But I want to give credit where credit is due. If you have not seen the church’s new Combating Pornography website, may I suggest you check it out. It is not just for those struggling with the addiction of pornography (yes, I said addiction), but for spouses of those struggling, parents, leaders, etc. I think everyone could glean some useful insight about an epidemic that has proved to invade nearly every life in one way or another.

In short, I think the site is brilliant, and I give much kudos to the church for the content and purpose. I really think it’s great! Here’s what I like about it:

1. The star article (IMHO) is a well researched, well documented, elaboration on the nature of pornography addiction, by a renowned expert in the field. The second to last paragraph is my favorite:
   

   Why is it important to understand that compulsive pornography use is an actual addiction? By recognizing this, we will treat it with the respect required to overcome an addiction. For instance, no spiritual leader would tell a member who confesses an alcohol addiction to pray and repent without recommending counseling and 12-step support in such programs as the Addiction Recovery Program with LDS Family Services and Alcoholics Anonymous. Similarly, with the proper perspective on sexual addiction, we should also recommend that those afflicted with pornography and other sexual addictions, in addition to proceeding through the steps of repentance, will also seek recovery with therapy and group support.

2. The site references sources and scholarship about overcoming pornography. While I am not a social worker, or clinical psychologist, I recognize the most commonly accepted patterns in treating addiction/depression. See here, and here for great examples.
3. There is practical advice in Mormonism’s favorite form – a checklist.
4. There is a good mix of emphasis on moral cleanliness, openness in discussing human sexuality, physical reality, and spiritual ideology. When I read the articles I get the impression that we’re not in the business of simply condemning this as sin and parroting to people they “pray and read scriptures” more diligently. We are acknowledging a deeper problem in human psychology/biology that warrants our most sincere efforts.
5. The church is sincerely dedicated to helping people with this problem. There are conference talks (at least one every six months), there is a website, there are very inexpensive counselling and other professional services, there is a booklet and associated meetings for overcoming addiction, etc.

I really do believe that the LDS church does a lot of great things in this world. There are people who are hurt by the culture, there are social and cultural problems I wish were different, and there are issues in our theology that don’t work for me. But for this very uncertain Mormon, I am truly grateful to be a part of an organization that does try, in many ways, to influence people for the better.

I want to take a very different look at it by explaining the Top Ten Reasons I can think of to view it – and the Top Ten alternatives for me personally.  This post is not primarily a religious one; rather, it is a practical one.

First, I believe we don’t address the practical aspect of time prioritization nearly enough when we discuss things like what we watch.  If I were asked to give a General Conference talk on porn (as if that is even a remote possibility!), I would focus on the practical aspect of time management – and not deal at all with the “morality” question. 

I did some simple math, with which I won’t bore you here, and when I factor out sleep, work and my own direct, minimal, church-related commitments I am left with approximately 65 hours each week to accomplish all the things I want to do.  Roughly 30 of these hours are on Saturday and Sunday; roughly 35 of them are during the weekdays.  Therefore, I want to address viewing porn in the context of what I need to choose not to do in order to choose to view it during the time I am able to choose what I do. 

In that vein, I offer the following:

TOP TEN REASONS FOR ME TO VIEW PORN

1. To gain a better understanding of the technical aspects of sex.  (Granted, I also have been told that the vast majority of the billions of available hours of porn covers technical aspects of sex that could be covered very well in no more than an hour or two, but what better way is there, really?) 

2. To gain a better understanding of how to please my spouse.  (Although I’ve been told the vast majority of the billions of available hours of porn has nothing to do with sex with one’s spouse.)

3. To learn to appreciate impossibly large anatomy.  (I can’t add “God-given” to that reason, but I’m trying to make this a Top Ten list.) 

4. To show my support for agency and unfettered expression of personal moral choice.  (I’ve heard this one, so I’m passing it on.)

OK.  I give up.  The rest of you are going to have to fill in the final six spots. 

TOP TEN ALTERNATIVES TO VIEWING PORN

[In response to Ulysseus in comment #25, I am adding a very serious suggestion as an alternative at the top of this list: **Seek counseling and help with sexual issues, including the use of truly instructional materials.**]

1. Spend more time with my wife and children.  (This might affect #5, I realize – and I already spend quite a lot of time with them.) 

2. Spend more time in nature, even if it’s just walking around the small town in which I currently live.  (This might be a re-statement of #1, since I don’t like to walk alone just for relaxation.) 

3. Spend more time with friends and neighbors.  (I like interacting with others, but on a practical level I can be too much of a hermit on a day-to-day basis.)

4. Spend more time helping the helpless and lonely.  (I really should do this, regardless of how it affects #5.) 

5. Spend more time blogging.  (OK, increased blogging is a stretch for me – or at least it couldn’t have been on my list before last summer.) 

6. Spend more time learning through reading.  (There are many millions of good books I haven’t read.  Some of them have to be a better use of my time than porn.) 

7. Spend more time reading brain candy.  (ibid – and if it’s a choice between reading and porn, “The Work and the Glory” might be a better alternative.  Maybe.  I’ll have to think about it – but there are lots of other choices that aren’t so hard.) 

8. Learn a new skill.  (I really shouldn’t have to pay a mechanic to fix even the simplest things that go wrong with our vehicles and computers – especially since my dad and brothers are very good at doing both of these things.) 

9. Play more practical jokes on people.  (I am pretty good at this, but my practical joke muscles have atrophied a bit lately.  I really should practice more.)

10.  Clean my house on my own initiative.  (OK, this is limited by what my wife will allow me to do, but it is something to which I really should give a higher priority.) 

Some things I thought of including on the alternatives list:

1. Mow my lawn before it reaches 8″ in height.  That might cut down on the dirty looks my neighbors give me on a regular basis.  (“Dirty” as in “mad” – not “dirty” as in “pornographic”.  Just sayin’.)

2. Exercise.  If you know me, you’ll understand how good that would be as an alternative.   You’d also understand why the dirty looks I get are not pornographic.  Maybe I could combine #1 and #2.  Maybe that tendency to combine things is why I need to exercise more often.  

3. Sleep more.  I really should do that, but I don’t see it happening any time soon. 

4. Get a tan.  Again, if you’ve seen me . . .

5. Play the piano more often.  This probably should be on my list, but I just thought of it.  I’ll make it a retroactive 1a. 

6. Become fluent in Japanese again.  I really should do this, as well. 

So, everyone, I am NOT asking anyone to comment on the morality of viewing porn.  What I am asking for are good reasons to view porn in light of what you are giving up to view it – and for more suggestions of things that are better alterntaives to porn for you personally. 

Have at it.

“Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Rather than debate that statement, although I am open to discussing it here, I want to focus on an underlying issue within something to which we refer frequently as the “Law of Chastity”.  My primary focus is on the injunction regarding eliminating “lust” – and particularly how it can be avoided no matter one’s surroundings and exposure. This a result partly of the long, interesting discussion we had recently about “naturism” – but I don’t want to rehash that discussion here.  Rather, I want to focus on one of the underlying currents that seemed to flow beneath the discussion.

Rather than being hyper-sensitive to any and all possibilities for sexual stimulation and avoiding all such exposure, I believe the godly way to avoid the type of temptation embodied in “looking upon a woman to lust after her” is found in an expansive definition of “chastity” – one that goes beyond the more limited definition of avoiding “sexual” activity, “sexual” images or sexuality that too many people assume.

First, “lust” is used in this passage as a verb – so, in this verse”to lust” appears to mean:

to express or feel uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; to have have an excessive craving for

Conversely, the definition for “chaste” that opposes this construct best is:

Pure in thought and act; innocent; free from lewdness and obscenity, or indecency in act or speech; modest (as, a chaste mind; chaste eyes).

The interesting association in this definition is the use of the word “modest” – which in context is defined as: “limited or moderate in amount, extent, etc.” In other words, taking both of these definitions in the context of the admonition in Matthew, the underlying characteristic that Jesus appears to be addressing is “moderation” or “control” – being able to see and appreciate physical beauty without going to any extreme, without including “lewdness, obscenity, indecency, lust, etc.” This is a much more comprehensive and fundamentally empowering / liberating view of “chastity” than a simple abstinence from proscribed activities – which manifests itself generally as a negative and constricting principle. Also, and this is critical, the definition highlights being “chaste” as something primarily existing within the individual.

I am reminded of a story I heard once. I don’t know if it is historically accurate, but it illustrates this characteristic in a very simple and direct way. According to this story, a woman notorious for traveling in the nude (Lady Godiva, perhaps) was passing a group of religious leaders (the Pope and some Cardinals, perhaps). One of the Cardinals told everyone to cover their eyes and look away, but the Pope did not do so. The woman saw the reaction her passing had created, including the fact that the Pope did not look away – and she asked him why he did not do so. His response was something like:

You are a daughter of God, and he has blessed you with great beauty. I appreciate that gift God has given and praise him for his gracious gift, so why would I look away?

I believe it is important to remember that Adam and Eve covered their nakedness only after Satan pointed out that they were naked and that others would see it. I mention this simply to stress that the typical restrictions we employ as a part of this mortal existence are in place NOT because physicality and sexuality are bad things, but because we do not want to place undue temptation and stimulation in the path of others – we do not want them to “look upon a (wo)man to lust after her (him)” due to our actions.

However, if all were “chaste” in their thoughts and deeds, such restrictions would not be necessary. In other words, we seek “modesty” (moderation) in dress as an attempt to strike a proper balance between the ideal of chastity we desire and the practical state of lustfulness by which we are surrounded – between where we wish we were (as individuals and/or a society) and where we actually are.

True “chastity,” therefore, includes not only conforming to reasonable societal constraints intended to avoid placing temptation in the path of others but also having our hearts changed to not be tempted no matter our surroundings – to not “lust after her” even when “looking upon a woman” cannot be avoided.

I don’t have a simple solution or suggestion for all – or even for any particular individual. I know it is neither the extreme conservatism of the Taliban in Afghanistan nor the extreme liberalism of South Beach, Florida – but I know that I must be able to walk in either world and be free of “lust” in order to fulfill the standard Jesus holds up in these verses.

In summary, my being chaste in thought and deed is MY responsibility. I can’t blame the environment around me – or those whose appearance “naturally” might tempt me – or claim the devil made me do it. I must change myself ultimately, even if I first must change my exposure and environment until I reach the point where they no longer matter. I shouldn’t dive into tempting situations recklessly, simply in order to test my control, but rather I can change my thoughts and actions until I can face such situations without temptation. If I never reach that ultimate objective, I must continue to structure my environment to reduce temptation, but eliminating all possible temptation can never be the default.

“Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

In this passage, the woman is NOT at fault for her beauty or her “seuxality” or anything else; the man is at fault for how he reacts. While I believe in modesty in dress, at the most fundamental level the one being viewed is not “guilty” of causing the viewer’s reaction.  There are cases where s/he certainly bears some responsibility when acting in reckless disregard to the sensibilities of others, but at the most basic level the primary responsibility (at the very least) rests with the one “looking” to not “lust”.

At its most fundamental level, I believe “chastity” is NOT a restriction imposed externally; it is a characteristic developed internally.

Thoughts?

Recently, I stumbled upon this little gem of a study (warning–link goes to pdf) over at a blog (which I do not regularly read, but one of my friends does) called Gene Expression (first link goes to summary, second link goes to actual study).  Two facts immediately jumped out at me from looking at the map of the United States all coded–first off, Utah, with it’s incredibly dense population of LDS members is one of the highest consumers of online pornography and second, Idaho, with a nearly equally high density population of LDS is among the lowest.  What gives?  Unlike the Gene Expression folks, the conclusion of religiosity fails to satisfy me as an immediate explanation.

This data was collected by asking a single provider of multiple sources of online pornography to provide the zipcodes of all subscribers in their database.  This is actually a very solid method, although (as I’ll discuss a bit more later on) having a second provider for this same information would go along way to make this an ever more useful study.  From a methodological viewpoint, however, there is little to argue with.

The author of the study is careful to normalize the data to account for income after looking at the raw data–which is a good idea.  After this adjustment, the following table (looking at the far right column) shows that Utah has the highest subscription rate and Idaho has the lowest: 1.89 versus -1.11.

Note that in the table below the data in the far right column has been adjusted for market demographics such as household income, household size and similar factors.  Note that it doesn’t matter HOW you slice it, Utah is STILL the highest subscriber and Idaho is STILL one of the absolute lowest.  There is something seriously odd about that.

From the original article, the author makes this following statement:

“Subscriptions are slightly more prevalent in states that have enacted conservative
legislation on sexuality (regression results on file with the author). In the 27
states where “defense of marriage” amendments have been adopted (making
same-sex marriage, and/or civil unions unconstitutional), subscriptions to this
adult entertainment service are weakly more prevalent than in other states (p 
0.096). In such states, there were 0.2 more subscribers to this adult web site per
thousand broadband households, 11 percent more than in other states. (Edelman, 2009, p. 11)”

But in looking at Wikipedia we see that Utah is 58% LDS (I know, the bane of scholarship–I was doing so well and then I go to wikipedia for my census data!) and Idaho is about 22.8% LDS.  It’s a big difference.  It also makes me think that all the talks I’ve been hearing in General Conference about pornography are pretty much on target, but depressingly ineffective.  From the study:

The fourth column reports that in regions where more people report regularly
attending religious services (per National Election Studies 2004), overall subscription
rates are not statistically significantly different from subscriptions elsewhere
(p = 0.848). However, in such regions, a statistically significantly smaller proportion
of subscriptions begin on Sundays, compared with other regions. In particular,
a 1 percent increase in the proportion of people who report regularly attending
religious services is associated with a 0.10 percent reduction in the proportion of
purchases that occur on Sunday. This analysis suggests that, on the whole, those
who attend religious services shift their consumption of adult entertainment to
other days of the week, despite on average consuming the same amount of adult entertainment as others. (As an interesting comparison, Malhotra, 2008, finds that
religious people are more charitable only on Sundays.) (Edelman, 2009, p. 10)

This suggests that whatever lessons we are hearing on pornography are not effective in achieving their goals (at least, not in Utah).  Now there are some alternate conclusions that I would like to put forward, lest I be thought to be unnecessarily harsh.

First it is entirely possible that in states with very conservative laws about access to pornography that those who are not religious are using the internet to access material that they have trouble getting otherwise.  This is a pleasing idea, but fails to explain the Sunday-only drop in online sales. A second idea is needed to explain that: perhaps these people are spending more time with their family or are otherwise engaged on Sundays, and are therefore less inclined to make the sales at that time.  It may be that the family is home more, and therefore they have less opportunity for viewing on that day.  Numerous plausible explanations exist to deal with the Sunday-only drop.  Occam’s Razor doesn’t really apply here since we are not really adding more assumptions in either case.

Second, there is a major flaw in the study–it should be noted that this is an analysis of data from only one particular online provider of pornography (and the author of the study is aware of this limitation and notes it as such).  This isn’t a show-stopper, but it is something to consider.  It could well be that a different purveyor of pornography possibly provides pertinent information of a different sort.  Alliteration aside.

So here’s the question: the data are available on the matter, do you agree that this is a problem that is tied to religion or is it better explained by something else?  If it is a problem unique to religion what else can the church do to help achieve the goals of reducing interest in this?  I know that not everyone is going to agree with that goal, but I will say that regardless of your views on the subject, it is fairly easy to agree on the idea that the CHURCH has the goal of reducing viewership of pornography by it’s adherents.  What more can the church do that will actually be effective?  Because there does seem to be a problem.

• Double Standards:  Breast vs. Bottle.  Is breastfeeding shameful or obscene?  Should breastfed babies be neither seen nor heard at least in “the act”?  Perhaps bottle-fed babies should also be closeted away in fairness or stuffed under a hot blanket for cover.  Who is to blame:  the baby or the mother?
• Double Standards:  Sexism.  Does the female nipple have special powers not housed in the male nipple?  After all, males are capable of both lactation and breast cancer.  Is this bias strictly because men are more visually stimulated by women than women are by men?  Other examples of female nipple prudery:
  • “topless” models at BYU must wear bathing suit tops
  • Barbie has no nipples.  Except the ones we poked into her with a pin.  Ouch!
  • Thanks to TiVO, Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” had 125% viewership, meaning people who were watching TV watched it on average 1.25 times.  That would not have happened if 1) she had actually had a wardrobe malfunction (and it had stayed intact) and 2) access to nipple imagery was commonplace and 3) it had been an exposed male nipple.
• Double Standards:  Racism.  And why are only native people portrayed topless with their nipples brushed out (or never brushed in)?  Could they have instead done the Mike Myers thing where they hold up various potted plants or small woodland animals to hide the naughty bits?
• Extreme prudery.  If men’s visible nipples are perfectly acceptable in polite society (including YM/YW pool parties–you can’t airbrush actual nipples off an actual chest), why are they too obscene for Mormon BOM vids and temple murals featuring topless native people?  Other examples of male nipple prudery:
  • Rodin’s statue “The Kiss” was deemed too racy.
  • ZCMI attempted to censor be-nippled male mannequins and Tarzan comics.
  • The famed copy of David in the British Museum comes with a detachable fig leaf that could be used to cover his naughty bits when Victorian ladies came to the exhibit.  Nips were okay, though.  It takes a lot of prudery to out-prude the Victorians!
  • Chad Hardy’s calendar of shirtless missionaries could be added here, although the objection was more due to brand image rather than the male nipple per se.

Here are a few thoughts on the topic from various ends of the spectrum:

“While it wouldn’t be hard to come up with examples of Mormon literature that convey a sense of repressed or frustrated sexuality, rarely do we find Mormon artists and writers willing to celebrate the beauty of the naked body.”  Hugo Olaiz

“Michaelangelo’s David is a prototype of pornography.”  Orem high school sophomore at a Scorn Porn rally

““Don’t be paralyzed by prudery. Don’t fall into the opposite excess of pornography.”  Levi Peterson

Is this (pardon the expression) making a mountain out of a molehill or does the mere site of male nips send you into a frenzy of sin?  Discuss.

Is Pornography Adultery?

Coincidently, the following is excerpted from a post I wrote independent of the above article on my own blog two weeks ago (September 6), entitled “Becoming More Chaste in Thought and Deed“.

“Become more chaste in thought and deed” is taken from Matthew 5:27-28, which read thus:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

As I contemplate these verses, the first thing that jumps out at me is that Jesus appears to be doing two things in this statement. First, he is reinforcing the general prohibition against adultery included in the ancient Ten Commandments. Second, however, he is laying out the concept that we (as “living souls” – Genesis 2:7, 1 Thess. 5:23) truly are a combination of body and spirit – that something that affects one has a corresponding effect on the other. For those who think of our spirit as something incorporeal and formless, this might be confusing, but for those who envision our spirits as possessing real form and substance (of being “material” in some way) it makes sense to speak of influences on our spirits in the same manner that we understand influences on our physical bodies. It makes sense to speak of addictions to our spirit in the same way we speak of addictions to our physical bodies. Likewise, it makes sense to think of there being a real effect of “visualizing sexual activity”, just as there is a real effect of being involved “physically” with sexual activity.

In fact, I believe these verses go beyond a simple “analogy” or “comparison” between the two. I believe that Jesus is teaching in this passage the core concept that “spiritual activity” is actual “physical activity” – again, since our spirits are comprised of “real, actual” matter that simply is too “fine” to be discerned by our mortal eyes. (See D&C 131:7) I believe that Jesus is doing more than merely saying, “Don’t even look with lust, because that might lead to adultery in the flesh.” Rather, he is saying, “There is adultery of the flesh, and there is adultery of the spirit. BOTH are adultery in a truly “physical” way; both have real, physical effects; don’t commit either.”

What do you think? Is pornography adultery? If so, why? If not, why not – and what is it in relation to “sexual activity”?