environment of empathy and understanding but unified in faith, hope, charity, doctrine (i.e. Godhead, Atonement, Fall, etc.), and also sacred ordinances.
Fits quite well w/ BKP’s comment where he said…”Teaching doctrine will change behavior faster than teaching behavior will change behavior.”
The whole concept probably seems too simplistic to be effective but I believe that w/ proper emphasis and direction this could work quite effectively not just in dealing w/ sexuality but w/ any other behavior(s) in the church. It might actually create more bridges between the church and potential investigators, converts, etc as people gradually become more interested in Mormonism’s unique doctrines rather than Mormonism’s unique behaviors.
Just a thought.
This micromanagement arises out of the fact that at the local level the church is run by amateurs. So when a bishop playing marriage counselor gets beyond his depth, his only recourses are to refer to LDS Family Services and/or shoot the matter up the chain of command. Only the latter if he thinks that shrinks are for wussies.
So all these complaints collect in a GA’s inbox in Salt Lake (unless somebody has a hot line to the top). At some point the most qualified flunky in Correlation is tasked to compose an all-encompassing answer, which then by default becomes the “official” blanket solution to said problem.
Which eventually gets turned into a catechism in General Conference, so all the sinners know what the “problem” is and all the bishops know what the “solution” is, and the two get repeated over and over in a kind of morality play until everybody gets bored of it and it’s replaced by a newer, juicer sin.
Eugene — Yeah, that’s probably a big part of it. You see, if they want untrained, unqualified amateurs giving marriage advice, they should be asking me!!! The armchair marriage counselor! 😉
Update Newsflash for all:
This isn’t just a Mormon anti-porn issue! None other than Dan Savage has just written a column giving his advice for one of the problems I defined in comment #100. And, astonishingly, his advice is (a little) closer to the Mormons’ than to mine!
Read the whole thing!
Chanson-
As per usual, Dan Savage offers sane relationship advice in a hip way. (Bishops take note) Every time I have read him he always comes back to pointing out that communication is the way to a healthy relationship.
mzero: mind giving us the cite for your (quote)? I googled, can’t find it.
Sounds like a concept, though.
Did I think GAs were ‘concept capable’?
Hmmmm… I’ll have to cogitate on that one for a while….
and BTW… is it still ‘true’ that Only males masturbate in Morland?
GNPE : Well, I perhaps misquoted BKP there and I was unable to find MY direct source.
However, I did some digging and did find this comment…”True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior.” (BKP Liahona, May 2004, 77–80)
BTW, If I remember correctly my direct source was during a leadership training meeting to which I no longer have access to the proceedings…The general message was/is essentially the same.
Jeez….I am SO LATE to this party.
I just have one thing to add–while this little back ‘n forth was going on last year, I was getting happily married to what some (especially his ex-wife) people would call a porn addict. But that isn’t the case.
He likes porn, and so do I. You don’t believe there’s such a thing as porn addiction? Try being married to a porn addict. See, I was for 10 years. It didn’t matter that he couldn’t stop; it didn’t matter that he wouldn’t stop. It didn’t matter whether it was porn or booze…here is the point of it: When you are married to an addict, they are not participating in the relationship, and YOU ARE ALONE. You FELL alone, you parent alone, you are lied to, you are isolated and you are alone. Do you know how many times I said to him “Go ahead and look at it, I don’t care! Just BE with me. Join the party. Don’t lie about it–we can look together or separate, but I need you to be here emotionally.”
It didn’t happen because it can’t happen. When you are addicted to something–anything, you can’t be fully present in a healthy normal relationship. The fine line between addiction and reeeeeally reeeeeally liking something is this: Can you stop and will you stop if the outcome and reverberations of your actions cause harm to the most important people in your life? If the answer is no, then….there you have it. THe problem was not with me. Just ask my husband, who enjoys porn with or without me and tells me every delicious detail. I get really tired of people stomping their foot and claiming reverse feminism because someone believes in porn addiction. D&M feminism has nothing to do with it. Postulate and theorize all you want; but honestly? TRY IT. Try being married to one. THEN we can talk.
Porn addiction is real and it has real consequences. For me, the causes were 90% psychological based on my religious upbringing. Once I let go of the inculcated shame and fear, the addiction dissipated like a mirage.