Adultery preferable to pornography?

[Dravin]

Pornography might worry me more in the long run. You see thread after thread here every week from guys who "just looked" and now can't get free from its clutches.

There is a built in bias though, you aren't going to get a bunch of "I used to look at porn a couple times a week but I've since stopped... please help me?" threads. Not that pornography can't be addictive, and not that it isn't dangerous, but the advice forums are self-selecting.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Dravin

[Guest]

A counselor in our stake spoke at a fireside and she said it takes on average of three to four exposures to addict a person. It's a huge worry for me as a mom. When I was in Kindergarten, a friend took me into her parents' bedroom and showed me their magazines. It was awful. That was over 30 years ago. Now with the Internet and kids with their many gadgets, it seems impossible to avoid exposure. I tell my boys if their friends have anything at school and tell them with a mischievious grin, "Hey, come look at this!", ask them what it is. If they don't want to tell them, then walk away.

Our bishop had a special combined Sunday School this last Sunday because of this (and other things). Someone had developed a problem because a kid on the bus was getting porn on his phone every day. We had to tell our elementary-aged children to be on the lookout. That just makes me sad. . . but then again, my husband was exposed to a nudie magazine by a kid in his neighborhood at age 5. Like you said, it's just more available now. The scary thing is, he still remembers that one image.

[Guest]

I see your point, Dravin. But why risk it? I also know that my husband has ADD (with really bad hyperfocus) and an addictive personality, so in our case, it would be a very valid concern.

[Windseeker]

Why? It has been interesting.

If anything this thread drives the point home how very harmful it is. It's a pandora's box and there is no end to it's repercussions or controlling the consequences.

It is an epidemic and I fear greatly for my kids future.

[MorningStar]

Our bishop had a special combined Sunday School this last Sunday because of this (and other things). Someone had developed a problem because a kid on the bus was getting porn on his phone every day. We had to tell our elementary-aged children to be on the lookout. That just makes me sad. . . but then again, my husband was exposed to a nudie magazine by a kid in his neighborhood at age 5. Like you said, it's just more available now. The scary thing is, he still remembers that one image.

It's heartbreaking. Some boys in our ward made a calculated move to bring their phones to Scout camp. Somehow they still managed to do so after parents were told to make sure they didn't have them. I never dreamed that would happen and I'm grateful my son didn't see what they were looking at.

[Dravin]

I see your point, Dravin. But why risk it? I also know that my husband has ADD (with really bad hyperfocus) and an addictive personality, so in our case, it would be a very valid concern.

I'm certainly not arguing for anyone to be exposed to pornography. Even if it was categorically non-addictive I wouldn't suggest it for reasons that should be clear to an LDS audience.

[Tangential To Your Comments Warning]

My initial comment had to do with people taking 'views pornography' to be the same as 'is addicted to pornography', I thought it curious. Vort is precise enough with language that if he meant addiction he'd have stated so. Thing is if Vort was told 'view pornography' with the same sort of assumption of life-long addiction that is popping up here then it makes things a little more understandable. Instead of people meaning, "I would prefer my husband spend this Tuesday night (or some discrete period of time) committing adultery rather than looking at pornography." they mean "I would rather my husband have an (singular) affair over having a life long struggle battling pornography."

[/TTYCW]

Edited August 16, 2012 by Dravin

[MorningStar]

I'm certainly not arguing for anyone to be exposed to pornography. Even if it was categorically non-addictive I wouldn't suggest it for reasons that should be clear to an LDS audience.

[Tangential To Your Comments Warning]

My initial comment had to do with people taking 'views pornography' to be the same as 'is addicted to pornography', I thought it curious. Vort is precise enough with language that if he meant addiction he'd have stated so. Thing is if Vort was told 'view pornography' with the same sort of assumption of life-long addiction that is popping up here then it makes things a little more understandable. Instead of people meaning, "I would prefer my husband spend this Tuesday night (or some discrete period of time) committing adultery rather than looking at pornography." they mean "I would rather my husband have an (singular) affair over having a life long struggle battling pornography."

[/TTYCW]

I'm guessing that the women who would prefer their husbands have an affair than view pornography were referring to an ongoing problem.

[MorningStar]

I guess I would be more emotionally crushed by an affair, because we would have lost something that we could never get back.

Pornography might worry me more in the long run. You see thread after thread here every week from guys who "just looked" and now can't get free from its clutches.

And that's the fun thing. When a husband lies about looking at porn and you wonder if he also cheated on you, he says, "I told you I didn't cheat on you!" "Uh huh. You also said you never looked at porn." Wondering if they did/will is pretty hellish. And because they have established themselves as a liar repeatedly, you never know if you can believe them.

[Guest]

My husband and I are really happy to know that we have only been with each other. That's a really special thing to us. That's more the thing I was referring to that we'd lose and could never get back. There is trust too, certainly, but the highest hope would be that with true repentance and a lot of work, the trust could come back.

[Leah]

A counselor in our stake spoke at a fireside and she said it takes on average of three to four exposures to addict a person. It's a huge worry for me as a mom. When I was in Kindergarten, a friend took me into her parents' bedroom and showed me their magazines. It was awful. That was over 30 years ago. Now with the Internet and kids with their many gadgets, it seems impossible to avoid exposure. I tell my boys if their friends have anything at school and tell them with a mischievious grin, "Hey, come look at this!", ask them what it is. If they don't want to tell them, then walk away.

That seems like an extremely low threshold to label someone as an addict. With that definition, you would have to classify millions more men - and women - as addicted to porn. Three to four exposures sounds like the average curious teenager who takes a few peeks and moves on with their life.

I can't imagine such a standard - "three to four exposures" - being applied to cigarettes or alcohol.

[MorningStar]

That seems like an extremely low threshold to label someone as an addict. With that definition, you would have to classify millions more men - and women - as addicted to porn. Three to four exposures sounds like the average curious teenager who takes a few peeks and moves on with their life.

I can't imagine such a standard - "three to four exposures" - being applied to cigarettes or alcohol.

She didn't say that makes you an addict. That's often what it takes to hook someone. Porn has been called more addicting than heroin.

[Leah]

She didn't say that makes you an addict. That's often what it takes to hook someone. Porn has been called more addicting than heroin.

This is what you posted:

"A counselor in our stake spoke at a fireside and she said it takes on average of three to four exposures to addict a person".

The word "hook" was not used. The word "addict" was.

That is saying that three to four exposures makes someone an addict.

[MorningStar]

If a person were to look at it three or four times and then never again, I don't think she would call them an addict. Sorry if my wording was imperfect. The point is, it takes very little exposure to start a big problem.

[annewandering]

This is what you posted:

"A counselor in our stake spoke at a fireside and she said it takes on average of three to four exposures to addict a person".

The word "hook" was not used. The word "addict" was.

That is saying that three to four exposures makes someone an addict.

no. He is saying an AVERAGE of 3 or 4 exposures makes someone an addict. That might not be what the counselor meant either. She may well have meant 3 or 4 CAN make you an addict.

[Dravin]

The point is, it takes very little exposure to start a big problem.

Is this what you meant? --

Of those who become addicted, on average, they are addicted within 3 to 4 exposures?

Edited August 16, 2012 by Dravin

[MrShorty]

Or maybe the counselor was saying, "If you separate the porn addicts from all porn users, it took very few exposures to get them addicted." which is certainly not the same thing as "everyone exposed to porn 6 times is definitely an addict." Which I think is a problem in our public disourse of the subject, and maybe why some say porn use is worse than adultery. Our discourse seems to strongly favor the inevitability of addiction and labels anyone who uses porn more than a few times "an addict" and doesn't really allow someone to be a casual user. Perhaps if "porn use" is synonymous with "debilitating addiction" (and it sometimes seems like it is), then maybe that is part of why some of us will say porn use is worse than adultery.

[MorningStar]

Where do you draw the line between "casual use" and addiction? If a person looks at it once a week at work despite the possibility of losing their job, are they addicted? Twice a month? Once a month? What if their spouse had been devastated by their porn use and had threatened to leave? To repeat the behavior despite negative consequences shows a lack of control.

[Guest]

Where do you draw the line between "casual use" and addiction? If a person looks at it once a week at work despite the possibility of losing their job, are they addicted? Twice a month? Once a month? What if their spouse had been devastated by their porn use and had threatened to leave? To repeat the behavior despite negative consequences shows a lack of control.

In my mind, the minute you recognize that you have to stop but you can't, that's when you are an addict. That can be within the first few minutes of watching your first porn.

[MarginOfError]

Where do you draw the line between "casual use" and addiction? If a person looks at it once a week at work despite the possibility of losing their job, are they addicted? Twice a month? Once a month? What if their spouse had been devastated by their porn use and had threatened to leave? To repeat the behavior despite negative consequences shows a lack of control.

Addiction is classified by psychologists as a compulsive behavior that intereferes with normal life function. If a person is compulsively viewing pornography at work because they can't focus on work if they don't, then yes, they are probably addicted.

[MrShorty]

I don't know, nor do I feel qualified to judge casual use vs. addiction. As near as I can tell, even those who study addictions can't come to a consensus about what constitutes a porn addiction and when is porn a natural outgrowth of normal/natural sexual development. If they can't tell, I don't think I have any hope of deciding.

To repeat the behavior despite negative consequences shows a lack of control.

Possibly, or it shows a different way of deciding what constitutes a "negative" consequence. It also doesn't allow for the kind of control that says, "employer has a policy against porn use at work, so I always wait until I get home."

[Guest]

So would you say that any Priesthood-holding man who continues to use pornography, in spite of being aware of Church counsel and spiritual negative consequences, is an addict even if his use might be described as "casual" or "occasional" by worldly standards?

Edited August 16, 2012 by Eowyn

[Dravin]

So would you say that any Priesthood-holding man who continues to use pornography, in spite of being aware of Church counsel and spiritual negative consequences, is an addict even if his use to might be described as "casual" or "occasional" by worldly standards?

No, not unless we're going to say any repeated sin is an addiction. Is someone who doesn't study their scriptures every day addicted to not reading scriptures? Someone who doesn't pay tithing addicted to not paying tithing? An addiction to not Home Teaching? Or were you aiming your question at someone's specific definition?

Edited August 16, 2012 by Dravin

[Guest]

You're comparing intentional pornography use to sins of omission. They're not really in the same category.

[MorningStar]

I'm addicted to not exercising.

[MrShorty]

In my mind, the minute you recognize that you have to stop but you can't, that's when you are an addict. That can be within the first few minutes of watching your first porn.

Can it also be never? Do you feel it is possible for someone to always be in control of their porn use? "never do it at work." "limit myself to 30 minutes/week." and so on? The observation I'm trying to make is that our general discourse on porn doesn't really acknowledge any middle ground between "addicted" and "complete abstinence from porn." Could this contribute to the addiction? If you believe that addiction is "inevitable" once you've started using, does it become a self-fulfilling prophecy once you get started?