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. 😉
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.