Is porn addiction relevant in the ungodly?

[Beth]

Not sure whether to put this here or in sexuality. Feel free to move this if it is deemed this is the wrong forum to hold this discussion

I hear religious men lamenting over porn addiction or here of them recovering from it, but I wonder, is it really as bad an epidemic in the ungodly? I know people may watch a lot of porn, but does it consume a person that sees no sin in it the way it does a person who feels like it is a horrible sin controlling their lives?

Are heathens addicted to porn and seeking recovery or is it mainly a religious thing?

[Farren]

I went through a stage of excessive interest in porn and I feel it can be a problem but I think theres a very obvious alterior motive behnd using the language of addiction.

Recreational drugs and drug use have been demonized in many countries to the extent that anti-drug messages are often at odds with reality. Little distinciton is made between drug habits and drug dependencies. Similarly little distinction is made between drugs people habitually use mainly because they like the effect and drugs people habitually use because the nature of the drug is such that you feel life isn't worth living if you don't get a fix.

There's a massive amount of hysteria and, by extension, crappy reasoning associated with the issue of recreational drug use.

So its obvious when people talk about "porn addiction" they're trying to evoke the same kind of response to habitual porn use. Either that or they feel a similar unreasoning disgust for both porn and recreational drugs and consequently use the most emotive and negative (in thier lexicon) terms they can find.

I've used a lot of recreational drugs in my life and can say honestly today that I've never been addicted to one, with the unfortunate exception of the perfectly legal drug nicotene. I've gone through periods of excess, certainly, but every time I've reached a point where I decided "I just can't do this any more" I've stopped, without any difficulty. Even my mildly excessive use of alcohol which some here will no doubt recall (from many drunken screeds) came to a near complete halt a couple of months back when I got a 5 day a week job.

In trying to establish a clear meaning for the term "addiction", the most useful description I can come up with is that one feels compelled - pushed rather than attracted to - engaging in a particular habit. Its certainly a handy way of seperating addictive from habit-forming drugs. Every single grass smoker I've ever known can easily give up dope.

What I mean is, for instance, that if a dope smoker is going on holiday with someone they love and discover circumstances prohibit them from buying or smoking grass they'll go without it, without sweats, trembles or anything. Dope smoking is a habit, not an addiction. There's no compulsion, no push to smoke it. Its just a pleasurable sensation so people keep doing it. There are a tiny percentage of people who report withdrawal effects but given the vast number of people I've known who do or have smoked regularly I firmly believe that these are

a. extraordinary cases or
b. people who've been brainwashed by religion or some other system of thought into thinking they're "addicts" and consequently suffering psychosomatic symptoms as a product of ideas.

Similarly, equating excessive habitual pornography use with addiction (in the sense that heroin, nicotene and crack are addictive) is ludicrous on its face. Like bullshit messages about marijuana, it trivialises the problem of real addiction and creates a warped response to porn and masturbation. The "cures" effected from this kind of thinking will always be worse than the "diseases".

[HelenM]

Farren, it seems to me that you're using the word addiction to mean chemical dependency only. I've heard it used to describe other kinds of dependency, such as emotional dependency. Those who talk about porn addiction consider it an emotional dependency. Admittedly, I don't know how widespread the use of the word "addiction" to refer to non-chemical dependency is.

Helen

[lisarea]

People who call it addiction are just being histrionic. Addiction is a physical dependency, and people just plain do NOT get physically addicted to porn. It is, however, a compulsion, and a fairly common one. So, yes. I can absolutely see how someone might struggle with overcoming their compulsion regardless of religious belief, regardless of their perspectives on morality, etc. Compulsions, while not actual addictions, can become psychologically overwhelming for people who have them. It's not so much the object of the compulsion as the underlying reasons for it.

I know of a guy who had a debilitating compulsion to play Minesweeper. It actually put his job and his marriage at risk. People can and do develop compulsions around just about anything--sanitation, video games, gambling, porn, math, diet, day trading, crossword puzzles, needlework, or just about anything else. And porn does seem to be a pretty common compulsion among some people, probably partly because of cultural attitudes, but not entirely. So I can understand why it's singled out for attention.

The important difference between an addiction and a compulsion, IMO, lies in the fact that the compulsion is not unique to the compulsion itself but is a symptom of some underlying issue; whereas, if you're addicted to heroin, for example, that's at least largely due to the physically addictive properties of heroin. When you treat heroin addiction, you must address the 'heroin' aspect, at least in large part. You can't treat a compulsion that way, because the root of the problem is 'compulsion,' and porn or cross-stitching or whatever are just the symptoms.

So, even putting aside the fact that there are legitimate non-religious reasons that some people object to porn, the compulsion, like any compulsion, can become overwhelming, and can result in (I'm being careful not to say 'cause') behaviors that can do some serious damage. Lying, stealing, avoidance, etc. If 'porn addiction' is treated as an addiction, assuming that porn is responsible, the compulsive behavior is likely to just transfer to day trading or memorizing sports trivia or something.

Even if you consider porn as benign as handwashing, you can still recognize that, taken to their extremes, people who lie and steal to get porn and people who wash their hands until they bleed have a problem.

[HelenM]

Not sure whether to put this here or in sexuality. Feel free to move this if it is deemed this is the wrong forum to hold this discussion

I hear religious men lamenting over porn addiction or here of them recovering from it, but I wonder, is it really as bad an epidemic in the ungodly? I know people may watch a lot of porn, but does it consume a person that sees no sin in it the way it does a person who feels like it is a horrible sin controlling their lives?

Are heathens addicted to porn and seeking recovery or is it mainly a religious thing?

I can't comment specifically on your question, Beth, but I do think that it's helpful for both religious and non-religious people to consider whether their life includes "out-of-control" behaviors; i.e. ones they have a hard time saying no to, so they aren't strictly "voluntary". And if so, to take steps to bring them under their control rather than let themselves be controlled by the behavior. In my experience it takes some honesty to admit that a behavior controls me more than I control it. (What that means for me, usually, is that the behavior is what I do when stressed, upset, etc - and that I have a hard time dealing with those uncomfortable emotions in other ways)

The problem with dividing behavior simplistically into "this is sin" and "this is not sin" is that it won't help a Christian whose life is being controlled by something supposedly not sinful. It can even give them an excuse to do something that really isn't best for them, since it is on the "this is good" list instead of "this is sinful".

Sorry if I strayed too far off-topic with those comments... :P

Helen

[LadyShea]

I agree with Farren to a great extent, and have a bit of a problem with our society's tendency to label all kinds of things "addictions" and their motivations for doing so. In my opinion, the whole philososphy of addiction as a disease came about from the 12-step programs and their tenet that one has "no control" over one's detrimental behaviors.

I believe with things like porn, gambling, and sex, and even many drugs, being able to label oneself as "diseased" is a way to eschew personal responsibility for one's actions. I know many others disagree with me, but I kicked a year long crystal meth habit in one week on my own, and watched hubby kick a year long cocaine habit, something we shouldn't have been able to do without help if we were "diseased".

I still smoke cigarettes, but I do not blame the cigarette companies for misleading me, or blame the advertsing for enticing me (Joe Camel did not melt my brain!), or even blame the nicotine, it's all me. Millions have quit, I too can, I simply haven't had any detrimental affects to my life to motivate me. The speed abuse caused problems, the coke abuse caused hubby problems. We both said "Oh, the negatives outweigh the fun now, time to quit." And did so.

With porn, I think those with guilt about viewing it due to religious beliefs are quite relieved to be able to say it is out of their control, they can't help it, they have no responsibility because they have a disease. I also believe that the vast majority of treatment programs, 12-step specifically, play into that avoiding of responsibility. I mean let's get real, by what medical mechanism does one become unable to stop themselves from purchasing a video, going to a porn site, or buying a magazine? I have to assume it's like me with my smoking, and the pleasure they get from it still outweighs the negatives it causes in their minds.

I am willing to concede that consuming porn to such excess that it affects one's marriage, work, finances, etc. may be a symptom of some other mental illness, such as OCD or a manifestation of the escapism which is seen in depression, but simply cannot agree that it is an illness in and of itself.

[viscousmemories]

In trying to establish a clear meaning for the term "addiction", the most useful description I can come up with is that one feels compelled - pushed rather than attracted to - engaging in a particular habit. Its certainly a handy way of seperating addictive from habit-forming drugs. Every single grass smoker I've ever known can easily give up dope.
Hmm, I'm not sure contrasting compulsion and attraction is a very useful distinction when talking about the nature of addiction. Then again I don't see the distinction you're making between 'addictive' and 'habit-forming'. The more important issue is whether a person persists in a particular habit in the face of substantial negative consequences.

What I mean is, for instance, that if a dope smoker is going on holiday with someone they love and discover circumstances prohibit them from buying or smoking grass they'll go without it, without sweats, trembles or anything. Dope smoking is a habit, not an addiction. There's no compulsion, no push to smoke it. Its just a pleasurable sensation so people keep doing it.
As far as I know most health professionals agree with you that pot isn't physically addictive, but at the same time most do classify it as psychologically addictive, which is what I think you mean when you say 'habit-forming'. The thing is, while I agree that 'habit-forming' isn't necessarily a bad thing, it can be if it comes with significant negative side effects.

For example, alcohol is thought to be phsyically addictive. Many alcoholics are known to have physical withdrawl symptoms. However I never did. If you asked me, I didn't feel compelled to drink, I always drank because I was attracted to the idea of being drunk. I never had any phsyical withdrawl symptoms no matter how long I went without it, and I maintained that I could quit anytime I wanted. However I continued drinking even when the consequences of doing so were dramatically negative. As far as I'm concerned that's what belies the psychological addiction.

Can it happen with porn? Absolutely. I think anything done to excess (ie. to the point at which you choose to indulge it even at great cost to other areas of your life) can be characterized as an unhealthy addiction.

[HelenM]

People who call it addiction are just being histrionic. Addiction is a physical dependency, and people just plain do NOT get physically addicted to porn. It is, however, a compulsion, and a fairly common one. So, yes. I can absolutely see how someone might struggle with overcoming their compulsion regardless of religious belief, regardless of their perspectives on morality, etc. Compulsions, while not actual addictions, can become psychologically overwhelming for people who have them. It's not so much the object of the compulsion as the underlying reasons for it.

Indeed. Compulsion is perhaps a clearer word to use than addiction for what is not a chemical dependency.

I know of a guy who had a debilitating compulsion to play Minesweeper. It actually put his job and his marriage at risk. People can and do develop compulsions around just about anything--sanitation, video games, gambling, porn, math, diet, day trading, crossword puzzles, needlework, or just about anything else. And porn does seem to be a pretty common compulsion among some people, probably partly because of cultural attitudes, but not entirely. So I can understand why it's singled out for attention.

The important difference between an addiction and a compulsion, IMO, lies in the fact that the compulsion is not unique to the compulsion itself but is a symptom of some underlying issue; whereas, if you're addicted to heroin, for example, that's at least largely due to the physically addictive properties of heroin. When you treat heroin addiction, you must address the 'heroin' aspect, at least in large part. You can't treat a compulsion that way, because the root of the problem is 'compulsion,' and porn or cross-stitching or whatever are just the symptoms.

Agreed. Good point.

So, even putting aside the fact that there are legitimate non-religious reasons that some people object to porn, the compulsion, like any compulsion, can become overwhelming, and can result in (I'm being careful not to say 'cause') behaviors that can do some serious damage. Lying, stealing, avoidance, etc. If 'porn addiction' is treated as an addiction, assuming that porn is responsible, the compulsive behavior is likely to just transfer to day trading or memorizing sports trivia or something.

Yes; it's very likely to transfer unless the person learns a non-compulsive way to respond to whatever his compulsion was responding to.

Even if you consider porn as benign as handwashing, you can still recognize that, taken to their extremes, people who lie and steal to get porn and people who wash their hands until they bleed have a problem.

Exactly.

Helen

[LadyShea]

The more important issue is whether a person persists in a particular habit in the face of substantial negative consequences.

Very well said.

[viscousmemories]

Very well said
Thanks. :)

Btw I cross-posted with everyone with my first post. Basically I agree completely with lisarea, but in my years of experience under the 'tutelage' - so to speak - of mental health professionals, that particular brand of compulsion has always been referred to as psychological addiction.

[lisarea]

Well, now I done confused myself up by looking things up. I hate it when I do that.

This site (http://www.forwardingsite.com/health/illnesses/addiction.html) makes some interesting distinctions among addiction, dependency, habit, etc., that I wasn't aware of. It's pretty different, semantically, from what I've understood in the past. Makes sense, though.

They're arguing for psychological addiction, physical dependency, based in part on the argument that addiction is unjustly pejorative. I hadn't thought of this, but you can have a physical dependency that's not a bad thing. They cite painkillers for people with chronic pain. That could extend to SSRIs for people with chemical imbalances, maybe, too. That's a pretty compelling argument, I think.

They still make the distinction between physical and psychological dependencies/addictions, though, which is what I think is the most important aspect. I worry a little that the two will become conflated in public opinion, which all too often leads to weird and convoluted public policy.

Right now, I'm mostly concerned that the politically motivated call for research into 'porn addiction' is going to be just about as educational and enlightening as the last, and we'll end up with a new, improved Meese Commission, complete with heart-wrenching tales of porn-induced serial killing, correlation passed off as causation, and all that crap.

[Sweetie]

Farren, do you get enough praise around here? If not you should, you write some excellent posts.

I don't know that porn can become necessarily an addiction. I think some people can become obsessed, but then I think some people can become obsessed about anything, some of the more neurotic, if not one thing than another. I do, however, think it's fair to say that it can become a dependency and can be very unhealthy to some because it sets an expectation level which may be unrealistic, that's one reason.

With some religious people, it's as if holding porn as evil and following a structured sexual morality is equivalent to them of holding sex and pleasure as somewhat deserving of guilt. I don't think that either opinion is healthy.

A song to illustrate:


"I remember it well
The first time that I saw
Your head around the door
'Cause mine stopped working

I remember it well
There was wet in your hair
I was stood in the stairs
And time stopped moving

I want you here tonight
I want you here
'Cause I can't believe what I found
I want you here tonight
I want you here
Nothing is taking me down, down, down...

I remember it well
Taxied out of a storm
To watch you perform
And my ships were sailing

I remember it well
I was stood in your line
And your mouth, your mouth, your mind...

I want you here tonight
I want you here
'Cause I can't believe what I found
I want you here tonight
I want you here
Nothing is taking me down, down, down...

Except you my love. Except you my love...

Come all ye lost
Dive into moss
I hope that my sanity covers the cost
To remove the stain of my love
Paper maché

Come all ye reborn
Blow off my horn
I'm driving real hard
This is love, this is porn
God will forgive me
But I, I whip myself with scorn, scorn

I wanna hear what you have to say about me
Hear if you're gonna live without me
I wanna hear what you want
I remember december
And I wanna hear what you have to say about me
Hear if you're gonna live without me
I wanna hear what you want
What the hell do you want?"

"I Remember" - Damien Rice

Fucking song makes me sweat. :eek:

My point is the part where he says, "This is love, this is porn."

It seems that he associates the intensity of his feelings and the intensity of sex as being bad, and it's gone him all tied up in knots. He is saying that his love is pornographic, I get the impression that it makes him feel that there's something wrong with it. The relationship has him tied up in knots, the sex has him tied up in knots:

"Come all ye reborn
Blow off my horn
I'm driving real hard
This is love, this is porn
God will forgive me
But I, I whip myself with scorn, scorn"

But I wouldn't say that was because of the sex though he is maybe saying that "I, I shouldn't feel this way, I need to be forgiven and I whip myself with it", but because of the relationship:

"And I wanna hear what you have to say about me
Hear if you're gonna live without me
I wanna hear what you want
What the hell do you want?"

and yet, I think way too many people tie all these things up together so they are a bit fucked up when looking at sex itself, and can't seem to find where health is in all of it. Great sex can even induce the feeling of being intensely in love. I remember falling in love with my husband all over again, but I had already loved him for years, it was just nice to be reminded how great that love can be. In a healthy relationship, it just builds, it doesn't destroy so I just bask in it. :wink:

Is porn addiction relevent to the ungodly? I would just say that alot of people are a bit messed up about sex and being human, what is or is not healthy or conductive to the health and well-being, preservation of the whole person.

[godfry n. glad]

The more important issue is whether a person persists in a particular habit in the face of substantial negative consequences.

Very well said.

Indeed... This whole thread has been awesome.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

Thinking more about the OP: From what I understand, many religious people feel that viewing pornography at all is in itself spiritually damaging. So in that sense I would say that more religious people are likely to self-identify as suffering from "porn addiction", because in addition to the possible psychological, emotional and physical negative consequences of their compulsion, they believe there are inherent negative spiritual consequences as well.

[JoeP]

religious men lamenting over porn addiction
The nature of addiction vs habit vs dependency has been well discussed in this thread. I wanted to pick out the religious angle. Helen, I think you said something along these lines, but not this afair.

I get the impression from these religious men's laments that they have a different sense of personal responsibility for their interest in porn. Some will doubtless talk about it terms of demonic persuasion, but I don't think anyone concludes they're "innocent". Instead, porn is seen as particularly blameworthy - a sin not just against against law but against spirit, as at least someone in this long thread mentioned. That may contain some truth; indulging in porn with guilt is probably somehow damaging.

But it's treated as a temptation (that demonic thing) to be resisted for itself, not as part of a wider sexuality and mental state. It's as though by labelling it as an addiction which they must confront and resist they are able to ignore other issues (of communication, self-image, desire, and so on) which would be actually where the change would be needed. This is not constructive.

Maybe if they developed healthy communication and self-image, and were able to let go of impossible desires, and still enjoyed porn :yikes: , it would be OK?! (By the way, does the bible say anything about porn? And the LORD said, thou shalt not gaze upon graven images of thy neighbour's wife, neither of her cousin, neither of the rabbi's daughter, neither of the sheep of the field. I vaguely know the stuff about Onan. Or is porn sinful, in biblical terms, because of indirectly challenging commitments to marriage?)

joe

[LadyShea]

(By the way, does the bible say anything about porn?
joe


IIRC the Bible cautions against lust.

[seebs]

(Side note: Not all sexual desire is lust. This is a recorded message. Thanks.)

I don't know about "addiction". Compulsion, maybe. But... I think a lot of the compulsion is tied into the forbiddenness of it. I used to think porn was a big deal, and it was really attractive to me. Then I thought "Hey, wait. These are just pink pixels. These people could be long-dead for all I know. It's just pictures. The primate body I live in has hardwired responses to this. This is no more fundamentally interesting than sitting around tasting sugar because it's sweet." And now it's dull. If I'm browsing around, I might see some, but I don't care anymore, and I don't really seek it out. Why bother? It's just pink pixels. I've seen all those shades of pink before. Nothing is changing. The basic shape of a vulva is pretty much the same as it was last year.

I don't know whether this is just my brain, or whether it would work for other people too.

[viscousmemories]

I don't know whether this is just my brain, or whether it would work for other people too.
I'm pretty sure it's just you, freak. I know the average shape and color of a vulva too, but I never get tired of seeing 'em. Well okay I do ocassionally get tired of seeing 'em, but I usually bounce back within a day or so. :P

[Beth]

Thank you for your replies, everyone. I have been to busy to respond, I'm sorry.

The reason why I brought this up is because I see the people that predominately admit to porn addictions are religios men. I saw a very prominate sports figure just recently interviewed with his wife about his porn addiction. (If you ask me who the guy is, I will just look blankly because I rarely recognise sports figures unless my son obsessively mentions them.) I only saw a little bit of it, so I do not know if religion was behing his believing he was addicted to porn.

I am led to believe that guilt makes the action seem greater in one's life and the guilt may turn it into an obsession.

[Adora]

Personally: I believe addictions feed already-existent sicknesses/problems/issues. If someone is actually well-and-truly addicted to porn, in the sense they can't get turned on without it, then there's some deeper underlying issue that needs to be addressed as to why this is so.

However, those wowsers usually screaming about pornographic addiction are misinformed as to both the form and subject in pornography, and the functions of addiction. Which can easily be attributed to their religious convictions, most of the time.

[HelenM]

I am led to believe that guilt makes the action seem greater in one's life and the guilt may turn it into an obsession.

I would rather say it's emotional dependency which makes a behavior become compulsive and also makes it hard to give up; and non-religious people can be emotionally dependent on a behavior just as religious people can. Someone who is trying to give up a behavior they're emotionally dependent on will feel some despair and hopelessness if they do it anyway, even if they don't feel 'guilt' per se for engaging in it. And if a behavior which a person does to alleviate negative emotions also creates some - whether those include guilt or not - it sets up a cycle which is going to be very hard to break out of.

Also, the fewer other avenues of pleasure/distraction from unpleasant emotions a person has, the harder it will be for them to give up a behavior which 'self-medicates' them and/or makes them feel good, because the bigger emotional hole it will leave, if they try to eliminate it from their life. I think people who succeed in eliminating something they're emotionally dependent on from their lives do it by making other changes in their lives at the same time; those who just try to not do it without making other changes will find themselves sitting staring at the emotional hole left in their lives and will sooner or later return to the behavior to fill the hole. That's what I believe, anyway.

Helen

[Godless Dave]

I am led to believe that guilt makes the action seem greater in one's life and the guilt may turn it into an obsession.

That's what I think too, that more religious men talk about porn "addiction" because porn has a greater stigma for them than for us heathens.

Whether we call it compulsion or addiction, I suspect that there are non-religious men who feel compelled to look at porn, even if it's costing them too much money, taking too much time, or making their spouse very angry. But there are many more who enjoy porn but do not have a problem and do not feel guilty about it or face spousal/societal disapproval. But for those who have been led to believe that any amount of porn is bad it's probably harder to moderate because of the guilt feelings.

[Shaguar]

I am not sure that the type of chemical dependancies discussed can be put in the same bracket as a dependance on pornography. Sex could be classed as a basic animal need whereas drugs must surely be classed as an enhancement (or not) to life.

[livius drusus]

Pornography isn't sex, though. From what I understand, people who are said to be porn addicts actually replace sex with porn. That's one of the ways in which the compulsion can be damaging to personal relationships.

[Shaguar]

Marcus (livius Drusus seems so formal :D ) I would venture to suggest that some viewers of pornography do indulge in what they may term sex whilst viewing said pornography.

[Beth]

Pornography isn't sex, though. From what I understand, people who are said to be porn addicts actually replace sex with porn. That's one of the ways in which the compulsion can be damaging to personal relationships.
Well, I don't think people use this definition most of the time when they talk of being a porn addict.

Say, a guy is married, not so attracted to spouse anymore, so he looks at porn so he can get aroused to be able to preform. Some would say he is a porn addict, but I say that he and his wife should try to fix stuff or he should get unhitched. But, say, this guy sees what he is doing is a sin and he begins to let it torment him. Porn works for him and helps him function sexually, but he is committing a huge and perverse sin. He is filth, the porn is filth, he withdrawls from his wife further because he is ashamed by his filth and a real problem begins.

Say, there is a teenage boy. He is raging in his hormones, but must remain abstinate because sex is a sin. Or because he wants to wait till he finds the right girl, wants to be responsible and does not want to risk exposure to disease or getting a girl preggers. He is so freaking horny all of the time and comes across Daddy's porno, a friend gives him some, or he discovers nekkid girls online. He never saw a nekkid girl before, becomes consumed at this new discovery, combines this wicked act of looking at women, objectifying women as he might have been told, and the sin of masturbation because lusting after a woman is a sinful as fornicating because he thinks if he has sinned in his mind, he is guilty of that sin in reality. So he feels that he is addicted to porn because he is raging with hormones, wants some sort of female, but must settle for videos or stills to satisfy his desires.

Then there are men who seem to say they are addicted to porn because they pull a thing similar to that mayor in Chocolate did when he finally gave into temptation and overindulged. Because sexual things such as porn has to be resisted so horribly and sexual images abound everywhere in modern society and in the media, when he finally does break,he goes on some pornographic orgy.

These are all summations of online testimonials I have read about overcoming porn addiction. True, there are those who are compelled and obsess about porn, spend too much money on it and sex industry related things. As Helen said, they should work on making changes in their lives so they can take better control of their actions. But there are some that simply like porn and appreciate it the way I appreciate collecting my little graven images that I call porcelain dolls. I am very willing to spend good money on a beautiful doll, gorgeous clothes, or literature (I have over a thousand books on my shelves.). The people who might feel the same appreciation of porn are considered scum. I have met some of the porn obsessed and I consider them creepy because of the way I was treated by them, but then, there were some men who were open about their porn appreciation (knowledge via hubby or spouse) and they were nothing like what I would stereotypically think of a pornmonger.

I do think that if one acts on something they think is sinful or vile and perverse, they will place a greater importance on the action.

[Beth]

Helen, I appreciate your comments on emotional dependancy. It is true that everyone can be emotionally dependent. I was not trying to say that non-religious do not have those sort of problems and I apologize that my post might have implied that to you.

In reguard to porn, I know one person who rarely ever looked at porn but thought they were addicted to it because it caused his body to react and since men are stimulated visually, his reaction, in my mind is perfectly normal.

I don't think that every man who views porn has an emotional crutch but I do believe I can add to your post about emotional holes. I am sure there are men who replace a real human companion with things such as porn so that they do not need to have physical contact. Just like the net can often replace a person's social interaction with people IRL.

Anyway, I did not start this thread to bash religious people or to say they are flawed. I gathered the sport's player in question was religious because the way he used some words. Sometimes church people can speaked a churched language without ever mentioning God and I don't think that is a bad thing, it is just part of their certain culture. I also brought up this thread because I only ever hear about porn addiction from religious people.

[HelenM]

Helen, I appreciate your comments on emotional dependancy. It is true that everyone can be emotionally dependent. I was not trying to say that non-religious do not have those sort of problems and I apologize that my post might have implied that to you.

You don't need to apologize - I understood you to simply be asking questions about whether non-religious people have the same problems.

In reguard to porn, I know one person who rarely ever looked at porn but thought they were addicted to it because it caused his body to react and since men are stimulated visually, his reaction, in my mind is perfectly normal.

When I've heard Christians talk about this, they don't say it's wrong to be stimulated; they recognize that that's natural and so they focus rather on encouraging people to avoid the images, or not to dwell on them/fantasize about them if they've inadvertently seen some (or an attractive woman, etc).

I don't think that every man who views porn has an emotional crutch but I do believe I can add to your post about emotional holes. I am sure there are men who replace a real human companion with things such as porn so that they do not need to have physical contact. Just like the net can often replace a person's social interaction with people IRL.

Exactly.

Anyway, I did not start this thread to bash religious people or to say they are flawed.

I understand. I didn't think you did.

I gathered the sport's player in question was religious because the way he used some words. Sometimes church people can speaked a churched language without ever mentioning God and I don't think that is a bad thing, it is just part of their certain culture. I also brought up this thread because I only ever hear about porn addiction from religious people.

I can't recall whether I've heard it elsewhere or not; possibly not. I certainly have heard it from Christians because I listen to a Christian counseling call-in show whose host has written a number of books and holds seminars for men aimed at helping them overcome various sexual addictions.

Helen

[HelenM]

I am not sure that the type of chemical dependancies discussed can be put in the same bracket as a dependance on pornography. Sex could be classed as a basic animal need whereas drugs must surely be classed as an enhancement (or not) to life.

Sex is a need for the species, but not the individual. People don't die if they don't have sex. I'm not aware there's evidence that they even get sick without it.

Helen

[Godless Dave]

Sex is a need for the species, but not the individual. People don't die if they don't have sex. I'm not aware there's evidence that they even get sick without it.

Men are at higher risk for prostate cancer the less frequently they ejaculate. Which doesn't require sex, but does require sex-related stimulation of the mind and body.

All quibbling about the definition of addiction aside, I think people can become addicted to or dependent on the emotional rush and stimulation of viewing porn, just as people do with gambling, for example. I think the reason you don't hear much talk of it in secular circles is because it doesn't affect many people. I suspect it affects more people in fundy religious circles because of the stigma associated with it; I also suspect the term is applied to people in fundy circles who are not addicted to porn, they just like looking at it, because of the erroneous idea that any enjoyment of porn is bad.

Sort of like when I go to the doctor's office and they ask me if I smoke tobacco. I smoke two or three cigars a year; since there are only two options on the forms, "smoker" and "nonsmoker", I get classified in the same group as people who smoke a pack of cigarettes a day.

[HelenM]

Sex is a need for the species, but not the individual. People don't die if they don't have sex. I'm not aware there's evidence that they even get sick without it.

Men are at higher risk for prostate cancer the less frequently they ejaculate. Which doesn't require sex, but does require sex-related stimulation of the mind and body.

Evidently not all the researchers are certain enough to tell men to change their sexual habits:

However, whilst the findings are statistically significant, Leitzmann remains cautious. "I don't believe at this point our research would warrant suggesting men should alter their sexual behaviour in order to modify their risk."

A further caveat is that the benefit of ejaculation was less clear in relation to the most dangerous, metastasising form of prostate cancer, compared to the organ-confined or slow-growing types.

from Frequent ejaculation may protect against cancer
(http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994861)

Helen

[Desert Dweller]

I've never been inside a porn site.

My observation is that addictive tendencies can shift pretty easily. eg when smoking was prohibited in places of work, public buildings etc there was a definite rise in the numbers of people seeking counselling for 'sex addiction'. This rise co-incided with the prohibition on smoking. This would lend one to imagine that it is the underlying problem and not the substance/activity.

The men I know who use porn are not in loving relationships. Chicken and egg...did they go to porn because or did the porn prevent relating. Again based on observing men I know I'd guess that porn can deaden sensitivity and also make it difficult to create a loving relationship because ordinary people (while they might enjoy experimenting to keep sex alive) cannot live up to the fanasy of porn.

if inded it turns out that it does deaden sensitivity and does make ordinary relating more difficult then I'd say it's relevant to the ungodly, although recent history (Church abuses exposed) might also suggest that there's more guilt problems for the godly.

[godfry n. glad]

I've never been inside a porn site.

My observation is that addictive tendencies can shift pretty easily. eg when smoking was prohibited in places of work, public buildings etc there was a definite rise in the numbers of people seeking counselling for 'sex addiction'. This rise co-incided with the prohibition on smoking. This would lend one to imagine that it is the underlying problem and not the substance/activity.

Causal relationship or serendipity? Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.

The men I know who use porn are not in loving relationships. Chicken and egg...did they go to porn because or did the porn prevent relating. Again based on observing men I know I'd guess that porn can deaden sensitivity and also make it difficult to create a loving relationship because ordinary people (while they might enjoy experimenting to keep sex alive) cannot live up to the fanasy of porn.

First, I view the "chicken and egg" aphorism rather the opposite than most, because if an issue is "chicken and egg", then it's clear as to which element has chronological priority...the "egg".

I rather agree with Leonard Shlain's view here. As I understand it, the male of the species is imbued with a high level of male hormone production which assures that his sexual receptivity is always "on" to some degree. That the male is then placed in a society where the female sexual signals are not punctuated in a cyclic episodes of estral receptivity, but partially hidden and spread over a longer period of time, gives rise to what we often refer to as "sexual tension". Indeed, the female of the species is somewhat buffered sexually receptive state nearly 100% of the time, as well.

The male is "on" almost all the time, and in order to satiate the desire driven by the hormones to procreate, must negotiate with a female to actually engage in the behavior he so desires. But the female of the species, once cognizant of the potentials of the procreative act for her, seeks to protect herself by limiting access in search of an assurance of responsibility in the event of impregnation.

Porn, and prostitution, are means by which male humans may obtain sexual release without relationship obligation.

if inded it turns out that it does deaden sensitivity and does make ordinary relating more difficult then I'd say it's relevant to the ungodly, although recent history (Church abuses exposed) might also suggest that there's more guilt problems for the godly.

Is there any evidence that porn use "deadens sensitivity"? I'd think there would be some kind of studies to assess the affect of porn on relationships.

godfry

[Desert Dweller]

The male is "on" Oh well that settles it then. We, males are mere machines driven by testosterone and can't help outselves and when a female thinks it better she doesn't risk pregnancy and being left alone (ie says no) then we can't help outselves, we need porn. What a load of hogwash.

Godfrey, if you wait for Studies to show you everything in life then when do you observe and think for youself? I don't need some twit twisting statistics to tell me that the men I've known who regularly use porn do not have relationships.
For a start I notice they tend to objectify women.
Also I don't need a Kinsey report to tell me that ordinary people can't live up to the fantasy of porn. so to porn habituees regular love making must seem rather boring and unstimulating.

I enjoy erotica usually in the written form (Anais Ninn etc) and find porn to be dehumanising and distasteful because those who talk about it do not inspire me with any warmth or sensitivity but mere low level, instictive pleasure...no wonder some think it addictive...such relfex pleasure would indeed appear to require more and weirder stimulus.

[LadyShea]

I've never been inside a porn site.

My observation is that addictive tendencies can shift pretty easily. eg when smoking was prohibited in places of work, public buildings etc there was a definite rise in the numbers of people seeking counselling for 'sex addiction'. This rise co-incided with the prohibition on smoking. This would lend one to imagine that it is the underlying problem and not the substance/activity.

Do you have a source for this information (no I am not being pedantic I just want to read about it. I believe wholeheartedly that many people replace compulsions and addicitions)?

The men I know who use porn are not in loving relationships. Chicken and egg...did they go to porn because or did the porn prevent relating. Again based on observing men I know I'd guess that porn can deaden sensitivity and also make it difficult to create a loving relationship because ordinary people (while they might enjoy experimenting to keep sex alive) cannot live up to the fanasy of porn.

Most people know that porn is not realistic. Only very young and inexperienced people, in my experience, expect people to "live up to" porn.

[Desert Dweller]

Most people know that porn is not realistic
Tell that to the nervous system.

Do you have a source for this information As I wrote it was my observation gained while talking to people in the field who were intrigued by the dramatic increase in one form and the decline in the other. As service providers they had to adjust their work from tobacco to sex.

Generally I don't pay too much attention to academic reports. Particularly when it comes to human behaviour. I think the last study I put attention into was a Swiss study which suggested that having breast milk was good for a baby's immune system. It's exactly that sort of nonsense that has driven me away from reductionist science (except in mechanics) and another is the use of researchers to provide the results required. I deal with what's in front of me and when a lot of people who were formerly smokers now turn up with sex problems it suggests to me that the addictive tendency isn't too fussy about the medium.

[LadyShea]

Most people know that porn is not realistic
Tell that to the nervous system.

?? I simply mean most men do not expect women to moan and pant when you merely touch their breasts or whatever even though that's what is depicted in much mainstream porn

As I wrote it was my observation gained while talking to people in the field who were intrigued by the dramatic increase in one form and the decline in the other. As service providers they had to adjust their work from tobacco to sex.

People in what field? Providers of what service? Psychologists or addiction counselors or something?

Can you please try to be more specific so I don't have to pepper you with questions, that might help us communicate.

Generally I don't pay too much attention to academic reports. Particularly when it comes to human behaviour. I think the last study I put attention into was a Swiss study which suggested that having breast milk was good for a baby's immune system. It's exactly that sort of nonsense that has driven me away from reductionist science (except in mechanics) and another is the use of researchers to provide the results required.

Um, what is nonsensical about breast milk helping with immune system development?
I deal with what's in front of me and when a lot of people who were formerly smokers now turn up with sex problems it suggests to me that the addictive tendency isn't too fussy about the medium.

But where do you encounter these poeple? How do you know "a lot of former smokers turned up with sex problems"? Do you see the need to include SOMETHING, otherwise we are just expected to accept your anecdotes as representative of all people everywhere.

[Godless Dave]

I think the last study I put attention into was a Swiss study which suggested that having breast milk was good for a baby's immune system.

I'm pretty sure there has been more than one study supporting that conclusion.

[Dingfod]

I think someone has no idea of how many married men are also into porn and masturbation, some of them even happily married.

An old line: "There are two kinds of men, those that masturbate and those that lie about it."

Helen is right though, humans don't need sex, they won't get sick or die if they don't get it. I've even heard that some artists believe that total abstinence leads to more creativity. I suppose I'll never actually know if that is true or not.

[Dingfod]

I think the last study I put attention into was a Swiss study which suggested that having breast milk was good for a baby's immune system.

I'm pretty sure there has been more than one study supporting that conclusion.About 20 studies. (http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/health.asp)

[Desert Dweller]

Psychologists or addiction counselors Yes. See you understiid quite well enough.
Um, what is nonsensical about breast milk helping with immune system development?
I'm pretty sure there has been more than one study supporting that conclusion.
About 20 studies.
YES, that's the point... breastfeeding isn't nonsensical....having to have people waste resources to tell us something called common sense is. So much modern science is of this ilk. It just isn't necessary. People have forgotten how to be human and now we even need a bloody diagram on a milk carton to tell us how to open it!!!!!! We (humanilty) don't need these studies and they do nothing for my disregard for the scientific process).

your anecdotes as representative of all people everywhere. Well that's silly...making it universal. It turned up at a training intensive..talking with counsellors from different parts of the country...finding that the experience was not just in one area....led us to discuss the elasticity of addiction...and that it was the underlying problem which needed addressing not the particular addiction itself (although many become self-harming so I don't mean we didn't care about the form of the addiction). That's it...if you're interested...start a study....
I use what works and I don't care where it comes from . Despite the mocking of Mindell (so easy to mock that which is new and a little different) his work has given me some important insights and methods which work very well. As long as they work I don't give a damn if the guy hangs upside down in a bat cape. If they don't work then I don't care how much (academic) authority lies behind them , I toss them out of my took-kit.

It ought to be obvious by now that beyond mechanics I find Science "as repressive today as the Church was in medaeval times." I don't know how to be more clear....I'm not interested in studies and pseudo science ...for that's what it is when it pretends to research humans. There is a new paradigm emerging for the study of ourselves and I subscribe to that and if something is useful to people then I don't poo hoo it out of hand because it's not endorsed by Whitehead, or Popper.

[Adora]

Heh, I think I like this guy. *offers onthedole cookies*

[Godless Dave]

YES, that's the point... breastfeeding isn't nonsensical....having to have people waste resources to tell us something called common sense is.

So because it's common sense that breastfeeding is a good idea, it's useless to study the physical benefits of breastfeeding? Is that what you're trying to say? If so it's the craziest thing I've heard all week.

[Desert Dweller]

Is that what you're trying to say? If so it's the craziest thing I've heard all week.
Well Godless Dave I pity you. You would appear to have lost touch (and you're not alone let's face it) with what being human means. And if you need to go around studying or waiting for others to publish nonsense for its own sake then go for it.
Heavens how did homo sapiens manage to survive without the Western Scientific Experimental Method and it's damned statistics?
Once upon a time there was human wisdom. We've all but lost it now and the world shows the resulting madness.

*offers onthedole cookies* Sorry Adora...may have been some sort of compliment (and god only knows I need a few) but I don't get your statement.

[Godless Dave]

Human wisdom and scientific inquiry are not mutually exclusive; often they are complementary.

Part of being human is having a brain and using it.

[Godless Dave]

Heavens how did homo sapiens manage to survive without the Western Scientific Experimental Method and it's damned statistics?

With a 30 year average life span before the advent of modern medicine.

Once upon a time there was human wisdom. We've all but lost it now and the world shows the resulting madness.

If you think the world is any madder now than it was before modern science was developed, I suggest you aquaint yourself with world history.

[Desert Dweller]

Part of being human is having a brain and using it.
exactly...so use it and don't wait around for some twit to have it published before you take action. I mean really! Mothers, so you seem to be saying, needed to be told that what they were doing was good? How bent is that?

[Dingfod]

There has been a significant trend in the past several decades toward bottle-feeding all over the world, no doubt driven by the increase in women working outside the home. People study that sort of shit to see if that is beneficial or detrimental. Study after study shows that breastfeeding is most beneficial. Women already "know" what they need to do? Well, someone was buying all that baby formula and it wasn't the babies.

[Godless Dave]

exactly...so use it and don't wait around for some twit to have it published before you take action.

When did I ever advocate anything like that?

I mean really! Mothers, so you seem to be saying, needed to be told that what they were doing was good?

I am saying nothing of the kind.

[Godless Dave]

There has been a significant trend in the past several decades toward bottle-feeding all over the world, no doubt driven by the increase in women working outside the home.

And also driven by the baby-formula industry. Studies such as the one onthedole is criticizing are useful in countering the marketing strategies of corporations who have a vested interest in discouraging breast feeding.

[Desert Dweller]

no doubt driven by the increase in women working outside the home. So why not study that phenomena if , and I'd agree, it is the main cause of using formula?

But never mind, next I'll see reports telling farmers that rain is good for their land (well many are turning to zero grazing) and sunshine and fresh air is good for people's wellbeing (too many are cooped up all day in artificial buildings,light and air con); and not forgetting of course the influential study(at a cost of countless dollars) telling us that war is bad for people (too many seem to be indulging in war these days).

But back to topic:-

Porn is such a new phenomenon (online that is) that I'm not aware of any latter day Kinsey's studying resultant behaviours. So meantime I'll use common sense and my own feed-back which so far suggests that aside from
teenagers experimenting for fun, those who make a habit of it tend to have problems, be they godly or not.
I'd image a reasonable test might be something like: Ask women if they would like to have partners who habitually watch porn (or in the terms of the OP , an addiction). Personally I don't need to wait for the results, I know what most women will say.
Another would be (perhaps in parallel) to see how many 'addicts' maintain healthy long-term relationships.

[Beth]

Are you trying to imply that everyone who looks at porn are addicts?

[Desert Dweller]

Are you trying to imply that everyone who looks at porn are addicts? If this is directed at the post above this question the answer is no.
The post was taking the OP expression "porn addiction".

Why are you worried? What have you been looking at? Didn't anyone tell you that such sites can do nasty things to your computer, like download diallers, adware, pop-ups.....?

[Beth]

Why are you worried? What have you been looking at? Didn't anyone tell you that such sites can do nasty things to your computer, like download diallers, adware, pop-ups.....?Why am I worried? What the hell kind of question is that? Is it a baiting one, a smart ass one? I am trying to make sense of what you are saying here because you are not articulating yourself well.

You are spouting such nonsense, in all honesty. Taking about research being nonsense. There are some areas of research that is rubbish, but behavioral studies are not. They help us better treat people with behavioral problems, including those who are in addictive or compulsive behaviors.

Health studies on breast milk are also important. It can be a tough decision to decide whether to nurse or to bottle feed. Bottle feeding lessens the burden of care of the infant on the mother, so it is helpful for the mother to determine if the benefits to her child outweigh the benefits of her freedom to herself. Not to mention the fact that breast feeding can be painful. Is the bonding and health benefits worth sitting there for an hour crying or wincing because of the pain?

If people want to look at porn sites, there are firewalls and ways to eliminate or reduce the amount of spyware that goes into your system.

[SharonDee]

Ask women if they would like to have partners who habitually watch porn (or in the terms of the OP , an addiction). Personally I don't need to wait for the results, I know what most women will say.

Do you? Please share what you "know" most women will say. Most women here? Most women in the US? Most women in the west? Most religious women? Most nonreligious women?

I'm curious.

[Goliath]

Ask women if they would like to have partners who habitually watch porn (or in the terms of the OP , an addiction). Personally I don't need to wait for the results, I know what most women will say.

Do you? Please share what you "know" most women will say. Most women here? Most women in the US? Most women in the west? Most religious women? Most nonreligious women?

I'm curious.

As am I.

[Farren]

onthedole, with respect, your views on this thread smack of a very narrow view of the human experience.

For a start, your reply to Beth implied that you feel her motive in questioning your views is the defensive reaction of a habitual porn user. That in turn implies that you believe no reasonable person can see habitual porn use as a good thing so any stated views to the contrary must be the embarrased defence of a guilty pleasure. Perhaps it was misplaced jest, but you comments about spyware and porn sites seem both childish and ill-informed. There are spyware-free, safe sources of porn both on and off of the internet.

I also notice that you avoided responding to some very succint replies to what seems like all-too-familiar fluffy new-age anti-scientism to me. In response to your rhetorical question of how the human race survived this long without science, GD rightly pointed out that they didn't survive awfully well. Would you prefer to live in a society plagued by the Black Death, or one where there's a 50% chance of death during childbirth? This kind of anti-science posturing is laughable on its face.

The first glimmerings of the modern scientific method are over 3000 years old. In order to answer your rhetoric (were it taken seriously), one would have to examine prehistory and an examination of the tenuous, often brutal existence of foraging pack animals in the wild convinces me that I'm considerably better off than many of my prehistorical ancestors.

Here's a clue: We don't need science to survive. No-one here has made that claim. But it has considerable capacity to enhance our experience.

And do you honestly believe that all of the right behaviour in life is blindingly obvious to us? That we spring from the womb equipped to make sensible choices at every turn? Its not science that makes people murder their lovers, beat their children, drink and drive, commit suicide, go to war with other nations and so on and so on. Many of our most innate instincts betray us.

Science assists us in making well-informed choices. The very manner in which it is done prescribes it from addressing all of the issues we're faced with and it would be foolish to place all one's faith in science, but rejecting it in its entirety and attempting to proscribe it from consideration seems absurd, especially on an Internet message board.

Back on topic, I also take issue with some of your hidden presumptions. I look at porn reasonably regularly (every few days) and do not have a committed relationship. You may feel this vindicates your position but that would only be because you're blind to other possibilities which also fit the facts.

Over the last five years I've outright avoided relationships for a variety of reasons. One of the foremost among them is that of the six relationships I've had, 4 women expected me to severely curtail my friendships with other people. Of the two that did not, one made a concerted effort before coming round to my view on the issue. The former lover in question still calls me two or three times a year and has me over for dinner with her hubby and kids i what has become an annual tradition. We parted for a variety of reasons unrelated to the denial of selfish love (in fact it was more because of having enough love to recognise we could find other, better suited partners)

My personal philosophy is that I will not ever circumscribe my love for one individual for the sake of another individual and I love my friends dearly, each and every one of them. I still love and respect every single woman I've dated and have never parted on bad terms (some I'm still good friends with). While it has caused short-term flare-ups, its stood me in good stead. I don't have a single person in the world I call an enemy to nor, to the best of my knowlege, does anyone consider me an enemy.

However, I recognise the family-building instincts in human beings that lead to the selfish aspects of romantic love and have come to see them as fairly unavoidable, unless I'm lucky enough to meet an individual with the (what appear to be) extreme philosophies I hold on life. I've come to appreciate why monks and nuns of many faiths and philosophies seek enlightment alone. It certainly frees you up in some respects and allows desired development along certain axes that is more difficult with a partner. I'm not saying having a committed partner doesn't have other benefits, just that the converse has benefits sought by some.

Reading this you might be thinking "but that's how we're meant to behave. It's what we were designed to do" but that would just be the naturalistic fallacy rearing its fallacious head again. There's no self-evident design in our behaviour, no inherent ought. In fact, one of the glorious things about the humanity we find ourselves with is that we appear to have the capacity to override selected instincts, to redesign ourselves with net positive consequences.

Finding myself partnerless, horny, averse to one-night stands and possessing ready access to material that sexually stimulates me, I naturally use it for entertainment from time to time. But its a consequence of avoiding relationships, not a cause for the lack thereof. Similarly, you'll probably find that the individuals you mention who are regular porn users and not in committed relationships have either

a) been frustrated in their attempts to acquire sex and so must settle for a simulcrum in the form of porn
b) consciously decided that committed relationships are too much effort or have down-sides and so regularly use porn
c) find the sex they're getting inadequate in the relationships they have and therefore use porn, with the consequence that their partners, who have prejudices as you appear to, terminate their relationships

Then of course there's the question of who you mingle with and who you get to observe. Lets not forget that someone living in a particular period of French history could note a positive correlation between the showing of ankles and the general decline of marriage in gay Paree. But that would be entirely as a result of their prejudices and failure to recognise the difficulty independently minded women might have pleasing tradition-bound men in changing times.

My brother and sister-in-law for instance, freely admit - no - proclaim. Loudly. In any company. that they regularly watch porn together because they both find it stimulating. It's a shared pleasure.

Do I sexually objectify women because of my use of porn? Ha! No. Not a chance. Half of my good friends are women. My childhood friend and former business partner has no issue with me and his wife going out on the town because he's ten years her senior and doesn't enjoy parties any more - and because he knows we're good friends quite aside from my friendship with him. I went to India with another woman friend to study Oracle and we shared a hotel bed without sex for a month. I'm dead comfortable with women as friends and intellectual equals and that sense of comfort is reciprocated.

It doesn't mean I don't consider them sexually from time to time, but that's healthy. There's no shame in saying "damn, you look sexy today" to a friend. Hell, I say it to male friends, having overcome this stupid guy thing about not appraising the attractiveness of your own sex. In fact, its liberating to talk about it without fear of social censure. I recall sitting in a Jacuzzi once with a friend's girlfriend (a ramp model) kneeling next to the Jacuzzi and chatting to me. I couldn't help looking straight down her bust and was obviously distracted so she said "are my boobs distracting you" and I said yes and she went inside, put on a shawl and came out to carry on chatting.

So there you have it. Regular use of porn does not make you a drooling troll-like creature who is awkward around women because you're constantly mentally undressing them. Some couples enjoy porn together. Some men enjoy porn immensely and talk about it overtly and have perfectly swimming friendships with women.

Porn is a relatively new thing and there's a predictable backlash that can easily account for a large portion of the phenomenon you've observed. But such observations can clearly be accounted for because of that backlash. I've no doubt that there are many obsessive people who take an excessive and unhealthy interest in it that tarnishes their sexual prospects. There are obsessive people who are committed to lunatic asylums because their excessive desire to wash their hands until they are bloody and raw renders them non functional.

But I think your characterisation of all regular porn use being problematic is nothing more that restricted exposure to alternative lifestyles and your rhetorical questioning of the likelihood of a woman seeking out a man who uses pornography regularly is simply an appeal to the widespread nature of that prejudice in contemporary society, not some self-evident "common sense".

[dave_a]

onthedole, with respect, your views on this thread smack of a very narrow view of the human experience.
<snip>
But I think your characterisation of all regular porn use being problematic is nothing more that restricted exposure to alternative lifestyles and your rhetorical questioning of the likelihood of a woman seeking out a man who uses pornography regularly is simply an appeal to the widespread nature of that prejudice in contemporary society, not some self-evident "common sense".

Well, to play devil's advocate, he did say "Ask women if they would like to have partners who habitually watch porn (or in the terms of the OP , an addiction). Personally I don't need to wait for the results, I know what most women will say."

When you say "...is simply an appeal to the widespread nature of that prejudice in contemporary society" you do appear to be in agreement with his assertion.

[Farren]

onthedole, with respect, your views on this thread smack of a very narrow view of the human experience.
<snip>
But I think your characterisation of all regular porn use being problematic is nothing more that restricted exposure to alternative lifestyles and your rhetorical questioning of the likelihood of a woman seeking out a man who uses pornography regularly is simply an appeal to the widespread nature of that prejudice in contemporary society, not some self-evident "common sense".

Well, to play devil's advocate, he did say "Ask women if they would like to have partners who habitually watch porn (or in the terms of the OP , an addiction). Personally I don't need to wait for the results, I know what most women will say."

When you say "...is simply an appeal to the widespread nature of that prejudice in contemporary society" you do appear to be in agreement with his assertion.

I'm assuming a subtext from the generally disaproving tone of onthedole's posts and responding to that. In the context of preceding and later posts and the frequent employment of rhetorical questions rather than direct statements, I presume the "simple test" is meant, in onthedole's mind, to signify some self evident problems with habitual porn use rather than cultural inertia.

[lisarea]

I can see your perspective, onthedole, and it does make sense. Thing is, it's the generalizing that makes it break down, IMO.

Everyone is different. Your generalizing your own attitude is, to me, no different from swingers calling monogamous couples uptight and insecure. Both are entirely subjective and personalized attitudes being justified with sweeping generalizations. Different people just have different perspectives on monogamy and different standards for their own relationships, and each couple has to work those issues out for themselves, which usually involves some degree of compromise.

Now, if your perspective on anything falls far outside the mainstream, it's probably going to be more difficult for you to find a partner whose views on certain fundamental issues mesh closely enough with yours to be compatible. This includes views on both ends of the spectrum. So you may be right that most women would prefer their partners not look at porn. (I don't know, but I'll assume it for the sake of argument.) Does that mean that men shouldn't look at porn? No. Not unless it's something they don't want to do, or something that is unimportant enough for them to include it in a compromise.

The way I see it, unless there's some horribly egregious double standards going on, I'm not all that interested in what agreements other people come to. I'm really stretching, too, to imagine why I might care. I mean, I guess if some coworker's wife decided he wasn't allowed to go on business trips with me, that'd piss me off. And I do get a little pissed when I see couples where one is really walking all over the other. But as long as the agreements are mutual and respectful, I honestly don't care what makes other couples happy and fulfilled, and I don't believe that my own perspectives on those issues have any relevance to anyone but me and that one guy out in the living room.

[Desert Dweller]

OK, I've been told.... :eek: so I will pull back and reconsider. I thought it was ok to offer ones' opinions...that this was what the forum is all about.
My reaction to scientism is that of a minority...because I have to yell so much just to be heard, I admit it can make my position difficult.(Which is why I said earlier I envy the position of science..the establishment..it's such an easy viewpoint to hold) Until one really gets into the topic it's difficult to explain to anyone how deeply scientism rules so many prejudices and permits untested assumptions to continue which in turn affect so many decisions (eg Govt uses scientific evidence for forestry clearance in this country...so ancient trees go to Japan as wood chip for toilet paper.)

I admitted at the outset that I've not watched porn....so I accept my ignrorance...I will continue to not watch it as it, at best seems to me to stimulate a relflex action and this is low level experience.

At least I've provided a patsy for many of you to respond to and this would appear to have opened up the thread a little.

As far as a definition of 'bottom of the heap' well I feel so shot down over that one that I will keep my thoughts to myself except to say the response is typical of the superior tone scientism takes with any other form of thinking.
For the record Mindell was first a physicist...and to dismiss his work out of hand is foolish...I'm thinking of a wonderful quote from Whitehead about the dismissal of evidence but it just wont come and my books are in storage.

very narrow view of the human experience. maybe you're right...how does one evaluate these things? For over a decade I've worked with men in difficulty and find there is little, if anything which can shock me.So I don't think I'm narrow minded or judgemental.

I've expressed minority opinions and you've all largely agreed to dismiss my views. I say porn is a sign of decadence, not as some fundie or religionist, but as a person capable of making up my own mind. I would rather read the Story of O, or any of the beautifully written erotic stories available.

As far as all the girls who've questioned my position re what girls think of a partner who habitually uses porn, I take it that they disagree. Well the mind boggles...seems that males are 'dirty old men' but it's all ok for the girls.

Now I'll go off and have a nice cup of tea and rebuild my strength for my next challenge to the scientism-people.

[Desert Dweller]

A simple question for Goliath, SharonDee and Beth. You've just learned that your partner is a 'porn addict'.
How do you feel?

[Dingfod]

For the record Mindell was first a physicist...and to dismiss his work out of hand is foolish...I'm thinking of a wonderful quote from Whitehead about the dismissal of evidence but it just wont come and my books are in storage.You still have not presented any evidence to dismiss, only contentions and conjectures. The dearth of critical analysis or even the writings of Mindell on the internet should speak volumes about how seriously he is considered by his professional peers, but, since I don't believe a lack of evidence is evidence of anything, I reserve judgement until which time I've actually seen some evidence. That doesn't stop me from asking over and over again for the evidence.

Farren forgot one other option:
d) Person wishes to maintain sexual relationship with a person that physically repulses them and uses porn to inspire fantasies.

[Goliath]

A simple question for Goliath, SharonDee and Beth. You've just learned that your partner is a 'porn addict'.
How do you feel?

I'd wonder what kind of porn she liked, and I'd probably view it with her.

Why do you ask?

[Godless Dave]

(eg Govt uses scientific evidence for forestry clearance in this country...so ancient trees go to Japan as wood chip for toilet paper.)

You have that backwards. The US Govt. often ignores scientific evidence when formulating forestry policy.

[Desert Dweller]

The US Govt. I'm DownUnder...referring to magnificent Tasmansian Forests.

[Farren]

OK, I've been told.... :eek: so I will pull back and reconsider. I thought it was ok to offer ones' opinions...that this was what the forum is all about.

If this was in response to my loquacious post please forgive the lecturing tone :) I understand that your standpoint is probably the result of a distaste for something you consider disrespectful to people, which is a noble motive even if I personally think its misplaced. Please don't feel restrained in what you post just because the response is spirited.

I realise it was probably wrong to call you narrow-minded and fluffy, but that was in part a knee-jerk reaction to the matronly and presumptive tone of some of your posts :

Inasmuch as the regular use of pornography is a pursuit of short-term pleasure, is often solitary and can condition someone to have unrealistic sexual expectations, I can see why you might intuit that it is "unhealthy" and "unnatural". I just think the rationalisation you provided to express that intuition was shallow and lacking in subtlety. As Lisarea has indicated, there are a lot of generalities in your stated opinion. The distinction between "All instances of X are bad" and "Given the following circumstances and considerations, X can have a deleterious effect" is quite significant.

The thing is, very few people in industrialised nations still have the luxury of living close to nature. Whether you rage against it or not, a large part of our experience is entirely self-invented and often at odds with instincts adapted to more primitive circumstances. The pace of office life is unnatural in this sense. The conditioned air of offices is unnatural. The artificial light by which we read our books late at night is unnatural. Tearing along roads at speeds humans are not physically adapted to (in terms of reactions and so on) is unnatural.

The reason I raise this is that your comments on both science and sex give me the impression that you have a general mindset that I recognise because of feeling much the same way about certain things at various stages of my life and living and working with bohemians of the activist stripe in the past. So I'm assuming that you place great stock in mother nature's ability to supply us with all the answers if we only have the eyes to see and that you feel some behaviour is an affront to the natural order of things and must, therefore, have negative consequences.

[Desert Dweller]

Some insightful comments; and yes, you are right in as much as I've lived in the bush (the country side - but generally a little more wild than say European countryside) for many years now. it's very rare for me to go to a city, maybe once a year to see the kids. I once had a suit and worked in the city but couldn't take it...as you said Farren, I prefer more real (as distinct from cultural or artificial) atmoshpere around me.

For the last few years I've been on my own and would love to have a close partner; however that's not the case. Still, visiting a porn site is not so much distasteful as it is a sign of decadence. I mean by that, that the existence of this industry (taking up apparently some 60% of www volume and sales) along with other criteria (mass migration, return of slavery, concentration of the ruling group, distance between food production and consumption...) forms part of the criteria for civilisational ruin. It may be applied to any civilisational decline.

For instance, post WW2 archeology has uncovered the period ending around 1500 BC. Pottery shards, murals, designs exist which illustrate that any sexual combination you can imagine has been done already. There is nothing new except the media by which it is now delivered.

Therefore I feel there is nothing else I can do but oppose this exploitative industry in any way possible. (I'm not a moralist BTW, nor do I belong or subscribe to any religious or other group). If it is really just another urban artificiality then why isn't it run by local women....in this country they have their own shops where the girls can try out costumes and play with toys....
and why is it the domain of large and powerful corporations. If it really is harmless and good for urbanites let the girls run local shows. See if it become s the new suburban fad...like a tuppaware except its a porn night (not the lingerie nights which alread exist) . .. I can see the ad. "a little porn'll do ya"
For myself I will avoid it and when I am lucky enough to meet another partner then our mutual consent will lead us where our intimacy can go.

[Adora]

Sorry Adora...may have been some sort of compliment (and god only knows I need a few) but I don't get your statement.
I just meant I liked your thinking in regards to the answers-in-"scientific-discoveries discussion. But I'm weird like that.

Well, someone was buying all that baby formula and it wasn't the babies.
Just as with modern Majority World countries rise in using Nestle baby formulas, can we say "advertising lies"? I mean, c'mon. Even now advertising for things like chocolate-coated cereal and malt-and-sugar drinks have taglines like "Contains 1/3 daily XYZ vitamins and minerals", like it somehow makes up for all the other diabetes-inducing shit it does contain. The Nestle example is how they've both been upping the advertising in many Majority World countries, and adding their product to "human aid" supplies to widen distribution, without regard for the fact that to make the formula, you need water, and the risks for many of the people it's being distributed to of catching a life threatening disease from said water supplies is high. How about those funny old B & W ads that had a "credible doctor" in a white jacket "Research shows smoking is actually good for your health!"? The masses are easily distracted from common sense by the lure of pleasure/ease/a quick buck.

[LadyShea]

Psychologists or addiction counselors?
Yes. See you understiid quite well enough.

I shouldn't have to decipher your meaning, though. It's much easier for you to simply use specific terms such as "In talking with psychologists and addiction counselors...." rather than "in talking with people in the field..." because not everyone knows what field you are talking about or what types of professionals work in it, or which you mean.

I work with the public and have for over half my life, so am used to unreferenced pronouns and unnamed third parties, (ex: "I was told to call because this thing doesn't work"), but not everyone here has that experience.

Perhaps some of our communications problems in these threads are because you appear, to me, to assume everyone knows what you are talking about.
OK, I've been told.... :eek: so I will pull back and reconsider. I thought it was ok to offer ones' opinions...that this was what the forum is all about.

Of course you can offer your opinions, but you will find people respond best when your opinions are backed up with some reasoning they can understand (even if they disagree) and possibly even learn more about and research on their own.
My reaction to scientism is that of a minority...because I have to yell so much just to be heard, I admit it can make my position difficult.(Which is why I said earlier I envy the position of science..the establishment..it's such an easy viewpoint to hold) Until one really gets into the topic it's difficult to explain to anyone how deeply scientism rules so many prejudices and permits untested assumptions to continue which in turn affect so many decisions (eg Govt uses scientific evidence for forestry clearance in this country...so ancient trees go to Japan as wood chip for toilet paper.)
But by rejecting "scientism" you are handwaving away entire fields of study. With human behavior, for example, I think sociology, psychology, anthropology, psychiatry, endocrinology, neurolgy, evolutionary biology, and according to your Mindell, even quantum physics all have something to tell us about the human condition and why we behave as we do.

You are rejecting all of those scientisits and research in favor of a "new paradigm" which you have so far been unable to explain, define, nor have you even presented a method by which to learn about it or experience it.

I admitted at the outset that I've not watched porn....so I accept my ignrorance...I will continue to not watch it as it, at best seems to me to stimulate a relflex action and this is low level experience.
"Low level" experience? What do you mean by that?

Porn can just be fun and different and stimulating, especially within a long term relationship.

As far as a definition of 'bottom of the heap' well I feel so shot down over that one that I will keep my thoughts to myself except to say the response is typical of the superior tone scientism takes with any other form of thinking.
For the record Mindell was first a physicist...and to dismiss his work out of hand is foolish...I'm thinking of a wonderful quote from Whitehead about the dismissal of evidence but it just wont come and my books are in storage.
There is a physicist, whose name escapes me at the moment, who only works on creationism. I also reject his ideas out of hand.

You reject hundreds or even thousands of scientists when you hand wave everything away as "scientism". And if only ONE professional or author is the basis for your whole "new paradigm", of course you will not be taken as serioulsy. Most theories have a whole body of work behind it as support.

And again, as far as I am concerned, you have not adequately explained your ideas or opinions. You refused to even tell me if you were being literal or figurative with your energy and field discussion.

maybe you're right...how does one evaluate these things? For over a decade I've worked with men in difficulty and find there is little, if anything which can shock me.So I don't think I'm narrow minded or judgemental.
In what context have you "worked with men in difficulty", or are we supposed to guess what you are talking about again? Difficulties with what? What is your job? What are your credentials?

I've expressed minority opinions and you've all largely agreed to dismiss my views. I say porn is a sign of decadence, not as some fundie or religionist, but as a person capable of making up my own mind. I would rather read the Story of O, or any of the beautifully written erotic stories available.
Simply a matter of taste and opinion and it is your right to have preferences.

As far as all the girls who've questioned my position re what girls think of a partner who habitually uses porn, I take it that they disagree. Well the mind boggles...seems that males are 'dirty old men' but it's all ok for the girls.
Huh? Who said males are "dirty old men"?

I am perfectly fine with my husband looking at porn, even daily, with or without me. If he was spending inordinate amounts or money with it, lost interest in all other activities, and/or it involved other negative consequences, I would be worried and discuss it with him, but that is not the case.

[LadyShea]

If it is really just another urban artificiality then why isn't it run by local women....in this country they have their own shops where the girls can try out costumes and play with toys....

There are businesses where women have "sex toy" parties. There are female owned porn producers. Asia Carrera has made millions with her own website.

[Farren]

Some insightful comments; and yes, you are right in as much as I've lived in the bush (the country side - but generally a little more wild than say European countryside) for many years now. it's very rare for me to go to a city, maybe once a year to see the kids. I once had a suit and worked in the city but couldn't take it...as you said Farren, I prefer more real (as distinct from cultural or artificial) atmoshpere around me.


I respect and understand that instinct. At the moment I'm living on a large plot an hour's drive from the outskirts of Johannesburg. Despite having to drive three hours a day to get to work and back, I love living in the quiet countryside and occassionally seeing the neighbour's cows grazing on our unused land.

I've been looking for a book called "Faster" that I browsed through in a bookshop in India and regrettably didn't buy. The central thesis appeared to be that we're like rats on a wheel. By favouring McDonalds-style businesses in every sector, we're ultimately condemning ourselves to run as fast as the fastest and most unnaturally paced in our society or suffer relegation to second class citizenship. On an evolutionary time-scale, we're mere moments away from bush-dwellers who in some cases spent only twenty hours of every week (by relevant expert estimation) "working" towards thier survival.

The movie Koyaanisquatsi (Life out of Balance) beautifully and wordlessly expressed this astonishing change, I think. When one has the privilege of enjoying clean country air and a slower pace, its easy to slip into a mindset of seeing our civilisation as somehow sick and even monstrous, because in terms of the arboreal and bush-dwelling adaptations we're physically equipped with, country life is far more naturally harmonious.

But that feeling of comfort disguises some salient realities. Our primitive forebears didn't experience the wilds of nature in the comfort of a modern home with electricity, running water, a telephone, the internet, helicopter-assisted emergency services, primary and tertiary education in math, art, biology, sport etc, space-age fibre clothing, mosquito coils, malaria tablets and so on and so forth. We're getting the best of both worlds.

Without that "sick", "monstrous" society, we wouldn't be able to enjoy the country life as we do. We'd be as fearful of the dark, helpless in the face of influenza killing our young and terrified of vicious predators as our forebears were. Worse still, the paucity of beautiful land and sheer volume of people required to provide us with those luxuries mentioned means that in order for us to enjoy unspoiled nature in the manner described, we rely on the majority of people being hopelessly mired in that existence that we by reflex judge as unsavoury.

IOW, its really a dream which only a privileged few can indulge in. There is no kindly, natural, "real" state that is self-evidently the space all humans should seek out.

Its telling that the Dalai Lama, a man who was raised in and appears to sincerely practice a system of thought that eschews all attachment to physical luxury - and a widely travelled man - has repeatedly stated that he believes general human welfare appears to be improving at a steady pace and humanity is probably better off than it was a one, two or three hundred years ago. I wholeheartedly agree with him.


For the last few years I've been on my own and would love to have a close partner; however that's not the case. Still, visiting a porn site is not so much distasteful as it is a sign of decadence. I mean by that, that the existence of this industry (taking up apparently some 60% of www volume and sales) along with other criteria (mass migration, return of slavery, concentration of the ruling group, distance between food production and consumption...) forms part of the criteria for civilisational ruin. It may be applied to any civilisational decline.

For instance, post WW2 archeology has uncovered the period ending around 1500 BC. Pottery shards, murals, designs exist which illustrate that any sexual combination you can imagine has been done already. There is nothing new except the media by which it is now delivered.



I think the most egrerious problem with this line of reasoning is that you've provided no benchmark for what constitutes "decline". The last days of a nation or culture are not, by definition the days of "decline". A nation can be a virtual utopia, the ideal state for its citizens, yet be destroyed by a baser culture or natural disaster.

It can even be argued that utopian societies are more susceptable to destruction by less (or more) scrupulous and less happy societies or factions.

A childhood friend of mine (who, as an aside, was a little too dogmatic and aggressive about his athiesm for my taste) once lent me a book called "The Missionaries", detailing the horrors visited on various cultures in the name of Christ. One account has stayed with me. Apparently there was a Polynesian island where Jesuits missionaries were frustrated with their utter failure to convert any of the islanders. The island's natural bounty was so great that very little effort had to be expended for food. The trees were full of fruit. The sea teemed with fish. The islanders fornicated variously and unselfishly.

Reasoning that "the devil finds work for idle hands", the missionaries (I don't recall the exact account clearly but presumably they had the aid of portuguese militia) burned down the forests, denuded the coast of fish and put the islanders to work. IIRC around 50,000 died of starvation in one generation.

Were they, close to their end, in "decline"? I think not. They were in utopia - then vicious, twisted men came and destroyed their paradise.


Therefore I feel there is nothing else I can do but oppose this exploitative industry in any way possible. (I'm not a moralist BTW, nor do I belong or subscribe to any religious or other group). If it is really just another urban artificiality then why isn't it run by local women....in this country they have their own shops where the girls can try out costumes and play with toys....
and why is it the domain of large and powerful corporations. If it really is harmless and good for urbanites let the girls run local shows. See if it become s the new suburban fad...like a tuppaware except its a porn night (not the lingerie nights which alread exist) . .. I can see the ad. "a little porn'll do ya"
For myself I will avoid it and when I am lucky enough to meet another partner then our mutual consent will lead us where our intimacy can go.

I think you'd benefit from knowing a few more people in the sex industry. Having befriended a prostitute, a stripper and a madam who, when I met her, was profiting handsomely (and fairly sharing the spoils with her ladies) from a phone sex line, I'm quite certain you have misconceptions about the oldest of industries. Sure, there are many unsavoury parts of it, but, like the gangsterism of the prohibition, those are in large part more consequence of unrealistic moralism than the inherent nature of sexual freedom.

[edit]

Prostitutes, especially, suffer double discrimination. They are often persecuted by the law, a fact which often allows unsavoury clients to abuse them with impunity, and at the same time held in low esteem, even by the clients that seek them out. Moralists lament their exploitation, but often (via the law and public attitudes fostered by populist meda) are the agents of their low status and persecuted condition. Porn stars are sometimes more fortunate, but nonetheless exist in a twilight world, a "golden ghetto" to appropriate a phrase from William Gibson, isolated from society.

I have a friend who, at the age of 33, was (I think) still a virgin due to a lack of eloquence and ready wit, among other things. He is a fabulous chap with a deep and fascinating mind, but his general mode of seriousness, stooped posture, lack of confidence and lack of easy wit make him less than sexy, even though he's physically well-constituted.

Its a matter of excruciating self-recrimination and doubt for him because he's a particularly masculine man (when seeking medical advice for his allergies, two doctors in succession told him he had a surfeit of testosterone).

One day he admitted to me that he had slept with a prostitute because he had to find release. He was quite distressed, actually, because AIDS is a serious epidemic in South Africa (one estimate puts the % of population that are HIV positive at 30%) and prostitution, thanks to it's legal status in SA (a thankfully hotly and publically debated status) offers no legal or medical protection to either the buyer or the seller.

I couldn't help thinking at the time of how many lonely men (and women) would benefit immensely from a legitimised and (even better) respected industry where both buyer and seller could conduct their business comfortably, without moral recrimination or fear of the risks.

Its idealistic and naive in the extreme, I think, to base ones social philosophy on the idea that everyone gets an equal shot at a loving, sexually fulfilling relationship simply by conforming to a particular system of thought. In terms of both personality predisposition and physical appearance we are born uneqal.

In a sense, the blanket condemnation of pornography and prostitution constitute an unfair and bigoted discrimation against the ugly, the socially inept - in short, the sexually unattractive, for whatever arbitrary reason the particular culture they find themselves in assigns them that problematic role.

P.S. I'm jealous. As comfortable as the seasonally-lush foothills of the Magaliesberg are, I would give my left testicle to live in the Tasmanian forests.

[Desert Dweller]

a "new paradigm" which you have so far been unable to explain, define, nor have you even presented a method by which to learn about it or experience it. I'm pretty sure it was this thread Lady Shea in which i posed:

a. researchers are themselves active participants in the situation researched and that the researcher - situation relationship deserves to be studied. Also that

b.(in social research) the framework and variables of studies themselves change in the course of the study: and

c, that an important way of attesting the validity and significance of social knowledge is to feed-back into the situation researched studying how this feed-back influences further action .

No-one responded to this yet clearly these are very different from experimental science wherein there is an assumption (bloody huge one at that) of objectivity and contol of (some) variables. In short people are not predictable therefore reductionist experimentation is not an appropriate way to study people. (the disciplines you mentioned...psychol, sociology...all derive from the science of the 19th century. they wanted to be taken seriously (like maths and physics and chemistry) so they copied the assumptions and methods of the extant system. Unfortunately it's not as easy as that.

Farren re Apparently there was a Polynesian island where Jesuits missionaries were frustrated with their utter failure to convert any of the islanders Having been born and raised in the Pacific I can assure you that this story is fiction. It wasn't the Jesuits who got out there...it was largely protestant missionaries and while they did some idiotic and destructive things (eg read Paul Thereaux "Happy Isles Of Oceania") and did indeed screw up cultures by cutting those cultures off from their roots, no-one ever burned down any forests.

no benchmark for what constitutes "decline". Rome is the usual example...I thought the benchmark could be indicated by the co-existence of the criteria given (ie slavery, migration....) I keep hearing this assertion that 'things are getting better' but I don't experience this in my own life, or those of close friends. For who is it getting better? To equate 'better' with some modern technology is dangerous and innacurate IMO. But here we would have to enter the difficult arena of 'Quality' and knowing how many will respond I daren't mention things of quality as it is subjective and far form universal. What I do expereince is an erosion of personal liberty (esp under new anti terrorist legislation), an increase in laws/by laws until doing ordinary activities is almost impossible (but that mostly from insurance which has caused so many activites to stop) , a growth of corporate power and a diminuition of individual rights (try telling my telco they've made a mistake!..at present I can't sent emails and they dont care a drop) , ...so there is this problem of things on one hand seem to be getting better yet so much is getting worse (state of large natural systems...ocean, forests, land....) .

I'm drifting well away from porn....but questions directed me thus.
It's early in the morning here and porn is the last thing I want to think about.
Quite honestly, judging by the emails which flood my inbox everyday, the thought of watching a teenager get buggered (for my entertainment) makes me feel a little ill.

thanks for your detailed reply.

[Adora]

Having been born and raised in the Pacific I can assure you that this story is fiction. It wasn't the Jesuits who got out there...it was largely protestant missionaries and while they did some idiotic and destructive things (eg read Paul Thereaux "Happy Isles Of Oceania") and did indeed screw up cultures by cutting those cultures off from their roots, no-one ever burned down any forests.

Er, I think Farren may be referring to much earlier in Asia's history, like the 1600s/1700s. That was when the Jesuits were all the rage around here, and Spain and Portugal were happily destroying "barbarian" cultures in the name of "God".

[Desert Dweller]

The dearth of critical analysis or even the writings of Mindell on the internet should speak volumes about how seriously he is considered by his professional peers,
Warrenly, with this you raise an interesting and problemtical dimension.

Let's assume the current paradigm is a circle. Something happends beyond, outside that circle; furthermore the new emergence challenges aspects of the original circle.

How can the new emergence be critiqued from the old perspective? By definition is it outside and furthermore those in the old cirlce have a vested interest in maintaining their position. (If the new begins to be utilised they might be out of a place, and we know how academics hold to their ivory towers, tight as can be).

I'm not defending Mindell here, hell why should I ...he's just another interesting writer who has given me some good ideas. However the situation above is very real; viz how to move forward, beyond the present circle where the old criteria may not be relevant.

A good example happened in Western Australia in the early 1900s. A Dr. found that there were bacteria in the stomach and it was this that stimulated acids which gave rise to ulcers. He treated successfully with an old anti-biotic and presto ulcers gone. No one believed him...the medical establishment (the paradigm or circle) said that nothing lived in the stomach. He went to London and was laughed out...nothing lives in the stomach...it was only because in this case his treatement was so easy to demonstrate that there was a change in thinking. Until that time the old paradigm could not critique his discovery.

How are we to approach this problem?

[JoeP]

onthedole, I know nothing about Mindell and have not checked out warrenly's claim that there's a dearth of analysis, but I see it a significant difference between it and the stomach-bacteria (Helicobacter pylori) case.

You're right that existing paradigms made it impossible for many to positively accept the claims, but as far as I perceive it there was a huge amount of attention. It hit the mainstream press. I remember reading about it; I remembered the "pylori" name.

As I understand warrenly's claim, this isn't the case with Mindell.

joe

[Desert Dweller]

That may be true JoeP but the point remains. How do we introduce new undersdtanding which falls outside the existing paradigm, and perhaps even challenges aspects of it. How can it be reviewed by those attached to the extant conditions?
One of the big difficulties is that the extant (mechanical paradigm) is based on quantitative anaysis and statistical verification; however in this Age of Communication many new ideas are actually experientially based; one has to experience them personally as reading about them does nothing.

The pylori case remains interesting because it took quite a while for the establishment to accept that there were indeed living organisms in the stomach and until that point was reached the scientist(s) concerned were pilloried. (There were two, the outspoken one who presented the data and a quiet offsider who did the background work)

[JoeP]

Pilloried ... or pyloried? :P

I suspect I need to read up on Mindell to contribute seriously. Url to recommend?

Your general question is how does new understanding get evaluated - but the question from those "in" the mainstream, inside the paradigm, is how to differentiate (or filter out) the new theories or models that have some value from the enormous flood of complete crap. I assume you agree that for every new paradigm of value there are thousands, in any field, that have no value at all - but they are promoted with equal vigour by the crackpots and bigheads. The only thing that has an effect is some evidence (verifiable, repeatable evidence) that's explained better by the new paradigm.

joe

[godfry n. glad]

Pilloried ... or pyloried? :P

I suspect I need to read up on Mindell to contribute seriously. Url to recommend?

Your general question is how does new understanding get evaluated - but the question from those "in" the mainstream, inside the paradigm, is how to differentiate (or filter out) the new theories or models that have some value from the enormous flood of complete crap. I assume you agree that for every new paradigm of value there are thousands, in any field, that have no value at all - but they are promoted with equal vigour by the crackpots and bigheads. The only thing that has an effect is some evidence (verifiable, repeatable evidence) that's explained better by the new paradigm.

joe

I'm with Joe on this.

New paradigms have successfully displaced prior dominant paradigms in the past and from what I can tell, success is based upon the ability of the new paradigm to adequately reflect the realities which we experience...better than the existing paradigm.

Then, I suspect that often there is an incomplete displacement of one paradigm by another, and some kind of mongrelization of paradigms occurs with the prior surviving in scattered pockets. I'd say the current paradigm has not completely shed itself of patterns and processes from earlier paradigms.

Paradigm replacement doesn't happen because somebody has a tantrum about it, but by showing that the new paradigm works better than the one which it seeks to replace. As far as I'm concerned, you have yet to show us that.

I was only partially joking when I suggested you take your country and change the paradigm there (where it's relatively easy to control exogenous elements) and prove to the rest of the world that it works. That, in my mind, would be the best approach.

Give us some evidence for your as yet unsupported claims.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

Then, I suspect that often there is never...
Hmm... that's arguably certain. :chin: :D

As to the paradigm stuff yeah, that was my essential point somewhere early in this thread. I just don't have the time or inclination to investigate every one of the myriad alternative paradigms that people promote, and I'm particularly unlikely to explore one that starts with the claim that everything I've learned to date is invalid without some pretty substantial support.

[JoeP]

Boy oh boy. I reviewed this thread since what's being talked about now has veered off the title. I haven't really kept my attention on it, being busy, and it's not at all what I thought.

What is the relevance of Mindell to porn addiction, paradigm shifts or whatever? That's not actually stated in the thread. I have no way of knowing which of the 137000 google hits may be the right ones. And in any case, how did new paradigms matter in terms of the original question?

I am going to commission some research to investigate whether people talk a lot of shit on the internet; some may claim this is obvious, but we need to be sure.
:popcorn:

[LadyShea]

Boy oh boy. I reviewed this thread since what's being talked about now has veered off the title. I haven't really kept my attention on it, being busy, and it's not at all what I thought.

What is the relevance of Mindell to porn addiction, paradigm shifts or whatever? That's not actually stated in the thread. I have no way of knowing which of the 137000 google hits may be the right ones. And in any case, how did new paradigms matter in terms of the original question?

I am going to commission some research to investigate whether people talk a lot of shit on the internet; some may claim this is obvious, but we need to be sure.
:popcorn:

Perhaps this part of the discussion should be split off? We got on the subject somewhere in the thread, and it made sense at the time.

[Dingfod]

If I had a paradigm shift, I'd have twenty cents. As it is, I don't even have a plug nickel, and my dad told me not to take any wooden nickels, so I don't have one red cent to my name let alone a paradigm shift. That's just my two cents, which is about as relevant as half of this thread.

[godfry n. glad]

Then, I suspect that often there is never...
Hmm... that's arguably certain. :chin: :D


:doh: No... It's completely partial.

[Desert Dweller]

Well, yes, the thread has diverged. I guess the question of the OP is really a matter of opinion which is why we'll never get anywhere resolving it.
There is no evidence as such to suggest it is relevant or not to the ungodly (porn adiciton that is).

As far as the secondary thread....yes I agree with JoeP, Godfrey...and perhaps it can be picked up in another thread along the lines of how to resolve the differences in logical type between quantitative research and experiential knowledge.

Meanwhile...Porn addiction is a sign of decadence and so is to be avoided, or treated like any other dependency. It shares with other addictions in that the dose has to be increased either in frequency or in intensity....a relatively innocent scene, say herterosexual lovemaking will soon not stimulate and the addict must more onto hard core, then to say, bestiality.......

[Desert Dweller]

I've taken L.Shea's advice and will start anther thread named "paradigms'..http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=28990#post28990
see you there.

ps does anyone disagree that the OP of this thread is a matter of opinion? If not then what evidence is there to share?

[godfry n. glad]

I've taken L.Shea's advice and will start anther thread named "paradigms'..http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=28990#post28990
see you there.

ps does anyone disagree that the OP of this thread is a matter of opinion? If not then what evidence is there to share?

Thanks for the heads up.

Matter of opinion, yeah. I think if you think you suffer from an addiction, you should seek help. No matter if it's porn, or poker, or pork. An addiction interferes with your living a full life. I think if you have a friend who you think has an addiction, you should tell them your concern and urge them to seek help. I don't think porn is the issue; I think addiction is.

godfry

[JoeP]

ps does anyone disagree that the OP of this thread is a matter of opinion? If not then what evidence is there to share?
As strictly worded, yes, it's a matter of opinion. But the related and necessary questions probably have clearer answers (I just don't have the evidence):

Is there such a thing as porn addiction? I think yes; I believe there are cases of relationships suffering etc; people seeking treatment; and so on.
Are all, or any, cases called "porn addiction" actually addictive in a clinical sense? You commented on this; I'll answer below.

Then we can ask whether porn addiction, or sub-clinical guilt about using porn, is a "bad thing" in a religious context, in a neutral social context, and in an atheist context. This is, I agree, a matter of opinion.

Porn addiction is a sign of decadence and so is to be avoided, or treated like any other dependency. It shares with other addictions in that the dose has to be increased either in frequency or in intensity....a relatively innocent scene, say herterosexual lovemaking will soon not stimulate and the addict must more onto hard core, then to say, bestiality.......
Where porn addiction exists and is harmful, you're right (although "a sign of decadence" is not enough reason to avoid something. You can have decadence without the problems typically associated with decadence).

I misread what you said originally as implying "porn use always leads to porn addiction". You didn't in fact say that which is good because it's plainly false. I'm sure we can dig up research that shows the majority of porn users are not addicted ... I just wonder how objective and reliable such research coudl be!

I'd go further and say that while porn addiction may lead to "dose" having to be increased in frequency or in intensity, or both, it may just stabilise at a certain level of frequency or nature that nevertheless is detrimental to other aspects of life (like eyesight :P NOT). An addicted user is (may be) aware of the detrimental effects - and a sex partner will be if that's one of the effects - and be unable to control it, hence fitting the definition of an addiction.

joe