Topics you never hear at Church

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

I think that part of the problem or at least an aspect to consider is the confession aspect of it...and what I mean by that is (and this is just an opinion) regardless of how embarassing it might be, men confess to a man and because of that (although a bishop, stake pres etc... might not agree with the behavior) there is at least a little bit more of an understanding of the behavior from the leader.

This doesn't change the level of dissappointment or the fact that these leaders can really take a person to task who confesses a problem with pornography. To be frank, men (as leaders) can be a lot more candid with the males that come in to confess their sins than they can be with women...men can take that kind of guilt ridden beating...I don't think women can.

Whenever I've heard mention of women having similar problems, it is merely an after thought, usually presented by a female counselor from LDS social services more as information than listed as a problem. The times i've heard it, it has been said like this..."Many families are torn apart by the evils of pornography. Men who are otherwise responsible in their community and active in the church are tearing their family apart with this problem...and it's not just men, though a higher percentage are men...women share in the problem and responsibility as well."

At an adult session of stake conference last year, we had a counselor from LDS family services speak on the evils of pornography and that is about how it came out. She also, from the pulpit, told bishops that they were not being as sensitive to the needs of the sisters in the stake in regard to their husbands pornography addictions. It was very informative, but more of a lecture and some how tied in with a testimony...and again, any blame the women received was mentioned as an after thought.

I would be willing to bet (with no evidence at all to back this up) that women are more likely to confess pornography problems first to an LDS Social Services counselor before confessing to a bishop.

...just my thoughts.

Good thoughts. And in a more general sense, I would expect that females would be less likely to confess any sin of a sexual nature to a male leader.

And as to Indy's comment, I agree that pornography is a problem for many. But I argue that it's also a symptom of a much more complex male-female dynamic in the Church and that simply giving talks that condemn it as though it were a problem that exists in a vacuum, or lazily suggesting it is simply the result of an ill-defined "smutty world," won't help much in the aggregate.

In some sense I see the kind of easy thoughtlessness in the usual approach to condemning pornography that I see in the monthly "Do your home teaching" lecture. At some point, Church leaders should have learned that:

A. Lecturing to people and trying to make them feel guilty isn't working, hasn't worked and won't work (at least, not on this issue and not in the aggregate). In fact, it's demoralizing for many and can reinforce an assumption of all-talk and no-action.

and

B. There is a deeper difficulty that isn't being understood, much less addressed.

and

C. Most everyone seems to recognize these things, but no one's doing anything about them so the implication is that no one, including leaders, either cares or expects to make a difference.

and

D. This all fits nicely into the apocalyptic, "the world is ending and we can't do anything to improve things so why try" rhetoric that gets bandied about.

I see something of what socio-psychologists call a "bystander effect." Lots of people are standing around and shouting "Oh no! Oh no! Someone do something! Someone needs to help! Please sir, stop dying!" while the guy having the coronary dies, on the street, surrounded by people.

BTW, the fireside I'm giving on sexuality and the media is scheduled for three weeks for Sunday.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Good thoughts. And in a more general sense, I would expect that females would be less likely to confess any sin of a sexual nature to a male leader.

And as to Indy's comment, I agree that pornography is a problem for many. But I argue that it's also a symptom of a much more complex male-female dynamic in the Church and that simply giving talks that condemn it as though it were a problem that exists in a vacuum, or lazily suggesting it is simply the result of an ill-defined "smutty world," won't help much in the aggregate.

In some sense I see the kind of easy thoughtlessness in the usual approach to condemning pornography that I see in the monthly "Do your home teaching" lecture. At some point, Church leaders should have learned that:

A. Lecturing to people and trying to make them feel guilty isn't working, hasn't worked and won't work (at least, not on this issue and not in the aggregate). In fact, it's demoralizing for many and can reinforce an assumption of all-talk and no-action.

and

B. There is a deeper difficulty that isn't being understood, much less addressed.

and

C. Most everyone seems to recognize these things, but no one's doing anything about them so the implication is that no one, including leaders, either cares or expects to make a difference.

and

D. This all fits nicely into the apocalyptic, "the world is ending and we can't do anything to improve things so why try" rhetoric that gets bandied about.

I see something of what socio-psychologists call a "bystander effect." Lots of people are standing around and shouting "Oh no! Oh no! Someone do something! Someone needs to help! Please sir, stop dying!" while the guy having the coronary dies, on the street, surrounded by people.

BTW, the fireside I'm giving on sexuality and the media is scheduled for three weeks for Sunday.

I don't think you can blame the church for creating a male-female dynamic that creates an environment for porn problems. This is a nationwide/worldwide epidemic. I just saw something on TV last night that had a few on a panel, including a divorce lawyer in Dallas, that talked about it from a non-religious, national perspective and said that divorces naming porn as a contributing cause were exploding.

I have an opinion on church leaders constant barrage of "avoid pornography" but at the same time giving no hope or no help to those caught in the trap. It's unfortunate that church leaders do this, but I don't blame them. I think by hammering the topic they scare a certain % of members away from it, which is a good result from a bad tactic. It's a big and scary problem and I don't think they know what to do about it, other than scare people into avoiding it. If this scare tactic helps keep my sons from porn, then yappari I will probably be grateful for the help as a parent. If one of my sons becomes addicted to porn, then I will probably be angry at the church's tactic because at that point I think their methods do more harm than good.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I don't think you can blame the church for creating a male-female dynamic that creates an environment for porn problems. This is a nationwide/worldwide epidemic. I just saw something on TV last night that had a few on a panel, including a divorce lawyer in Dallas, that talked about it from a non-religious, national perspective and said that divorces naming porn as a contributing cause were exploding.

I have an opinion on church leaders constant barrage of "avoid pornography" but at the same time giving no hope or no help to those caught in the trap. It's unfortunate that church leaders do this, but I don't blame them. I think by hammering the topic they scare a certain % of members away from it, which is a good result from a bad tactic. It's a big and scary problem and I don't think they know what to do about it, other than scare people into avoiding it. If this scare tactic helps keep my sons from porn, then yappari I will probably be grateful for the help as a parent. If one of my sons becomes addicted to porn, then I will probably be angry at the church's tactic because at that point I think their methods do more harm than good.

In a sense I'm not blaming the Church. These tendencies are present in the larger culture (which has Victorian influences too). But Mormon's susceptiblilty to pornography has a particular place in the larger nationwide/worldwide epidemic. The smutty world rhetoric doesn't get us anywhere. Our particular problem has more than a little to do with Mormon's post-polygamy Victorian Uncle Tom-ism. It was the Victorians who, after the civil war, came after us for polygamy and eventually kicked our ass. Like bootlickers we've been reinscribing ourselves with their flawed sexual dynamic ever since and were paying the price for that. The cult of true womanhood rhetoric, the angel-whore dichotomy, the priesthood leader as the great Western ideal of 19th century masculinity, the repression of discussion about the sexual deviance of polygamy, it goes on and on. Have you ever noticed that sex differences are reified by many North American Mormons for their own sake and with little reflection? It's nothing short of astrological. People go to this stuff and then try to forge their identities from it. It's just like someone discovering she's a Gemini and then trying to refashion her personality to fit the description in the book.

Take a moment and consider what I've written. There's more than a little truth to it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

In a sense I'm not blaming the Church. These tendencies are present in the larger culture (which has Victorian influences too). But Mormon's susceptiblilty to pornography has a particular place in the larger nationwide/worldwide epidemic. The smutty world rhetoric doesn't get us anywhere. Our particular problem has more than a little to do with Mormon's post-polygamy Victorian Uncle Tom-ism. It was the Victorians who, after the civil war, came after us for polygamy and eventually kicked our ass. Like bootlickers we've been reinscribing ourselves with their flawed sexual dynamic ever since and were paying the price for that. The cult of true womanhood rhetoric, the angel-whore dichotomy, the priesthood leader as the great Western ideal of 19th century masculinity, the repression of discussion about the sexual deviance of polygamy, it goes on and on. Have you ever noticed that sex differences are reified by many North American Mormons for their own sake and with little reflection? It's nothing short of astrological. People go to this stuff and then try to forge their identities from it. It's just like someone discovering she's a Gemini and then trying to refashion her personality to fit the description in the book.

Take a moment and consider what I've written. There's more than a little truth to it.

You lost me there in the second part of that paragraph. Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean? I find this quite interesting.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

In a sense I'm not blaming the Church. These tendencies are present in the larger culture (which has Victorian influences too). But Mormon's susceptiblilty to pornography has a particular place in the larger nationwide/worldwide epidemic. The smutty world rhetoric doesn't get us anywhere. Our particular problem has more than a little to do with Mormon's post-polygamy Victorian Uncle Tom-ism. It was the Victorians who, after the civil war, came after us for polygamy and eventually kicked our ass. Like bootlickers we've been reinscribing ourselves with their flawed sexual dynamic ever since and were paying the price for that. The cult of true womanhood rhetoric, the angel-whore dichotomy, the priesthood leader as the great Western ideal of 19th century masculinity, the repression of discussion about the sexual deviance of polygamy, it goes on and on. Have you ever noticed that sex differences are reified by many North American Mormons for their own sake and with little reflection? It's nothing short of astrological. People go to this stuff and then try to forge their identities from it. It's just like someone discovering she's a Gemini and then trying to refashion her personality to fit the description in the book.

Take a moment and consider what I've written. There's more than a little truth to it.

I don't argue there's no truth to what you say. Certainly there's something cultural to the obsession with porn. I've read that porn addictions are more present in strict, religious families in general. I may disagree a little with you in how or why Mormons should be different than other strict religions in frequency of porn addiction. I see the dynamic as similar across the board and don't know much how to change it.

I'm no expert, but about the only way I see that you could lessen the strangle hold porn has on our youth is to tell them sex before marriage is OK. Then they'd be too busy with the real thing like the rest of their peers to be concerned with porn.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You lost me there in the second part of that paragraph. Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean? I find this quite interesting.

This is perhaps the first time I've read an interesting discussion on the topic. I tend to agree with SEIQ's observations, but haven't given it the deep thought he apparently has.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I'm no expert, but about the only way I see that you could lessen the strangle hold porn has on our youth is to tell them sex before marriage is OK. Then they'd be too busy with the real thing like the rest of their peers to be concerned with porn.

It's just a hunch, but I am going to go out on a limb and predict that this particular option won't fly with the brethren.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

It's just a hunch, but I am going to go out on a limb and predict that this particular option won't fly with the brethren.

You're my favorite risk taker.

Just as a gal suggested that the Church should allow boys and girls between 18 and 25 to have all the sex they wanted and then to be faithful after marriage.

But in essence, to address the "problem", the Church does need to address a healthy viewpoint of sexuality. Its intellectuals such as SEIQ do, but its leaders do not.

It's again focusing upon the negative and not going to the root of the problem. Pornography is a symptom of larger dysfunctions in sexuality. The Church has done absolutely nothing to develop healthy sexual perspectives. (Well I suppose the abstinence to avoid STDs is healthy but other than that, I hadn't considered our repression in light of the Victorians).

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You lost me there in the second part of that paragraph. Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean? I find this quite interesting.

Sure.

Many North American Mormons are suffering from a case of hyper-Victorianism. The Victorians attacked us over our sexual deviance (polygamy) and in our defeat we compulsively serve the ideologies of those who defeated us. Victorianism has influenced the larger American culture (the 1950s stereotypes are rife with it and so is the Mars/Venus material), but it is more acute with Mormons because we have been bludgeoned. This is what I mean by Uncle Tom-ism.

Therein we go back to Victorian sex norms like a person going to an astrology book to find himself. We take what we find there and obsessively try to mold ourselves into it. Stereotypes about maleness and femaleness are considered to be universally and objectively true and their cultural constructedness is ignored. The angel-whore dichotomy (which keeps women as objects), the true cult of womanhood thinking, the hyper-enforced sex divisions, the myth of the rugged Western male, the idea that the body is dirty and something to be encaged (Victorian dresses literally put women in a kind of iron cage)--these are all part of it. Sure, biology plays a role in some of these things, but many of them are culturally specific and are not demanded by scipture or a Godly sense of right and wrong.

The Victorians dressed modestly and new how to host in the parlor, but there was a whore house being run out back.

[MikeWaters]

so Mormons get the parlor hosting skills and no whorehouse.

I knew something was wrong.