There’s a gust post over at Feminist Mormon Housewives called Women Married to Porn Users. There’s some good discussion, but when Mary and I had a bit of a discussion about it last night, we wondered if this is a man’s problem?
It seems that the Church always focuses pornography talks to men, that recovery programs are designed for men, that discussions revolve around wives helping men.
But I wonder, do women get addicted to porn? I admit that I do not know a single woman who has looked at porn, let alone been addicted to it. For that matter, I have never heard of a woman being addicted to porn. Yet, somehow, I cannot seem to fathom that women do not deal with the same addictions.
If there are women who are addicted to porn, why is it we never hear about it? Is there a societal stigma attached to such women?
As far as I know women are the only ones who buy all of those R-rated sleazy romance novels that flood the bookshelf at the local grocery store.
You might want to look at your definition of Porn. For more info see the following links:
The main issue for women to be concerned about is the high possibility that the even though they create a righteous home, their sons (and daughters) could still be nurturing a secret addiction right under their noses.
Unfortunately, I have known several LDS women who have been addicted to magazine and video porn.
So my assumption is correct, Dallas; there are some women who are addicted to porn. Which, of course, makes me wonder further why we don’t hear of this more? Is it simply a matter of it not happening as frequently?
Yes, there are plenty of women into porn, although certainly more men are. I think the top leaders (all male) of the church are reluctant to openly discuss what females might be doing in private, as would I. I’ve overheard plenty of women at work talk about porn, and a few of them even talk about getting off on gay male porn, presumably the way some straight men are into lesbian porn. I don’t use porn alone, but my wife and I sometimes watch together, and we’re often entertained by some of the silly comical aspects too. If I’m traveling and we have phone sex, my wife sometimes uses porn to warm up. She says she’s never been asked about it in TR interviews. I am not saying we’re 100% comfortable with it, but rather just commenting on the issue.
I do have a short fuse for applying the word addiction to any behavior someone doesn’t agree with. Porn is often used as a substitute fantasy for real sex, and while I’m aware some people talk about sex addictions, they might as well be talking about addiction to air and water too since all three are essential to life.
So, you don’t think persons can get addicted to porn, Steve EM?
Well Kim, you wouldn’t hear if it was a problem with women, I am sure they don’t go ’round telling other men about it. I think it is very sad when anyone is addicted to porn. Just not good.
Steve EM, just because a person doesn’t agree with it, doesn’t make it “ok”. Porn is destructive, whether one is addicted to it or not. It is disrespectful to the human body and disrespectful to what the Lord intended sex to be, and that is intimate behaviour between a husband and wife. Pornography is not a necessity to life, as water and are are. Fantasy isn’t a necessity to life either. Well, ok sexual fantasy isn’t a necessity.
Put a different way, I’m saying that since I don’t believe there’s such a thing as sex addiction (sex being critical to life), I can’t believe in porn addiction either, since porn is a fantasy substitute for sex. Call it a bad habit, destructive, sin, whatever. Don’t say it’s an addiction. It’s not.
Steve it is an addiction if one can not stop “using” it whether it be drinking, smoking, coffee, adult movies, gambling etc.
Kim yes obviously an addiction shows no mercy in whether it hits females OR males. Considering in the “old days” the only pornography available was the odd magazine behind the drug store counter and sleazy movie houses that only allowed men in trench coats, you can see why it seems to be more dominant with the male sex. Women are much more private when it comes to their sex life. What goes on behind closed doors remain there. Men are not so private. And I am talking about men in general not necessarily men in the church.
Oh and by the way Steve EM, I actually was asked that very question in my TR interview a year ago not only by my Bishop but my Stake Presidency member that interviewed me. I asked him if I looked like someone who watched/read porn as he had been the second one to ask me that in the same week and he said OH NO I didn’t mean to offend you but we have been asked to ask that question in all our TR interviews.
I guess your Bishopric and Stake Pres. didn’t get that memo huh? :)
“guess your Bishopric and Stake Pres. didn’t get that memo huh?”
Neither did mine.
Even though I can understand where Steve EM is coming from, I will respectively disagree.
Kim, I think the reason we don’t hear about it much, is well . . . I don’t know exactly. But I would suggest that porn use by church members is highly shameful and consequently becomes highly secretive. And when such a habit becomes an addiction, the secretive part just becomes even stronger. I personally think that porn use is growing rapidly among church members; it is a huge elephant in the room no one is willing to talk about, probably because we LDS don’t know how exactly to talk about it. Whether it is called an addiction or not, porn is highly destructive to the divine aspect of our sexual natures.
I think the church already gave its lectures against women’s porn–all those years during polygamy when it spoke out against Victorian love and romance.
I wonder whether our tendency to put women on a pedestal doesn’t feed into our reluctance to target women as needing lectures on avoiding the more serious transgressions. I’ve been in singles’ wards where the men and women were split up and given the annual chastity talk separately. I can only imagine what the men were told. We women were generally told, “Now you sweet sisters have probably never been tempted to do anything wrong in your lives . . . ” Wha?????
Even if more porn addicts are male than female, I think it would be helpful for the church to address everyone collectively on such issues. It isn’t fair to the men to get lambasted, and it isn’t fair to the women to be told they’re above temptation.
This is probably going way off topic, but I have always wondered WHY we women are put on pedestals anyway..
I agree with Kiskilili comment.
To make up for not having the priesthood.
I’ll have to assume Kim was kidding in that last comment, because he just isn’t that stupid enough to believe something that asinine.
How about being “put on a pedestal” (i.e., being treated with actual reverence and respect) because you’re children of God with inherent, divine worth?
Oh, good. I thought for a moment there we were going to have a post with comments entirely free of ad hominem attacks. Ltbugaf has again saved the day.
So if women are put on a pedestal because they are children of God with inherent, divine worth, why are men not put up on pedestals?
Kim is not asinine nor is he stupid, and I am not sure why you are resulting to name calling once again.
My comment is that men sometimes fawn over women and treat us as if we are close to deity (in some respects, while treating us like children, patting us down, etc….I am not saying ALL men do this, but some certainly do)for no real apparent reason. I mean, by saying we are so great, is saying that men are not? And why? Yes, we are daughters of God, with inherent, divine worth, but then so are men. Am I going to raise my daughters to believe they are worth some sort of exalted adulation and that my sons are lower than them because they are boys and not girls?
I want to be treated with respect and sure with reverence, but no more so than my husband. I am not anymore entitled to this than he is. And same goes for every single human being. We are all children of God, He loves ALL of us, whatever our gender is. He doesn’t love men more, nor women more.
“I have always wondered WHY we women are put on pedestals anyway..”
You might want to ask your Heavenly Mother…
Oh that’s right. We don’t talk about her because she’s too sacred, right?
Same craziness, different scale.
Could it be possible that Porn could be used in a positive manner? My guess would be no but maybe you know of a reason.
I think instructional “porn†might be used positively to help some overcome sexual dysfunction, but very little porn out there is of instruction value, and such instructional “porn†probably shouldn’t be called porn anyway. My wife often remarks that you’ll see all types of women in porn, but very rarely a guy with even average endowment and she wonders how many sexually inexperienced men and boys feel inadequate as a result. Most porn is degrading to the participants too, and those you use it, including me occasionally, are creating demand for a product that corrupts those that produce it.
Shrinks, including LDS shrinks, used to try to cure male homosexuality by punishing arousal to gay porn and encouraging arousal to straight porn. It virtually never worked from everything I’ve read, and I hope nobody is trying such crap today.
I have to conclude that most porn has deleterious consequences.
“I have to conclude that most porn has deleterious consequences.”
…for everyone but the publishers, distributors, bankers and adolescents.
Who doesn’t enjoy pornography? After watching a good porn at the Marriott, I can roll over and grab a Book of Mormon for a quick read. My wife likes it too because it provides great ideas for different sexual positions. It might do some of the bored Sisters a little good to see something outside of the basic missionary position. Porn night would make for one of the better MIA activities
Some women are addicted to porn. Some women are pedophiles. Etc… As feminism continues to poison society women will be well represented in all the categories ranging from abuse to violent crimes.
I don’t know the stats on women and porn, but one area where women are close to equal is domestic violence. The CDC reported that 1.35 million women are victims while 835,000 men are victims. Researchers believe the number of male victims is greatly under reported. The day I hear a talk about domestic violence initiated by women in a LDS Women’s Conference is the day that a little white lizard gives me revelation. Anyways, we wouldn’t want to hurt the feelings of those Sisters who are so pure and precious. The pain will be saved for those with a penis.
Ha!
rick,
loved the adolescents tag line.
BMarley,
and I thought I was a cynic.
So, Kim, you actually DO believe that the respect we try to show towards women is a “substitute for not holding the priesthood”? Sorry, I just wanted to give you more credit than that.
And do be careful how you throw around the term, “ad hominem” when it’s a (false and dangerous) idea that’s being attacked, not a person.
ltbugaf
Maybe I have to explain what he is saying. He isn’t saying HE shows respect to women because of this, but there are many who do, although somewhat subconciously however.
And don’t start insulting him again unless you want a big earful from me. You are coming very close to it.
What’s funny about this is that I did the opposite of insulting him. I said it was impossible for me to think he would believe in such a silly idea, because he’s too smart for it. If that’s an insult, then I hope you’ll really pile some insults on me.
Now why would I do that? I am not desiring to insult you (though if remarking that you are behaving like a 12 year old is an insult, than I am sorry. I have nothing but respect for 12 year old’s seeing as how I am in primary). I didn’t say you were doing it yet, I said you were coming close. You have this penchant for misunderstanding him. I am not sure why. Is this deliberate or by accident?
Actually, you didn’t attack an idea when you stated “he just isn’t that stupid enough to believe something that asinine”. You stated that if I did believe such an idea, then I am stupid. That is by any defintion attacking a person.
“I said it was impossible for me to think he would believe in such a silly idea, because he’s too smart for it.”
You said nothing of what your opinion was.
As a general thought – men are visual and women are more mental when it comes to sexual things. Pictures excite men and thoughts excite women. That is why rommance novels work for women and porn works for men.
The problem with porn is that it does not satisfy and you need more and more of it which makes it an addition.
Gag me if I had to read a rommance novel.
What is your definition of an “addiction”? Would an addiction be something that a person had no control over? Something they felt compelled to do whether it be right or wrong, no matter the circumstance or consequence? I am just wondering. I am not a member of your church but my friend made note of this post for me.
I am a woman and look at “porn” occasionally, but it is not something that I “must do, right now!”. It is an occasional thing when I am bored. Does that count as an addiction? I also smoke, but not all the time. Perhaps I am a “social porn watcher”?
But to answer your question, yes women do look at porn.
MCC
“You stated that if I did believe such an idea, then I am stupid. That is by any defintion attacking a person.”
No, it isn’t. It’s saying that a person is too intelligent to believe in an asinine idea, just as I believe you are too intelligent to believe that women should be shown respect “to make up for not holding the Priesthood.” Saying you’re too smart to do something stupid is not, by any definition, attacking a person.
“You said nothing of what your opinion was.”
I said exactly what my opinion was. My opinion was (and is) that you’re too smart to believe that respect for women, or “putting them on a pedestal” is some sort of consolation prize for not holding the Priesthood. That’s my opinion.
Kim doesn’t believe that respect for women is some sort of consolation prize for not holding the priesthood, he said that some men believe this.
Yes, Mary. I know Kim doesn’t believe that. I already said so. I said he was too smart to believe something that asinine. I said it in comment 15, again in comment 26, again in comment 31, and again in comment 32.
Oh wait—I said it once more in comment 34.
Would you like me to say it a few more times?
Then why did you allude to it in the first place? Like I said….
And please don’t patronise me. It’s very irritating.
Actually, I do believe that is the reason why women are put up on pedestals. I’d be happy for someone to convince me that it is for another reason.
Ok, what I mean was YOU (Kim) don’t put women on pedestals as compensation for not having the priesthood. Others may do so (yes, actually some do, I have seen it, heard it, experienced it).
Kim, that’s what I meant, as well. That you’re far too bright and too well-versed in true doctrine to think that respect for women is a compensation for not holding the Priesthood.
In #16, you asked, “…why are men not put up on pedestals?” I’m not sure they aren’t.
“Then why did you allude to it in the first place? Like I said….”
I alluded to it because the notion that women need some kind of consolation prize for not holding the Priesthood is a dangerous and false idea—an idea that’s worthy of attacking. So I attacked it, and said that Kim wasn’t so stupid as to believe in it.
But if you’re asking why the idea was alluded to in the first place, then you’ll have to ask Kim. He did it, not I.
I know why he said it.
Why is it false and dangerous to think there are some men who believe this? Women don’t NEED a consolation prize, nor do we ask for one, but that doesn’t change the fact that some men behave as if we do. Haven’t you ever heard the talks about how great, spiritual and incredible women are? That the reason we don’t have the priesthood is because we are “more spiritual”. THAT, my friend, is a dangerous and false idea, and perpetuates the fallacy that men are spiritually inept without the priesthood and are given it because they can’t be righteous and spiritual without it. The priesthood is necessary for certain reasons – so that we have access to the means necessary to return to the Father, not so that men have a means to be better. Yes it can HELP them do so, but it isn’t the only way they can become so. I think it is the idea that this is the case that perpetuates the “consolation prize” idea. This doesn’t mean it is a concious notion, but I can’t count how many times I have heard women glorified at the expense of men.
Besides that, I have too much work to do in my life, whether it be spiritual, physical or mental to be put on a pedestal. Not a whole lot anyone can do up there except be looked at and admired. Doesn’t really do a lot for anyone.
NO, Mary, it’s false and dangerous to believe it’s true, not to believe that some people hold such a belief.
I don’t think I’ve ever expended this much effort on Our Thoughts just to try to get someone to realize we already agree with each other.
You are right, it is false and dangerous to believe it is true, which is why this should be explained to the men who do it. That’s why.
If we agree with each other why do you have to clarify that Kim couldn’t be “that stupid or asinine”.
Anyway, don’t answer that.
I do think it would be useful for someone to clarify what they mean by “put on a pedestal.” It’s not a very helpful term. Obviously, we don’t mean that women are literally standing on museum displays. So what do we mean?
Made to feel like we are these spiritual giants and handled with kid gloves.
For example on Mother’s Day the talks are about how incredible mothers are etc etc but on Father’s Day the men aren’t given the same level of appreciation. I don’t mean just in my ward, but everywhere I have been. And as I have said, it’s in the “women are so much more spiritual than men” idea. That’s the pedestal I am talking about.
But if the men who say these things believe them, then obviously they aren’t trying to give some kind of “consolation prize.” If you actually believe that women, as a group, tend to be more spiritual than men, as a group, then you don’t view women as being in need of any consolation for lack of Priesthood.
As to whether women are, on the whole, more spiritual than men, I don’t know. It wouldn’t surprise me if they were. It certainly seems they respond to the gospel and join the Church in greater numbers. It also seems they stay active in the faith in greater numbers. So I don’t see any reason NOT to think that women are more spiritual than men (speaking in terms of a groups rather than individuals). And I don’t think that belief amounts to pedestal-building.
I don’t think I am more spiritual than my husband. As I said, I will not raise my children to think that women are more spiritual than men, that my girls deserve to be treated as such, more than my boys. They are all equal children of God.
Women treat other women better than men treat each other. Women want to be treated as equals. Many women are offend by the concept of being placed upon soemthing. Many women find the concept of hiding their faces behind a piece of cloth insulting. You can give it any kind of name you want, but it is still insulting to many women. Yes, there are some women who will say what they think a man wants to hear but that does not change the fact that many women find hiding their faces an insult. So mister turban head (Taliban) why don’t you wear a piece of cloth and cover the things you think? ugh.
I actually just wrote an article on this. It’s up on myblog right now. The answer is yes. Women struggle with it.
Do the male partners of women who look at porn see it has a problem? I ask this because it seems like women have a problem when their spouse looks at porn but I was wondering if men see it as a problem in the same context.