"Pornography Offends the Holy Ghost"

[Prestor John]

If a child is confused, why not ask the parents? That's the point. Why all the cloak and daggers? Porn will lose all its bad influence if society is fully upfront and open about sexuality.

I disagree.

That would harm and hinder our romantic relationships.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I needn't make my case, it has already been made. It is abuse.

And yet we let parents force unwanted medical treatments on their kids. We let parents keep the kids at home to "school" where they don't learn anything because learning is of the devil.

I would have a more complete opinion on porn if I could tell that some people weren't counting any little thing as porn. Also, not addressing the nature of the body in a timely fashion will lead to increased teen pregnancy later on. You don't teach kids about sex when their own kids are entering kindergarten. You do it before they even want it in the first place.

Why not do some research - like the numbers of underage children sexting, the earliest ages for those being exposed to porn

I dislike sexting as well. The problem is not the sex, though, but the attitude that one can share such information without consent from the other party/parties.

I would quote from Gail Dines book, Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked our Sexuality (2010), but unfortunately I didn't get around to reading it fully - as for many books - but I can imagine I would agree with every word, even though I am at odds with many feminists, but not on this.

You agree with everything you didn't read?

 

[sayak83]

I disagree.

That would harm and hinder our romantic relationships.

I expect that you disagree. I don't believe they will.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You agree with everything you didn't read?

I know the gist of it, lol, and skimmed through it. I just don't see much value in pornography and do believe it is doing a great deal of harm. To those who consume it, to those who work in the business, and to relationships between people, when it often just separates people from reality. And anything that does this - like illegal (or legal for many now) drugs too - is hardly to be applauded. Not in the manner that pornography appears to have taken over so readily, at least.

I'll have to read the ****** book now, won't I.

I did say 'but I can imagine I would agree with every word'

 

[Skwim]

so your using someone else's stand .....but not really interested in the question

ok....you don't believe
but then why as if the Holy Ghost is offended by pornography?

I will say.....nay
God doesn't care what you have seen

Gotta ask the Mormons who made the video. I was just quoting them.

.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I disagree.

That would harm and hinder our romantic relationships.

That's funny. There's more to romantic relationships than the body. I think your referring to having a tryst.

 

[Skwim]

If a child is confused, why not ask the parents? That's the point. Why all the cloak and daggers? Porn will lose all its bad influence if society is fully upfront and open about sexuality.

Exactly. Once children are made aware that nudity and sex are not the bogymen so many people find necessary to portray them as, they will loose their attraction and ability to shame kids. HERE is a nudist web site with pictures of naked adults AND children enjoying their nudity. Note how comfortable everyone appears without clothes. It's quite clear that they all recognize nudity is nothing to be ashamed of. Needless to say, I doubt any of them are Mormons.

.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I disagree.

That would harm and hinder our romantic relationships.

How do you figure?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Of course not. It's the Christmas wish of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.


Some porn is. Some porn is not.


OMG! Exactly what kind of perverse Jack Chick rubbish have you been reading?


Ah ha, Fight The New Drug. Another alarmist exposé outfit with *surprise* its not so subtle appeal for 501(c)(3) "donations."

Have a good day.

.

The condition is called "porn induced erectile dysfunction". This site explains why it occurs, and the treatment. . Porn-induced erectile dysfunction: How does it happen? . A number of studies were done in England and the US using groups of High school children(males and females), from sex education classes. They had to pick from 10 photos of female genitalia, which photo best depicts their image of what the female genitalia looks like.There were 8 photos of genitalia from ordinary women of different ages, and 2 photos from porn stars. Over 80% of the students(males) picked the genitalia from porn stars. This study was consistent with other studies conducted. So do you think having this kind of preference may have some effect on a relationship?

Are you suggesting that the video was for Mormon families only? This idyllic family depiction went out with Anita Bryant and Father Knows Best. Porn depicts sexual activities only! If it didn't no one would watch it. From simple sex, to kinky sex, and to the most perverted and violent sex. It caters to a wide range of sexual fantasies. Where exactly does intimacy, common interests, sharing responsibility, respect for women, mutual respect, love, privacy, mutual understanding, and mutual commitment, play in this exploitation of sex without real intimacy? Maybe Gay sex or Animal sex is a more truer depiction of the normal mating rituals between man and woman? Maybe you can demonstrate some of these porn videos, that depicts couples meeting, learning about each other, falling in love, sharing responsibilities, managing crisis, raising children, and sharing in life goals together? Oh, and having sex. What you fail to understand, is that relationships are real, with real people, with real feelings, and real weaknesses. There is nothing real about Porn, other than the sex. Don

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why not do some research - like the numbers of underage children sexting, the earliest ages for those being exposed to porn, the numbers apparently exposed to predatory behaviour on the internet, or the numbers of children sexually attacking other children. For starters. Nothing to do with the amount of porn available? One would have to be a supreme optimist to think this. Internet porn has been and continues to be one of the disasters of the modern age.

I would quote from Gail Dines book, Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked our Sexuality (2010), but unfortunately I didn't get around to reading it fully - as for many books - but I can imagine I would agree with every word, even though I am at odds with many feminists, but not on this.

Of course teens are going to be sexting and having sex with each other. Puberty doesn't care about our arbitrary age of consent laws. Children also commonly play "games" to explore each other's bodies ("I'll show you mine if you show me yours" sort of stuff). That's normal. But kids "attacking" other kids? That's usually a sign of sexual abuse.

Gail Dines is a moron. She's one of those outdated 2nd wave feminists who has more in common with a conservative Christian than actual feminism and uses bogus "science".

 

[Enoch07]

The Birth And Death Of Privacy: 3,000 Years of History Told Through 46 Images
enjoy.

But please, tell us where you think people had sex before the invention of private bedrooms?

I never said we did.

But it's interesting how you don't find the act appalling.

 

[Skwim]

The condition is called "porn induced erectile dysfunction". This site explains why it occurs, and the treatment. . Porn-induced erectile dysfunction: How does it happen? . A number of studies were done in England and the US using groups of High school children(males and females), from sex education classes. They had to pick from 10 photos of female genitalia, which photo best depicts their image of what the female genitalia looks like.There were 8 photos of genitalia from ordinary women of different ages, and 2 photos from porn stars. Over 80% of the students(males) picked the genitalia from porn stars. This study was consistent with other studies conducted. So do you think having this kind of preference may have some effect on a relationship?

From your linked web site.

Erectile dysfunction (ED) has been increasing in sexually active men under 40. It seems as though internet porn is in some ways to blame for this rise, with studies showing a correlation between porn and ED.

Now, researchers have identified pornography-induced erectile dysfunction (PIED) and pornography-induced abnormally low libido.

High exposure to pornography videos can result in lower responsivity in a man and an increased need for more extreme or kinky material for him to become aroused.

Due to porn overload, some men are no longer aroused in the presence of a partner. They begin to experience ED and can only become sexually excited when watching porn. "

​

Were you also aware that excessive alcohol drinking can lead to alcohol dependency and . . . .

• Fetal alcohol syndrome
• Hepatitis
• Gastritis
• Heart disease
• Liver disease
• Pancreatitis
• Epilepsy
• Mouth cancer
• Diabetes
• Depression
• Stroke

plus many more ailments.

Did you know that overeating can lead to

• High cholesterol levels
• Obesity
• Fatigue
• Cancer
• Diabetes
• Depression
• Cardiovascular problems
• Heart stroke

Plus many other ailments.

Were you aware that overspending can lead to

• An overdrawn bank account
  
• Worry and depression
  
• Anxiety
• Suspension of banking privileges
  
• Inability to provide necessities
  
• Bankruptcy
• Crime
  
• Suicidal tendencies

Point is, there are a lot of activities that over-done can lead to harmful effects. However, done in moderation these effects can be avoided and the activity is quite harmless, even beneficial or necessary. So, while "high exposure to pornography videos can result in lower responsivity in a man," this hasn't been shown to be the case in all or even most people who look at pornography.

Are you suggesting that the video was for Mormon families only?

Not necessarily "only," but primarily.

This idyllic family depiction went out with Anita Bryant and Father Knows Best.

Yet here we have it. Ain't we lucky. GAG!


.

 

[Enoch07]

Nonsense, you just put a huge burden of proof upon yourself and we know that you don't support your claims. You were wrong again, why not admit it?

The APA article suffices.

So what? That is not a duty of porn. That is not its job. This is not a flaw, this is a false flaw that you made up. I see the desperate clutching at straws has begun.

You brought it up.

Prove it.

Sexual objectification - Wikipedia it also list the problems that arise from it.

Wishful thinking, more clutching at straws.

Nope strong evidence, you just disagree with it because it opposed your views.

Amazing, more dishonesty when a solution is politely offered.

I have seen no polite solution presented.

I know that you are responding to another now, but warn a guy. You just broke another irony meter.

This one was quoted properly. Not sure what your on about here.

Since historically neither seem to have a negative effect how are you going to prove that?

The APA article list the negative effects.

 

[Enoch07]

If a child is confused, why not ask the parents? That's the point. Why all the cloak and daggers? Porn will lose all its bad influence if society is fully upfront and open about sexuality.

A child can ask the parents. That's what the video is about. Which is to help parents talk to their children about it. Yes it is done from a Christian perspective. But anyone could easily leave the religion out and still it has a positive message. The video was created by Christians for Christians though. There is no cloak and dagger involved. Except for paranoid conspiracy theorist who view everything that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The APA article suffices.

Nope, it fails, as was explained to you.

You brought it up.

No, I did not. You brought up that strawman. I never said that porn had any such duties.

Sexual objectification - Wikipedia it also list the problems that arise from it.

Weak sauce, a Wiki article that you are afraid to quote. And again it only says "some". Some is not all, it is not even necessarily most.

Nope strong evidence, you just disagree with it because it opposed your views.

You have shown extremely weak evidence at best. You have no "strong evidence'. If you did you would have quoted and linked it properly.

I have seen no polite solution presented.

When you do not understand something the solution is to ask question politely and properly. Properly means no false assumptions buried in your question.

This one was quoted properly. Not sure what your on about here.

See above.

The APA article list the negative effects.

Yes, and your failure was explained to you. Repeating an error does not make it correct.

 

[Curious George]

Just because a law exists does not mean that the action proscribed is harmful. It used to be illegal for a white person to marry a black person. Does that make that an immoral act?

No, but it does indicate the popular belief in most areas. This was the reason for citing the law in the first place: to show that others are convinced. You may not think that exposing children to pornography is harmful, most people disagree.

Laziness is a poor excuse since all of one's "work" can easily go for naught by not properly supporting one's claim.

Laziness is a reality. It is not worth my effort yet. But let us get a couple more claiming that exposing children to pornography does not corelated with harm given our society, maybe I will fetch some docs for you then.

My "exception" explains why the second statute that you listed does not apply. Adults can't assume that kids want to engage in sexual activities since they are not able to perform informed consent in such matters. It shows that you did not understand the statutes that you cited.

And a child sitting in the same room as a people having sex is an example of informed consent that a child can engage? Please. We are talking about kids being exposed to porn here. Each of the statutes can theoretically be used to show that we believe exposing children to pornography is not ok.

Actually it sort of does.

If you have moved from your position that seeing sex is not inherently harmful, to the position that exposing young children to pornography does not correlate with harm, let me know.

Like Enoch you should simply admit your errors when they are made manifest. I did not broaden the scope. I replied to a claim made by others.

You see, I think that it is you who should admit to making outlandish challenges for no good reason.

It has not shown to be harmful. If anything appears to be harmful it is the approach of parents to sex. An explanation of what sex is, how it is a pleasant activity and how it in of itself is not harmful then there would be no problem. A parent could explain how it is not realistic just as Hollywood movies are not all that realistic even when they are "based upon a true story". What they are doing is wrong in that video. They are protecting the unsupported biases and fears of parents in regards to sex instead of encouraging them to do the what seems to them the hard work of teaching their children about sex.

Teaching your children that sex is evil and dirty is not an adult action. It only does far more harm than good.

Well I am not sure why you think I am advocating for teaching children that sex is evil and "dirty."

I will acknowledge that my claim is that exposure to pornography correlates to harm and is not causal. I may have in other posts suggested it is causal, that was not my intention. My original post to sayak used correlation.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I rather doubt that the Holy spirit spends much time thinking about pornography at all.

As for children viewing it...it would be very stupid to think that they do not.
What can we do about it..?
Well it would be very hard to find a majority who would want to ban it.
So the reality is, that it is here for the long haul.
We just have to learn how to live along side it.
Just as we learn to live along side crime, murder and the rest of the things that corrupt the world.

 

[Curious George]

And yet we let parents force unwanted medical treatments on their kids. We let parents keep the kids at home to "school" where they don't learn anything because learning is of the devil.

I would have a more complete opinion on porn if I could tell that some people weren't counting any little thing as porn. Also, not addressing the nature of the body in a timely fashion will lead to increased teen pregnancy later on. You don't teach kids about sex when their own kids are entering kindergarten. You do it before they even want it in the first place.

I am not so sure that I see these situations as equal. Parents, in our society, must make decisions for the children. While I can certainly see how giving parents medical and educational authority over children can lead to instances of abuse, not all instances are abuse.

I certainly would not condone any little thing as pornography. A debate concerning what constitutes pornography might yield different results. So, I fully acknowledge your point here. That said, I would be more worried about what is commonly referred to as hardcore porn rather than topless photos. Is it possible that there is a line somewhere that needs to be ironed out in order to have a productive conversation? Yes. But my efforts here are meant to discuss non educational depictions of sexual interconnected that is not recognized as age appropriate for young children and designed to appeal to prurient interests.

 

[Enoch07]

Nope, it fails, as was explained to you.

The APA is an authority on the topic. You only offer your wishful thinking and opinions.

No, I did not. You brought up that strawman. I never said that porn had any such duties.

You can deny all day, but here is evidence. Below you brought up the relationship topic. I never said that you said porn had those duties. But you did bring the topic of relationships up first.

Again, realism. If you want a long term relationship then affection is a must. You are not helping your case here.

Weak sauce, a Wiki article that you are afraid to quote. And again it only says "some". Some is not all, it is not even necessarily most.

The APA is an authority on the topic. If you wish to challenge their authority then that's on you. I'm sorry if the majority of society and our legal system, disagree with your opinion. Write them a letter and complain.

You have shown extremely weak evidence at best. You have no "strong evidence'. If you did you would have quoted and linked it properly.

You only consider it weak because it opposed your position. Perhaps you are in the wrong, ever consider that? I doubt it.

When you do not understand something the solution is to ask question politely and properly. Properly means no false assumptions buried in your question.

I don't have to abide by your bullcrap rules. If you don't like it leave.

Yes, and your failure was explained to you. Repeating an error does not make it correct.

People who don't think porn is harmful to children is the only failure in this thread. But feel free to flail and thrash around in denial, like usual.

 

[Curious George]

Of course teens are going to be sexting and having sex with each other. Puberty doesn't care about our arbitrary age of consent laws. Children also commonly play "games" to explore each other's bodies ("I'll show you mine if you show me yours" sort of stuff). That's normal. But kids "attacking" other kids? That's usually a sign of sexual abuse.

Gail Dines is a moron. She's one of those outdated 2nd wave feminists who has more in common with a conservative Christian than actual feminism and uses bogus "science".

If you are trying to suggest that children have a sexuality, I agree. I would add to your "attacking" point that any sexual behavior can be a red flag but any sexual behavior that is spontaneous, takes place within a emotional and psychological peer group, is not predatory and is not coerced is age appropriate.

We are not discussing that behavior. We are discussing exposing porn, which is not part of or designed for children's sexuality to children who in our society, are not equipped, and possibly not physiologically able to be equipped, with the tools to process porn.