The Pornography Talk...

[Snigmorder]

34 minutes ago, artista said:

Love this!! Thank you for sharing!! Are you married? If so, doea your wife have the same view???

I'm not yet married, and I hope she will. Otherwise we'll have to waste money on a TV and what other junk is associated.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Snigmorder

[Guest]

I don't believe alcoholism is a disease any more than any other "thinking problem".  The problem with labeling it a disease is that it gives the impression that there's no "fault" in the same sense as saying "the devil made me do it."

Many "thinking problems" are categorized as a mental illness when they really aren't.  The distinction I make is that some (very few) things truly are outside our control. But so many are brought about by our own choices and are a part of who we are.  These are thinking problems.

I don't believe they are out of our control.  But so often the individual either doesn't know how to change his thought patterns, or they don't have sufficient cause or motivation to do so.

[seashmore]

I think my first takeaway from a stake conference was, "You can't stop a bird from flying overhead, but you can stop it from building a nest." It certainly applies to pornography. 

@a mustard seed thank you for your thoughts. As someone who let birds start to build nests in that part of my brain at a young age (my Barbies had sex, if that tells you anything) it's hard sometimes keep those thoughts locked up. I've learned when I'm most prone to those tempting fantasies, and that helps to keep my defenses up. Also, people have different sensitivities. There are nude (or partial) scenes in a movie that I can let fly over, but if I were to read the same scene from the screenplay, that nest would have four eggs in it before I could blink.

[eddified]

There is a danger, a harm, with telling the YSA ward that they probably have a pornography addiction, when it's not an addiction. Yes it's absolutely a sin, and must be avoided like the plague. And you should speak with the bishop if you viewed it. But the moment someone decides that they are "addicted", it can have a negative impact on their ability to stop. As stated by others above, the label "addict" brings to mind ideas like they "can't" stop.... even though they really can. They still have agency. They still have some control over their lives. If they really are out of control then that is a different  matter. But for those who view it "casually"... perhaps it's better to avoid the label of "addict". 

Its entirely possible that that young man was trying to rationalize. Perhaps he has the wrong idea about the whole "addict-vs-non-addict" idea. 

[Jojo Bags]

On 7/30/2017 at 6:11 PM, BeccaKirstyn said:

Well I went into our YSA combined 3rd hour meeting expecting the bishop to talk about something close to the law of chastity, and he ended up talking about pornography (per the stake president's counsel). We watched about a 16 min. Ted talk, I'll put the link below if you're interested, called the "the great porn experiment". It was a more physiological explanation of pornography and the long term effects of porn addiction. From there our bishop wanted to keep the discussion as an open forum, for those who wanted to ask questions or make comments (he didn't expect many---but oh did my ward prove him wrong, and not in a good way). There was about 10 minutes of some good comments and questions about how to bring this up in dating, since pornography use has become so common now. Then as our bishop was about to start moving towards talking about the repentance process in relation to pornography use, we had one last person comment, and that's where everything went downhill.

He (the individual who wanted to comment) wanted to make it clear that the way we were discussing pornography was at the addiction level, and that for the majority of people at the YSA age, it isn't that extreme. It is more of a "causal use" (his words, not mine) type of thing that most lds members are doing and we need to realize the difference between the two. He said, of course both require repentance and they're still a sin, but they're different. Our bishop responded with saying, "okay, I guess I understand what you're saying....well no actually, I don't. I think that's rationalizing the problem and I don't quite understand what you mean by "casually using" pornography?" Well oh boy did that set off a storm. Many people started to chime in now to try to explain that there are "varying levels of pornography use" and all must be treated differently. This probably went on for a good 10 minutes as well, but you could just feel the spirit leave the room. He finally reined it back in, and said sternly "brothers and sisters, I meet with you on Sundays and Tuesdays, and see around 10-15 of you each week. And guess what we are discussing? Pornography. So it's hard for me to see this as a casual use problem when it is so prevalent and effecting your lives." He ended with giving the location for the nearest 12-steps program and a website where you can find lds counselors and psychologists.

I was just in shock. I guess I am a very black and white person, but the amount of people that were trying to defend this "casual use" comment was just astonishing. I could hear it in the voices of those who defended this concept, that they just thought our bishop was too old to understand our generation and what pornography is like today. I don't care what kind of "use" you want to label it as. If you're viewing pornography, you're dealing with a very serious sin. I don't care if you only "dabble" in it a few times a month, or if you're a straight addict. There is no difference in the fact that it is a sin, and that you are ruining your ability to form relationships in a healthy way. Now if you're a psychologist or a psychiatrist who is talking to a patient about their pornography use, then yes, it is crucial to understand the extent of their use and if it is a full fledge addiction. But as a YSA ward discussing pornography in relation to the gospel and the repentance process, the conversation of "casual use" vs. addiction was so off base. 

But maybe that was just me. I don't know. I'm interested to know what you all think about it. 

 

TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU

 

This is precisely why the Church needs to be cleansed, and sooner than later.

[a mustard seed]

12 hours ago, eddified said:

There is a danger, a harm, with telling the YSA ward that they probably have a pornography addiction, when it's not an addiction. Yes it's absolutely a sin, and must be avoided like the plague. And you should speak with the bishop if you viewed it. But the moment someone decides that they are "addicted", it can have a negative impact on their ability to stop. As stated by others above, the label "addict" brings to mind ideas like they "can't" stop.... even though they really can. They still have agency. They still have some control over their lives. If they really are out of control then that is a different  matter. But for those who view it "casually"... perhaps it's better to avoid the label of "addict". 

Its entirely possible that that young man was trying to rationalize. Perhaps he has the wrong idea about the whole "addict-vs-non-addict" idea. 

1. One is  not better than the other. Viewing it at all whether you "choose" to every once in a while or whether you feel you have to sounds like a problem that has a similar answer: it needs to stop. Period. 2. Admitting "addict" status is not a "give up" standard. That doesn't make sense. Admitting a lack of control over one's life in regards to behaviors or use of anything really, is an acknowledgement of a need to change. If they mentally call themselves an addict and see it as a reason not to change, then I'd hazard a guess that the label possibly fits because they're putting a bit more effort than is necessary in rationalizing "I don't have to change this." Because most people who can even admit they are addicts, do so with the mindset of "therefore I need help/I cannot do this on my own" right after it. I know a few addicts in my life and none of them call themselves addicts because they are stuck in pride and not thinking they need to change. I think getting someone to admit that this problem is 1. serious and 2. could very easily be something out of their control has more good than bad consequences, because if change is on their minds and a desire to be closer to Christ, then even if they view pornography once a month, they will be filled with the desire to stop this, even if the label "addict" in the end does not exactly fit them. The point is to get these youth to the bishop's office before it ruins their lives, because even casual use will. Viewing pornography no matter if you do it a lot or a little will color a person's view of themselves, other people, and their relationships and thoughts about intimacy all in ways that make it impossible to find that connection we're suppose to have when we're with our spouse. ALL pornography viewing will do that.

Edited August 3, 2017 by a mustard seed

[a mustard seed]

It is hard enough to overcome the awkwardness and shame and guilt of going to the bishop's office even when you know he is there to love and help you, and you know you need to change something and you desperately desire to. I'd rather a youth think their use of pornography is serious and possibly damaging them more than they realize, then get hung up on qualifying it or saying, "I'm okay because it is only once a week; that's 'casual' right?"

[eddified]

2 hours ago, a mustard seed said:

1. One is  not better than the other. Viewing it at all whether you "choose" to every once in a while or whether you feel you have to sounds like a problem that has a similar answer: it needs to stop. Period. 2. Admitting "addict" status is not a "give up" standard. That doesn't make sense. Admitting a lack of control over one's life in regards to behaviors or use of anything really, is an acknowledgement of a need to change. If they mentally call themselves an addict and see it as a reason not to change, then I'd hazard a guess that the label possibly fits because they're putting a bit more effort than is necessary in rationalizing "I don't have to change this." Because most people who can even admit they are addicts, do so with the mindset of "therefore I need help/I cannot do this on my own" right after it. I know a few addicts in my life and none of them call themselves addicts because they are stuck in pride and not thinking they need to change. I think getting someone to admit that this problem is 1. serious and 2. could very easily be something out of their control has more good than bad consequences, because if change is on their minds and a desire to be closer to Christ, then even if they view pornography once a month, they will be filled with the desire to stop this, even if the label "addict" in the end does not exactly fit them. The point is to get these youth to the bishop's office before it ruins their lives, because even casual use will. Viewing pornography no matter if you do it a lot or a little will color a person's view of themselves, other people, and their relationships and thoughts about intimacy all in ways that make it impossible to find that connection we're suppose to have when we're with our spouse. ALL pornography viewing will do that.

Here are a few quotes I pulled from "Recovering From the Trap of Pornography", by Elder Oaks, quorum of the twelve apostles. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/recovering-from-the-trap-of-pornography?lang=eng

Quote

It is helpful to focus on four different levels of involvement with pornography: (1) inadvertent exposure, (2) occasional use, (3) intensive use, and (4) compulsive use (addiction).

(emphasis added by me), and:

Quote

Once we recognize these different levels, we also recognize that not everyone who uses pornography willfully is addicted to it. In fact, most young men and young women who struggle with pornography are not addicted. That is a very important distinction to make—not just for the parents, spouses, and leaders who desire to help but also for those who struggle with this problem. Here is why.

First, the deeper the level of involvement one engages in—from inadvertent exposure, to occasional or repeated intentional use, to intensive use, to compulsive (addictive) use—the more difficult it is to recover. If behavior is incorrectly classified as an addiction, the user may think he or she has lost agency and the capacity to overcome the problem. This can weaken resolve to recover and repent. On the other hand, having a clearer understanding of the depth of a problem—that it may not be as ingrained or extreme as feared—can give hope and an increased capacity to exercise agency to discontinue and repent.

Second, as with any sinful behavior, willful use of pornography drives away the Holy Ghost. Some who have experienced this will feel prompted to repent. Others, however, may feel embarrassed and seek to hide their guilt through deceit. They may also begin to feel shame, which can lead to self-loathing. If this happens, users may begin to believe one of Satan’s greatest lies: that what they have done or continue to do makes them a bad person, unworthy of the Savior’s grace and incapable of repentance. That is simply not true. We are never too far out of reach from the Savior and His Atonement.

Finally, it is important not to label even intensive or habitual use of pornography as an addiction because that does not accurately describe the circumstances or the full nature of the required repentance and recovery. Having a better understanding of where a person is in the process will also allow a better understanding of what action is necessary to recover.

(emphasis added by me).

 

If the label "addict" helps someone seek help, that's a good thing. If someone realizes they are *not* an addict, and therefore feel EMPOWERED such that they feel they *DO* have the ability to to just stop it, ... if that helps them, then that is a good thing. I fell into both categories at different points in my life. At this point I do not consider myself an addict. It helps me to realize it is fully within my control. - And I have made amazing progress. 

Edited August 3, 2017 by eddified

[eddified]

@a mustard seed I can understand your perspective on this issue, knowing what I know about your mother (from your forum posts). I can see your mother's behavior really hurts you and your siblings. That's a regrettable situation. It would be nice if she would seek help for her alcoholism etc.

[Guest MormonGator]

15 hours ago, eddified said:

There is a danger, a harm, with telling the YSA ward that they probably have a pornography addiction, when it's not an addiction. Yes it's absolutely a sin, and must be avoided like the plague. And you should speak with the bishop if you viewed it. But the moment someone decides that they are "addicted", it can have a negative impact on their ability to stop. As stated by others above, the label "addict" brings to mind ideas like they "can't" stop.... even though they really can. They still have agency. They still have some control over their lives. If they really are out of control then that is a different  matter. But for those who view it "casually"... perhaps it's better to avoid the label of "addict". 

Its entirely possible that that young man was trying to rationalize. Perhaps he has the wrong idea about the whole "addict-vs-non-addict" idea. 

I totally agree. It is possible to be "addicted" to porn or sex, but it's incredibly rare. I've seen people say they are "addicted" to porn yet they hold a job, have money to spend, and keep their families intact.  While I'm sure you can be "addicted" and manage to run your life for a little bit, eventually your addiction will cause you to be broke, unable to hold a job, and break apart your family. It's a mathematical certainty that if you keep feeding your addiction, it'll win in the end. People use the term "addiction" to diminish their own personal responsibility. 

[eddified]

I'll say it again since I think it bears repeating, for those who passed over my longer post above simply because it was long:

Elder Oaks said this in a talk about overcoming pornography:

"In fact, most young men and young women who struggle with pornography are not addicted. That is a very important distinction to make"

Hear that? "a VERY IMPORTANT distinction to make". I encourage you to learn why by reading the full talk: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/recovering-from-the-trap-of-pornography?lang=eng

Edited August 3, 2017 by eddified

[eddified]

I hope no one gets the wrong impression: I hate porn and wish the world would be rid of it. I really hate how it uses and abuses daughters of God. It is very, very evil. It is a plague. Literally a spiritual plague. Exposure to it leads many men to get the wrong ideas about how to treat women and wrong ideas about sex. It ruins marriages. No doubt about this. I've seen it in my extended family. If you view it, even just "occasionally", you should speak with your bishop. And just STOP! It is a vile and repulsive habit. 

[BeccaKirstyn]

1 hour ago, eddified said:

I'll say it again since I think it bears repeating, for those who passed over my longer post above simply because it was long:

Elder Oaks said this in a talk about overcoming pornography:

"In fact, most young men and young women who struggle with pornography are not addicted. That is a very important distinction to make"

Hear that? "a VERY IMPORTANT distinction to make". I encourage you to learn why by reading the full talk: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/recovering-from-the-trap-of-pornography?lang=eng

I very much agree with the things you have posted, but I think during the conversation when this young man brought up the point, he used the wrong term and thus set off arguments over the word "casual". I think "occasional" would have been MUCH more appropriate and what he was probably looking to use, but said casual instead. I have a feeling my bishop would have responded a bit differently to the word occasional vs. casual. He was very focused on saying he did not understand the term "casual" because I think he wanted to make sure this was not a "rationalizing the use" case.

I think we toss the term addiction around pretty easily with pornography because the connotation behind it from society's standpoint is something that is done more frequently and is a problem. Rather than the more clinical definition of addiction, as @MormonGator was referencing. Where it impedes on your daily life and functioning, keeps you from performing life responsibilities (going to work, missing appointments) etc. It's easier to say "porn addiction" rather than "occasional/frequent/intensive porn user" to get across the idea that some person has a problem with viewing porn and does it at varying times of the month. Is it definitionally correct to call it a porn addiction? Well, no. But neither is the term depression when people express that they went through a difficult time and had a few symptoms that would qualify under a Major Depressive Episode but didn't warrant a full diagnosis for Major Depressive Disorder.

So I think for the purpose of that conversation with a large YSA crowd, we talked about having a "porn addiction" when in reality it was just a discussion on the issues of pornography and why it needs to stop. Should the leader have used better terms to describe what he meant? Yeah, probably. As we can see it clearly created a problem. But you live and you learn in these conversations, and the stake president is supposed to come around in a few weeks to have a similar discussion, so at least the bishop can relay what worked and didn't for next time. 

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by BeccaKirstyn

[Guest MormonGator]

56 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

I very much agree with the things you have posted, but I think during the conversation when this young man brought up the point, he used the wrong term and thus set off arguments over the word "casual". I think "occasional" would have been MUCH more appropriate and what he was probably looking to use, but said casual instead. I have a feeling my bishop would have responded a bit differently to the word occasional vs. casual. He was very focused on saying he did not understand the term "casual" because I think he wanted to make sure this was not a "rationalizing the use" case.

I think we toss the term addiction around pretty easily with pornography because the connotation behind it from society's standpoint is something that is done more frequently and is a problem. Rather than the more clinical definition of addiction, as @MormonGator was referencing. Where it impedes on your daily life and functioning, keeps you from performing life responsibilities (going to work, missing appointments) etc. It's easier to say "porn addiction" rather than "occasional/frequent/intensive porn user" to get across the idea that some person has a problem with viewing porn and does it at varying times of the month. Is it definitionally correct to call it a porn addiction? Well, no. But neither is the term depression when people express that they went through a difficult time and had a few symptoms that would qualify under a Major Depressive Episode but didn't warrant a full diagnosis for Major Depressive Disorder.

So I think for the purpose of that conversation with a large YSA crowd, we talked about having a "porn addiction" when in reality it was just a discussion on the issues of pornography and why it needs to stop. Should the leader have used better terms to describe what he meant? Yeah, probably. As we can see it clearly created a problem. But you live and you learn in these conversations, and the stake president is supposed to come around in a few weeks to have a similar discussion, so at least the bishop can relay what worked and didn't for next time. 

 

Agree with all of this.  

Another thing that isn't talked about much? Many, many times people who are truly addicted to a substance do NOT need to hear about it. Sometimes it helps big, big time to completely ignore the subject and sometimes even tune out people who talk about it. One of my closest, closest friends is a recovering alcoholic and the only time he feels the desire to drink is when people talk about it. Same with some other types of addiction. I'm sure people mean well by talking about pornography but sometimes just talking about it is counter productive. 

Edited August 3, 2017 by MormonGator