The Church's crusade against porn

[Elheru Aran]

There was an advertisement on with a preacher today saying, "If you're in debt, you need to plant a $1,500 seed with the church so that God may focus his attention on you and help your debt situation."

On an episode of 'The Boondocks" there was a commercial of a preacher called Rev. Gibmo Dinero (who cameoed in the "Return of the King" episode), who was basically pulling that stunt.

The sad thing is how many are gullible for it.

This is 'Prosperity Gospel', which many honest Christian denominations detest. Think Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, etc-- their basic message is "if you help us grow by buying our cheap products/sending us money, God will bless you!" Inevitably it's really pretty much nothing of the kind. Faith healing, speaking in tongues, etc, are frequently coupled with this.

What's really rotten about it is the way they blatantly manipulate people; I once read an article in a Prosperity Gospel magazine that said that if you send money to 'those doing God's work', God would send *you* twice as much money... and that it was a sin to be poor! Guilt-trip anybody?

As I said, many denominations don't like PG types and will discourage their members from attending their churches or giving them money. That's a separate issue from the drive of this thread, though.

Christians have a lot of hangups about sex... that's a given. Important thing to remember about this though, is that apparently a.) sometimes it helps them (in its own weird way) to get on better with their families/spouses, and while it's logically inconsistent with the wider world, it works within the narrow Christian worldview. If they think porn is bad, well, they do encourage sex with one's spouse, to the point where I've seen Christian pole-dancing classes and Christian sex education!

Barring the 'porn is bad' and the limitation they place upon sexual freedoms, which is a big deal right there, I hardly see the 'you should have sex with just your wife' part being objectionable. After all, they don't say anything about a man not masturbating *with* his wife... just don't do it by himself... more fun that way anyway ^_^

In all seriousness, I realize that overall the whole attitude towards sex and porn and what not is unhealthy and just doesn't really work within today's society. Their campaigns against it are going to pretty much only work within their own population, which is kind of ironically pointless. They're not going to get over this until such time as they realize it's a losing battle... and even then they'll probably keep on because it's a compulsion for them.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'm sorry Chewie, but this is fascinating (not to mention sounding like a sitcom plot). Why was it so hard to reconcile?

Is it the act is frowned upon or the mental images?

The mental images. Under my religion, even the act/desire of sin is equal in magnitude to the commission of a sin (whoever murders in his heart murders in deed). Therefore, when watching porn there's a mental attitude of lust which becomes conflated with the act of adultury. It took some mental discipline and a very awkward conversation with my pastor to figure it out, but basically I try to look at porn without lusting. It doesn't work too well, but I get forgiven by God and I try to not think about it too much. Sometimes I'll go 3-5 days without porn, but then I start to feel physical pain and I know I've got to 'flush my pipes'.

Can you explain how you managed to not masturbate until you were 22? Did you follow orders blindly without thinking critically?

I was told it was bad so I didn't do it. As a young christian, I was taught it was evil, sinful. I was told it would separate me from God, affect my views of women, and ultimately damage my ability to have a successful marriage. I was given multiple talks (in a group setting) by men who were literally addicted to porn and masturbation, to the point of habitually masturbating 6-8 times a day.

As for my porn-free life, I've been asked 'how could you not?!' many times, and I explain it this way;

Imagine your favorite food. Now imagine you've never had it, but you ate oatmeal every day for your entire life. You've been told that food which is in fact your favorite is incredibly bad for you, and can have lifelong consequences if you eat it.

You probably wouldn't eat it. And you wouldn't 'miss' it, because you can't imagine how good it might taste because you've only known one thing.

And before anyone asks, I don't suffer from sexual dysfunction. I'm now 29, and I have a serious girlfriend who I've been dating for 9 months. We're trying to not have sex until we get married. My girlfriend knows about my medical condition and accepts it.

note: This post isn't made as an argument for or against porn. I'm sharing my life experience, not promoting any sort of agenda or viewpoint.

[Serafina]

The actual amount of porn someone has is irrelevant in regards to addiction. Someone can have a cellar full of wine and a cabinet of dozens of different liquors without having any alcohol problems as well.

[Themightytom]

I wonder how drastically different dogma and teachings would be if the Gospel of Eve were around. Supposedly, this book supported free love and eating semen as a religious act. Right now the church sexually starves its members and directs the resulting fervor towards their establishment.

or the Infancy Narratives. Somehow the image of baby infant Jesus on the beach, getting mad at another child for kicking over his sandcastle, and turning him into a pillar of salt doesn't match the "Let the children come to me." image.

Someone explain to me how an organization where its people are required to live in celibacy and that's been riddled with pedofile scandals has any authority on sexuality.

The same way the police have the authority to enforce the law, despite images of civilians being tasered, reports of widespread steroid use, and racism. The same way hospitals exposed for negligence in the emergency room are still responsible for providing care, the same way the media that is regularly blasted for ideological bias still reports, the same way politicians constantly caught lying still get re-elected. How perfect do you imagine the world to be

If you go by the definition of addiction simply as something that dominantly affects all of your life then marriage is rather likely the thing that qualifies for addiction.

But if you go by that definition religion it self is an addiction. This said, I fail to see how addiction demands that you isolate your self from others. You can be an alcoholic, nicotine or even a drug addict and still hang out with people who agree with you shooting together and sharing bottles/needles.

There are both chemical and behavioral addictions. In a behavioral addiction, the compulsive need pervades behaviors to the extent that values and perception become oriented around it. that's why you don't just "stop" being addicted, it takes on it's own inertia. If someone said "Eh fuck it god doesn't exist." and starts yanking on a thread that runs through the whole of their life to pull it out, the whole thing could unravel. The ethics of how to treat women, the ethics of whether or not to take what is not yours, the ethics of following the law.

You need a new social group, because up until now you've been associating with like minded Christians, you have all kinds of artifacts and memorabilia with memories associated with them, that need to be either discarded, or put into new context, etc. The same thing DOES happen with alcoholics. They've got drinking songs they like, but every time they hear them they want to drink, they've got friends they have structured their interaction with around drinking, they work their whole week so they can get wasted on Friday and relax, only now they don't get wasted, so what are they working for anyway, that's the kind of behavioral addiction that essentially AA supplants. They try to provide a social support, a context, a new substitute for the old life. AA DOES resemble a religion, because it was based on one.

Chemical addiction is a different problem. You alter your brain chemistry by introducing a new substance. Your brain chemistry adjusts to include that new substance, and when yous top introducing that substance, your brain has to adjust to it's absence. Sometimes long term damage has been done, and it's not a simple thing to do. To a limited extent this could look like religion. You're used to a weekly emotional catharsis for example to release built up tension but without your Sunday worship, you don't know how to let go. You configure your brain's challenge reward system through your life around a set of moral and ethical values, and suddenly that system is delivering it's regular validation of good and bad.

Behavioral addiction seems more like religion to me, but I think there is an argument that chemical addiction has characteristics as well. that would be a good thing to remember when trying to convince someone with deepset religious values to abandon them, they may not easily be able to. Arguing with an addict is... borderline useless, as they devote all of their energy to defending their habit, the same could be true with a religious person. Positive group association typically works better for addicts. It's less intrusive, yet more pervasive.

If they are SEEKING consultation, and have decided to explore their beliefs, that is different. That's why being up front about your role is important. Accepting a client for porn addiction and using it to enforce religious values is kind of like offering a ride to a hitch hiker and then kidnapping them.

[Darth Wong]

I was told it was bad so I didn't do it. As a young christian, I was taught it was evil, sinful. I was told it would separate me from God, affect my views of women, and ultimately damage my ability to have a successful marriage. I was given multiple talks (in a group setting) by men who were literally addicted to porn and masturbation, to the point of habitually masturbating 6-8 times a day.

You know, as someone who has attentively watched the methods of advertising evolve and advance over his lifetime, I can see the advertising method here. Some advertising relies on hopes and dreams (for example, automobile advertising), but there is another category of advertising which relies on elaborate, moving, emotionally involving description of problems (political advertising is dominated by this method).

The "hook" is that you need to buy into their product or agenda or program in order to avoid these terrible problems, but the actual technique is to spend 90% of their time talking about the problem (and make sure to describe it in such a manner that almost everyone feels that he is at risk), so that by the time they're done, you just desperately want whatever solution they're peddling. That's why the Amway sales pitch always starts with a long and detailed description of the dangers of relying on a conventional salaried job, the huge looming future cost of retirement university for your kids, etc. The idea is to make you so terrified that you'll buy whatever solution they're selling.

As for my porn-free life, I've been asked 'how could you not?!' many times, and I explain it this way;

Imagine your favorite food. Now imagine you've never had it, but you ate oatmeal every day for your entire life. You've been told that food which is in fact your favorite is incredibly bad for you, and can have lifelong consequences if you eat it.

You probably wouldn't eat it. And you wouldn't 'miss' it, because you can't imagine how good it might taste because you've only known one thing.

What if scientists and doctors tell you that these dire warnings are a lot of nonsense? You still wouldn't eat it?

[CaptainChewbacca]

What if scientists and doctors tell you that these dire warnings are a lot of nonsense? You still wouldn't eat it?

Well, I did 'eat' it. Remember? There's still a potential for overuse of porn and masturbation, as with just about anything in life. Like eating ice cream or drinking alcohol, one has to jerk oneself moderately and responsibly.

[Darth Wong]

What if scientists and doctors tell you that these dire warnings are a lot of nonsense? You still wouldn't eat it?

Well, I did 'eat' it. Remember? There's still a potential for overuse of porn and masturbation, as with just about anything in life. Like eating ice cream or drinking alcohol, one has to jerk oneself moderately and responsibly.

Yes, but I was referring more to your analogy. There's still something very "off" about someone who so completely buys into the fearmongering that he is utterly resistant to the millions of people who say they've done it without all these terrible things happening, or the experts who concur.

[Stark]

Do the blindly obedient really think about issues enough to even consider facts like that? This is a guy who thinks that people would 'probably' instantly change their lifestyle based on baseless statements by authority figures, when millions of people DON'T change their lifestyle based on well-supported statements by authority figures.

Its ironic in the extreme to me that his analogy for something he's 'never' done is 'favourite food'.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Yes, but I was referring more to your analogy. There's still something very "off" about someone who so completely buys into the fearmongering that he is utterly resistant to the millions of people who say they've done it without all these terrible things happening, or the experts who concur.

The problem is that I didn't have 'millions' of testimonials, because I was young and had a sheltered upbringing. I didn't research it, I didn't talk to people about it, and I didn't think much about it.

And when faced with facts, expert testimonial, and guidance from authority figures, I actually DID change my lifestyle.

[Broomstick]

Yes, but I was referring more to your analogy. There's still something very "off" about someone who so completely buys into the fearmongering that he is utterly resistant to the millions of people who say they've done it without all these terrible things happening, or the experts who concur.

And yet... religious dietary restrictions continue to exist, even though billions of other people violate those restrictions every day....

[Stark]

The problem is that I didn't have 'millions' of testimonials, because I was young and had a sheltered upbringing. I didn't research it, I didn't talk to people about it, and I didn't think much about it.

And when faced with facts, expert testimonial, and guidance from authority figures, I actually DID change my lifestyle.

Testimonials aren't evidence. Mike is probably talking about all those people around you every day who DON'T follow the restrictions that were described to you as necessary, thus demonstrating they actually AREN'T necessary.

[Bakustra]

And yet... religious dietary restrictions continue to exist, even though billions of other people violate those restrictions every day....

Jews and Muslims do not, in general, think that eating pork is bad for you physically. Jains don't consider animal products to be poisonous on anything other than a spiritual level. Religious dietary restrictions are built around ideas of spiritual purity and religious identity- if you eat pork, nothing bad will happen to you temporally, but you will no longer be a good Jew or Muslim. You've transgressed on a spiritual level.

The attitude of many American evangelical Christians to pornography and masturbation, however, is that they are temporal ills. If Judaism taught that eating pork would make you go blind, I doubt that people would heed that as often as they do currently, as the temporal ill would not manifest reliably. Similarly, masturbation blinding you has moved into the realm of farce. But most people do not heed the warnings of temporal illness very much, I should think.

[Dave]

The attitude of many American evangelical Christians to pornography and masturbation, however, is that they are temporal ills.

The harm that is claimed to be done (at least for a teenager, when I got this talk) is generally "damage to your relationship with your future spouse", which is unknown and not even quantifiable.

I mean, damage to your relationship with your current spouse, I can understand -- you can guess at how much damage will occur. But damage to someone who, as a teenager, you have likely not even met yet and whose identity is unknowable...

[Stark]

But this is supposed to happen through actual measurable things, like making you value women less (somehow) or becoming a semen-caked hobo (somehow). The explanation is generally not 'it will damage your relationship with your partner by direct spirtual intervention'.

The best part I guess is that the religious rationale is even so amazingly stupid; it's generally the Onan thing, where he is obviously being punished for disobedience, not for jacking off.

[Dave]

But this is supposed to happen through actual measurable things, like making you value women less (somehow) or becoming a semen-caked hobo (somehow). The explanation is generally not 'it will damage your relationship with your partner by direct spirtual intervention'.

Sorry, I was unclear; I had meant that statement in the sense of valuing women less, or being less desirous of your spouse, or what have you; not as a result of a direct spiritual intervention. Or at least that's what I was taught.

My point was that how much you would or would not desire a future potential spouse is cannot be measured in a controlled experiment, as there is only one timeline to experiment with. Thus the extent to which it damages a potential relationship cannot be objectively assessed. Further, to paraphrase a old green dwarf, the future is always in motion (as a result of decisions made in the past) and the women that interest you if you use pornography may not be the same women who interest you if you don't, if that makes any sense at all.

Basically, one who doesn't use pornography might be more inclined to cling to the first woman who shows any interest, and be less discriminating than the one whose sexuality has an outlet and is not as desperate to bang the nearest thing with a hole in it.

EDIT: grammar

[Darth Wong]

You can't assess your own future, but you can certainly assess historical data for other people. All of the people who claim that porn leads to devaluation of women have yet to even attempt an explanation of why global trends show a correlation that runs directly against this cause-and-effect claim: if you compare countries, it appears that the more sexually repressed societies which outlaw pornography actually tend to value women less, not more.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Probably because the outlawing/limiting of pornography usually goes hand in hand with a more repressive theological worldview. Its not that banning porn makes you value women less, its just people who value women less for religious reasons ALSO hate porn.

Which makes no sense. If you outlaw women AND sexual release, you'll have a country full of angry young men ready to riot and kill at a moment's notice.

[Simon_Jester]

Probably because the outlawing/limiting of pornography usually goes hand in hand with a more repressive theological worldview. Its not that banning porn makes you value women less, its just people who value women less for religious reasons ALSO hate porn.

Which makes no sense. If you outlaw women AND sexual release, you'll have a country full of angry young men ready to riot and kill at a moment's notice.

The social mores that this kind of religious stricture evolved in date back to a time when women - girls, really- married young, and men often married pretty young too.

If the average age of marriage is twenty, and if the culture is such that a marriage will be arranged for any given man in the society (more or less), eighteen year old men are a lot less likely to riot than if they'd have to wait another five or ten years to get married.

[Serafina]

Well, those people probably define "devaluing women" quite differently than we would. If they do not value female independence or womens liberties in general, then one can easily draw a correlation between sexual liberty and "devaluation of women".

[Broomstick]

True enough - a society may value women as brood mares and chattel instead of human beings, but that most certainly is not a society I'd want to live in, nor approve of.

[Themightytom]

True enough - a society may value women as brood mares and chattel instead of human beings, but that most certainly is not a society I'd want to live in, nor approve of.

Wouldn't that BE the subculture of porn then? What else are they showing women doing, and do they really go out of their way to flesh out the humanness of the actresses? They are kind of depicted as fuck dolls in endless variation of the same cliches.

[Darth Wong]

True enough - a society may value women as brood mares and chattel instead of human beings, but that most certainly is not a society I'd want to live in, nor approve of.

Wouldn't that BE the subculture of porn then? What else are they showing women doing, and do they really go out of their way to flesh out the humanness of the actresses? They are kind of depicted as fuck dolls in endless variation of the same cliches.

They flesh out the humanity of the female actresses 100% as much as they flesh out the humanity of the male actors.

[Themightytom]

True enough - a society may value women as brood mares and chattel instead of human beings, but that most certainly is not a society I'd want to live in, nor approve of.

Wouldn't that BE the subculture of porn then? What else are they showing women doing, and do they really go out of their way to flesh out the humanness of the actresses? They are kind of depicted as fuck dolls in endless variation of the same cliches.

They flesh out the humanity of the female actresses 100% as much as they flesh out the humanity of the male actors.

That is unfair. Every man actually IS a plumber/firefighter/high school teacher/police officer/dirty priest/mechanic/lawyer.

I can't find any empirical statistics about themes depicted in porn, nor gender equality as depicted in the genre, but I suspect there is more straight porn that doesn't end until the guy is satisfied than anything else.

[Terralthra]

Wouldn't that BE the subculture of porn then? What else are they showing women doing, and do they really go out of their way to flesh out the humanness of the actresses? They are kind of depicted as fuck dolls in endless variation of the same cliches.

They flesh out the humanity of the female actresses 100% as much as they flesh out the humanity of the male actors.

That is unfair. Every man actually IS a plumber/firefighter/high school teacher/police officer/dirty priest/mechanic/lawyer.

I can't find any empirical statistics about themes depicted in porn, nor gender equality as depicted in the genre, but I suspect there is more straight porn that doesn't end until the guy is satisfied than anything else.

And the porn where the guy doesn't have a costume, or indeed any lines beyond "oh yeah"? Porn objectifies the porn stars, male or female, it's not that unusual to have entire porn scenes where the guy is lucky to have the camera show that he has a face at all.

[Themightytom]

And the porn where the guy doesn't have a costume, or indeed any lines beyond "oh yeah"? Porn objectifies the porn stars, male or female, it's not that unusual to have entire porn scenes where the guy is lucky to have the camera show that he has a face at all.

That actually speaks to my argument, because a lot of the time when you see a girl's face, it's wrapped around a dick, or about to get a load on it, or it is frozen in the perfect expression of worship and amazement at what the guy is doing to her. Face time in a porno isn't quite the same as mainstream TV or cinema. Seriously, "Are you ready for my close up" is a totally different inference.