For the men, who would you marry?

[Guest MormonGator]

6 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

My comment was a general one to all, not just directed at you,    

Good points.  FWIW, when I think of "porn movies" I mean X and above.  I don't have a problem with a guy who goes to the swimming pool because he likes to see girls in their bathing suits, that's normal.  I'm not thrilled about Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, but I don't think it's porn.  I don't mean someone that accidentally stumbled upon porn on the Internet, or someone who struggled with viewing porn for a short time (less than a year, if I had to put a time on it.)  My concern is about X-rated and above movies watched for hours and hours . . . it causes real mental and physical damage. 

 These are great points Lit and I totally agree. I have a big issue with people who look to be offended and show off how righteous they are when they complain about "porn" in things that simply aren't-paintings, beaches, or movies that show ::gasp:: a married couple kissing. 

Growing up orthodox Catholic you would be amazed how many things were considered "porn" or "inappropriate" while instead it was totally innocent (Saved by the Bell. Yes, I'm not kidding, because they showed one piece bathing suits).

[MrShorty]

7 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't mean someone that accidentally stumbled upon porn on the Internet, or someone who struggled with viewing porn for a short time (less than a year, if I had to put a time on it.)  My concern is about X-rated and above movies watched for hours and hours . . . it causes real mental and physical damage. 

What about those in between who we might call casual porn users -- Someone who occasionally actively seeks out porn, but only watches for 30 minutes at a time twice a month? It often seems to me that we don't have room in our dialog for these casual users -- either one is completely free from intentional porn use, or one is a helpless addict, but, from statistics I have seen, most porn users are casual users. The open nature of the question includes these men and women as well. I also recall one study (Grubbs et al about how religiosity is a better predictor of self-diagnosed porn "addiction") that talked about how our beliefs that one cannot be a casual user might actually fuel the so called addiction.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

 I also recall one study (Grubbs et al about how religiosity is a better predictor of self-diagnosed porn "addiction") that talked about how our beliefs that one cannot be a casual user might actually fuel the so called addiction.

I like what you said here. As someone who has struggled with substance abuse in the past I've noticed that people use "addiction" as a cute little term to strip away their accountability. While I have no doubt that porn/sex addiction exists, I find it hard to believe that you (again, universal usage of the word) are "addicted" if you still keep a job, relationship, have money etc. Very few addicts I've ever met are still gainfully employed, have money, etc. 

[mordorbund]

7 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

... it [porn] causes real mental and physical damage

This is a repeated theme in the other thread as well. Would you care to clarify what you mean by physical damage?

For those that hold such a view and are more willing to pick up the philanderer instead, do you think that rapid committed relationships (1 every four months), or binge sex (1 long relationship and then multiple partners in a much shorter time) (all this assuming monogamous relationships) does NOT cause "real mental and physical damage"?

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

This is a repeated theme in the other thread as well. Would you care to clarify what you mean by physical damage?

For those that hold such a view and are more willing to pick up the philanderer instead, do you think that rapid committed relationships (1 every four months), or binge sex (1 long relationship and then multiple partners in a much shorter time) (all this assuming monogamous relationships) does NOT cause "real mental and physical damage"?

It'll cause guilt, but not real "mental and physical damage." Same with porn.  You need to be strong enough to admit you did something wrong, get forgiven for it, than move on  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

This is a repeated theme in the other thread as well. Would you care to clarify what you mean by physical damage?

For those that hold such a view and are more willing to pick up the philanderer instead, do you think that rapid committed relationships (1 every four months), or binge sex (1 long relationship and then multiple partners in a much shorter time) (all this assuming monogamous relationships) does NOT cause "real mental and physical damage"?

Mods forgive me if this is too specific  . . . maybe physical damage is not precisely correct phrasing but what I'm referring to is porn can [alter physical response] with a real partner, even Viagra can't help because it [treats the physical issue], but can't fix the real problem which starts in the brain. It has to do with brain chemistry and the pleasure centers of the brain. No I don't think the philanderer has the same issues.

That is what I mean by a physical and mental problem. Studies have been done and couples frequently report that porn causes trouble with their sex life. 

Much of my opinion on this is based on information from the book, Man Interupted: Why Young Men Are Struggling and How We Can Help, by Philip Zimbardo PhD. But there are a lot of sources that discuss the harmful effects of porn. Here's one I found with a quick search.

http://fightthenewdrug.org/get-the-facts/

(Edited a bit by Eowyn for site propriety, if it actually helped...) 

Edited July 19, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[estradling75]

29 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

This is a repeated theme in the other thread as well. Would you care to clarify what you mean by physical damage?

For those that hold such a view and are more willing to pick up the philanderer instead, do you think that rapid committed relationships (1 every four months), or binge sex (1 long relationship and then multiple partners in a much shorter time) (all this assuming monogamous relationships) does NOT cause "real mental and physical damage"?

I have used the term damaged (but I don't think I said physical unless I was responding to someone that does)

What I meant was the the human body and mind adapts to whatever use it is put and becomes more effective and optimized to whatever that use is.  This adaptation is effected by both duration and intensity.

Both options appear to me to be of similar duration and intensity therefore I expect an equal amount of adaptation (or damage) to that end.

Adaptation can considered "damage"  if said adaptation is for actions and behavior that are contrary to the desired actions and behavior.  Repentance begins the process "healing" this "damage" but it usually requires and equivalent amount of duration and intensity for the body to adapt to the new set of actions and behavior.

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

What about those in between who we might call casual porn users -- Someone who occasionally actively seeks out porn, but only watches for 30 minutes at a time twice a month? 

If we are talking about who I would consider dating or marrying....as long as this person stopped....full stop...of the porn viewing, then I would give him a chance. 

Unfortunately I think with the availability of porn these days your description fits many men (of all ages) in the church. At least that is what I have been told....I heard a quote once that it was about 60% of the men in a ward (young and old, married and single) had used porn...I assume on the level you describe. 

So while we women can still reject men for that, I think we'll find ourselves pretty lonely if we do.  Some patience and understanding is needed.

 

Edited July 19, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[estradling75]

18 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

So while we women can still reject men for that, I think we'll find ourselves pretty lonely if we do.  Some patience and understanding is needed.
 

Very much this...

But it also works both ways...  While women need to understand that their loved one needs their best effort to act with in the limits of D&C 121 (If there is something God will not do then neither should we [priesthood holder or not])

Whereas guys need to understand that Women seem to place a higher value on emotional faithfulness then physical faithfulness (not to say they don't value physical they do but that they seem to be flipped on the two from the way most men see it[just look at the two poll results]) and porn is being emotionally unfaithful so it is going to hurt them... probably more then we would really expect it to.

[anatess2]

On 7/18/2016 at 11:27 PM, SpiritDragon said:

 Now clearly it's debatable whether it's a fair comparison to use trashy novels in place of trashy magazines or videos - but it seems to be the way women prefer to indulge in my experience so I chose a problem that is likely as endemic among the ladies as the porn among the men.

On 7/18/2016 at 11:32 PM, MormonGator said:

Personally I've never understood why a guy looking at porn is mortally sinful and a girl reading 50 Shades isn't. Both are wrong. 

 

 

I was not gonna respond to this thread because it said For Men, but then I noticed the menfolk chiming in on the For Women thread and the womenfolk chiming in here too, so I'll put in my 2 cents...

As far as men with porn and women with trashy novels - there are different psychologies at play.  Yes, there are women that "get off" reading trashy novels but a lot of them - and that includes my 80-some-year-old aunt do not read those things to "get off".  Okay, so I don't have statistical back-up for this statement so take it with salt grains.

In any case, Public Libraries carry rows and rows of these trash novels whereas they will not carry porn movies or porn sites on their computers.  There's just different psychologies at play.  Yes, both are not something a child of God should engage in as both have spiritual ramifications.

Now, I'm not a man so I don't really know what men (especially those outside of the Church) get out of porn flicks beyond those that I hear men saying (anecdotal).  That said, I believe the better comparison as to the psychology involved is a man playing Grand Theft Auto and a woman reading trash novels.  It's a form of escapism.  It doesn't indicate that the guy playing Grand Theft Auto would desire to steal cars in real life just like reading trash novels doesn't indicate that the woman reading it desires a relationship with a gorgeous, rich, alpha male who says romantic things during lovemaking in real life.  It's escapism - fantastical - not too far removed from the guys fantasizing they're Superman and the girls fantasizing they got saved by Superman.  The concerns over Grand Theft Auto is then in the same vein as the concern over trashy novels.

Just my 2 cents.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, MormonGator said:

 These are great points Lit and I totally agree. I have a big issue with people who look to be offended and show off how righteous they are when they complain about "porn" in things that simply aren't-paintings, beaches, or movies that show ::gasp:: a married couple kissing. 

Growing up orthodox Catholic you would be amazed how many things were considered "porn" or "inappropriate" while instead it was totally innocent (Saved by the Bell. Yes, I'm not kidding, because they showed one piece bathing suits).

@LiterateParakeet I agree with you and Gator on this.

I knew a couple who were very proud of the fact that they walked out of Field of Dreams.  I was left wondering what was the cause of making them proud of that.

So, one condition to make the two options even comparable is that the "trashy novels" would have to be on the level of 50 Shades or worse (I'm assuming -- I haven't read it).  And I love Jane Eyre.  Why would anyone consider that a "trashy novel"?  Again, Field of Dreams.

Jane Austen, on the other hand, I don't consider trashy.  I just think they're meh...

Edited July 19, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

@LiterateParakeet I agree with you and Gator on this.

I knew a couple who were very proud of the fact that they walked out of Field of Dreams.  I was left wondering what was the cause of making them proud of that.

So, one condition to make the two options even comparable is that the "trashy novels" would have to be on the level of 50 Shades or worse (I'm assuming -- I haven't read it).  And I love Jane Eyre.  Why would anyone consider that a "trashy novel"?  Again, Field of Dreams.

Jane Austen, on the other hand, I don't consider trashy.  I just think they're meh...

It's always good to remember that people who are really, really good at complaining and want to feel holy can make anything sound sinful. 

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's always good to remember that people who are really, really good at complaining and want to feel holy can make anything sound sinful. 

Romantic Novels to Porn isn't totally accurate...  Closer would be Romantic Novels to movies    They both can go from G to XXX...  

However when someone does make the comparison I don't assume they mean the G, PG or R equivalent novels... unless I have reason to believe that they also consider the same for movies.

 

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's always good to remember that people who are really, really good at complaining and want to feel holy can make anything sound sinful. 

Like Pokemon Go. 

[anatess2]

Dupe.

Opportunity for a meme!

Edited July 19, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Like Pokemon Go. 

I have lit up Facebook these past two days with my thoughts on this. It's proof that when you get really, really popular-people will take a shot at you. It's a harmless game of course that really is the epitome of "good, clean, fun" but you know what the cool kids say. "Haters gonna hate." 

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Romantic Novels to Porn isn't totally accurate...

 

Correct.

There's a different category of Romance Novels that is porn.  They're officially called Erotica.  And even then there are different levels in that sub-genre.

[anatess2]

dupe again.

 

Edited July 19, 2016 by anatess2

[Traveler]

 

It is not that I am 100% against the question of this thread - but I have a very different opinion about making choices and safeguarding agency.  It is my opinion that the very essence of this thread is in opposition to agency.  Part of our agency in the choice of marriage is in developing relationships that allow us to learn (I am a great proponent of learning) how to not just choose a spouse that has "all" the attributes we desire - but how to become the kind of spouse that will support a relationship that will benefit their spouse the most.  I honestly believe we learn too much to see marriage from what we want or think we need rather than to discipline and prepare ourselves for something greater and more important than we and our individuality are.  So upside down have we become that it is difficult for many to support and argue for what marriage should be - and so marriage has been redefined as the ultimate relationship whose only purpose is to make you happy in the moment of your personal desires.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

10 hours ago, estradling75 said:

He is not the judge of them... which is 100 percent correct...  He is 100 percent the judge of if he wants to deal with the conquences that will affect her and him (if he marries them) due to her past.

That's semantics.

[unixknight]

I honestly can't answer the poll.  To be honest, those factors are irrelevant to me.  In both cases the poll specifies that she's fully repented and Temple worthy.  If Heavenly Father isn't remembering their sins, why should I?

I get the purpose of the poll is just to get a read on how people feel about those issues being in somebody's past, but I just don't think in that way.  Far more relevant to me would be whether she likes Star Trek or whether she can put up with me turning the apartment into an armory when I'm working on my Space Marine suit.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I honestly can't answer the poll.  To be honest, those factors are irrelevant to me.  In both cases the poll specifies that she's fully repented and Temple worthy.  If Heavenly Father isn't remembering their sins, why should I?

 

Co-signed. 

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I honestly can't answer the poll.  To be honest, those factors are irrelevant to me.  In both cases the poll specifies that she's fully repented and Temple worthy.  If Heavenly Father isn't remembering their sins, why should I?

 

Hypothetical-if my future wife (and I'm already happy and wonderfully married) doesn't hold her signs over my head, how dare I do that to her? 

Edited July 20, 2016 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

34 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's semantics.

How so...  It has been clearly stated by Elder Oaks that we are not to judge a person eternal status (which would be judging her)...  He also states that we can and do need to make intermediate judgements of how to respond to situations we might find ourselves (how her past might impact his future)

It seems to me that such differentiation is essential to avoid what Elder Oaks called unrighteous judgements

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Hypothetical-if my future wife (and I'm already happy and wonderfully married) doesn't hold her signs over my head, how dare I do that to her? 

Which shows exactly why we need to differentiate on exactly what kind of judgement is being made.  One is an unrighteous "holding sin over the persons head"  the other is understanding the challenges most likely to be faced if you move forward, and choosing if you accept those challenges or not.