It is currently Tue Feb 25, 2020 3:16 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:35 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16721
Location: Northern Utah
wenglund wrote:

I am not sure why you imagine I went into supposed denial mode before looking at the article. Perhaps you confuse critical analysis or commonsensical objections with denial. I don't know. Perhaps you could let me what it is you think I was in denial about?


Read your comments to Rollo in your very first post on this thread. Rollo made no conclusions except to say that perhaps the Brethren's concern about porn was not misplaced.

Your reaction:

Quote:
Last I checked, Utah wasn't 100% TBM. In fact, I suspect that TBM's represent about 1/4th of the states population--which is roughly equivolent to the perceptage of UBM's (Untrue Blue Mormons). And roughly half of the population are non-Mormon (including ex-Mormons).

If true, then why are you assuming that the TBM minority are behind the Porn statistics rather than some of your fellow UBM's and ex-Mormons and non-Mormons?

Granted, there are sufficient occurances within the Church to warrant leadership interventions (including disfellowship and ex-communications, of which some are now likely numbered among those that are a part of the statistic). But, is it rational to jump to conclusion about internet statistics that relate to the general state population based on several Conference talks and Church messages?

I mean...really....is your need to smear the Church so intense that you resort to these kinds of rash and fallacious insinuations? It would be like me insinuating that you are number among the statistics because you live in Utah.


All this in response to Rollo's commonsense point that clearly, there is a problem. But I guess that doesn't constitute denial mode.

Quote:
Anyway, your comment above seems to miss my point. While nothing I said could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting otherwise, the specified search parameters may be relatively unambiguous as to what people may be searching for in those specified cases at Google. However, my point was, that those search parameters can, at best, tell us what parameters are being searched most commonly by people per state at Google. They don't tell us how many people searched those same parameters at Yahoo and a multitude of other search engines. They don't provide us with a statistical aggrigate of all porn related search parameter--only a select few. They don't tell us how many clicks were made based on those selectr search parameters. They don't tell us how extensively (in terms of frequency and duration) people may have visited the various porn sites that may be listed under the search results. They don't tell us how many people are viewing the computer that entered the search parameter. They don't tell us how many people find porn sites without using Google each time, let alone at all, and so on and so forth. In other word, the statistics are not a reasonable or accurate gage of internet porn use. In fact, they are as poor an indicator as trying to determine the number of people who visit strip joints, and how much time the spend there on average, by culling statistic on how many people may have looked up words like "strip" and "joint" in Dex phone books.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


In a word, horsehockey. People who google "hot sex" and "naked girls" are not looking for the phone numbers for Arctic Circle. No, these numbers are not particularly specific, but they are indicative enough of who is searching for what. Or are you suggesting that people who search on Google (the most popular search engine) are an anomaly, whereas more "normal" people use Yahoo and other search engines?

And you missed my point completely in the first place. Rollo said nothing particularly controversial, yet you accused him of an irrational and fallacious need to smear the church. And you did this before you even looked at the contents of the article.

It's funny because you have repeatedly said that I get defensive over nothing, which you have said you see as an irrational and inflexible reaction to criticism. If so, what does this thread say about you? And what would be a WORKABLE solution to get you to lose the defensiveness?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:53 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Runtu wrote:
wenglund wrote:

I am not sure why you imagine I went into supposed denial mode before looking at the article. Perhaps you confuse critical analysis or commonsensical objections with denial. I don't know. Perhaps you could let me what it is you think I was in denial about?


Read your comments to Rollo in your very first post on this thread. Rollo made no conclusions except to say that perhaps the Brethren's concern about porn was not misplaced.

Your reaction:

Quote:
Last I checked, Utah wasn't 100% TBM. In fact, I suspect that TBM's represent about 1/4th of the states population--which is roughly equivolent to the perceptage of UBM's (Untrue Blue Mormons). And roughly half of the population are non-Mormon (including ex-Mormons).

If true, then why are you assuming that the TBM minority are behind the Porn statistics rather than some of your fellow UBM's and ex-Mormons and non-Mormons?

Granted, there are sufficient occurances within the Church to warrant leadership interventions (including disfellowship and ex-communications, of which some are now likely numbered among those that are a part of the statistic). But, is it rational to jump to conclusion about internet statistics that relate to the general state population based on several Conference talks and Church messages?

I mean...really....is your need to smear the Church so intense that you resort to these kinds of rash and fallacious insinuations? It would be like me insinuating that you are number among the statistics because you live in Utah.


All this in response to Rollo's commonsense point that clearly, there is a problem. But I guess that doesn't constitute denial mode.


You are right, it doesn't constitute denial mode. I didn't deny that there was a problem. I didn't deny the statistics. I didn't even deny Rollo's assumptions. I simply and reasonably challenged some of his assumptions. But, I guess when Rollo raises concerns. you see it as him making a "common sense point"; whereas, when I raise concerns, it is "denial mode". Fascinating!

Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, your comment above seems to miss my point. While nothing I said could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting otherwise, the specified search parameters may be relatively unambiguous as to what people may be searching for in those specified cases at Google. However, my point was, that those search parameters can, at best, tell us what parameters are being searched most commonly by people per state at Google. They don't tell us how many people searched those same parameters at Yahoo and a multitude of other search engines. They don't provide us with a statistical aggrigate of all porn related search parameter--only a select few. They don't tell us how many clicks were made based on those selectr search parameters. They don't tell us how extensively (in terms of frequency and duration) people may have visited the various porn sites that may be listed under the search results. They don't tell us how many people are viewing the computer that entered the search parameter. They don't tell us how many people find porn sites without using Google each time, let alone at all, and so on and so forth. In other word, the statistics are not a reasonable or accurate gage of internet porn use. In fact, they are as poor an indicator as trying to determine the number of people who visit strip joints, and how much time the spend there on average, by culling statistic on how many people may have looked up words like "strip" and "joint" in Dex phone books. Thanks, -Wade Englund-


In a word, horsehockey. People who google "hot sex" and "naked girls" are not looking for the phone numbers for Arctic Circle. No, these numbers are not particularly specific, but they are indicative enough of who is searching for what. Or are you suggesting that people who search on Google (the most popular search engine) are an anomaly, whereas more "normal" people use Yahoo and other search engines?


You are arguing here againts a point that I wasn't making, and one that I had even conceded--which leaves me to wonder if you actually grasped the point that I was making.

Quote:
And you missed my point completely in the first place. Rollo said nothing particularly controversial, yet you accused him of an irrational and fallacious need to smear the church. And you did this before you even looked at the contents of the article.


That is because my "accusations" were based on what Rollo had said (his "reasoning and assumptions}, and not on what the article had said. I didn't need to read the article to correctly determine that Rollo was fallacious in what he said. I didn't need to read the article to suspect Rollo of wanting to smear the Church.

Quote:
It's funny because you have repeatedly said that I get defensive over nothing, which you have said you see as an irrational and inflexible reaction to criticism. If so, what does this thread say about you? And what would be a WORKABLE solution to get you to lose the defensiveness?


A WORKABLE solution would be for me to be less defensive and more charitable towards Rollo, and consider him to be acting in good faith. Do you agree?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:59 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm
Posts: 5604
wenglund wrote:

That is because my "accusations" were based on what Rollo had said (his "reasoning and assumptions}, and not on what the article had said. I didn't need to read the article to correctly determine that Rollo was fallacious in what he said. I didn't need to read the article to suspect Rollo of wanting to smear the Church.


And this is based on.....? Instead of being in "denial mode," you're actually paranoid and suspicious of your fellow men?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:59 pm 
Savior (mortal ministry)
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:32 am
Posts: 922
Location: In my Hammock--I Wish
GIMR wrote:
Like I said, it's the non-Mormons. That will always be the TBM stance.

Perfect example of sinlessness: Wade. He's never been married, abstains from sex like a good temple going Mormon...has no desire to look at a woman's body outside the sanctity of marriage...

See, y'all? It's the non-LDS out there in Utah. With the absence of brothels, strip bars, sex in alleys, etc...they have to resort to the internet. Unlike the rest of us out here in "the world".

Please excuse me. I have an appointment with my pimp. Sales have been down this month, and he's pissed. Usually people are far more "jolly" this time of year. I told him the economy was unstable and to get off my back.



You are cracking me up....you tell that pimp that people just are not spending money on extra's this time of year...especially when they can get it for free off the Internet.....I will make sure I don't work the same corner as you...

What will you be wearing tonight...it is kinda cold out there....stay warm...and stay safe...those darn pimps...

_________________
When I wake up I will be hungry....but this feels so good right now aaahhhhhh........


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:30 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Mister Scratch wrote:
wenglund wrote:

That is because my "accusations" were based on what Rollo had said (his "reasoning and assumptions}, and not on what the article had said. I didn't need to read the article to correctly determine that Rollo was fallacious in what he said. I didn't need to read the article to suspect Rollo of wanting to smear the Church.


And this is based on.....? Instead of being in "denial mode," you're actually paranoid and suspicious of your fellow men?


Is that a somewhat UNWORKABLE and cognitive distorted way of thinking?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16721
Location: Northern Utah
wenglund wrote:
You are right, it doesn't constitute denial mode. I didn't deny that there was a problem. I didn't deny the statistics. I didn't even deny Rollo's assumptions. I simply and reasonably challenged some of his assumptions. But, I guess when Rollo raises concerns. you see it as him making a "common sense point"; whereas, when I raise concerns, it is "denial mode". Fascinating!


Here's Rollo's post:

Quote:
Interesting article in the Deseret News (link below) about Internet searches in Utah -- the state leads or nearly leads the nation in searches of ... ahem ... 'less-than-TBM' words (but it also leads in 'very TBM' words!). I always thought the Brethren's apparent obsession in talks about the "evils" of porn was a bit of an overreaction, but maybe they're on to something.


Which assumptions are you challenging? Rollo simply states the obvious: Utah leads the nation in "TBM words" and "less-than-TBM words." So far, he's right on the money. He then says that the brethren's focus on porn might be justified. So, Wade, which assumptions are you challenging? Rollo raised no concerns, so yes, he made a commonsense point: pornography is a problem in Utah, and the brethren seem to agree. Your "concern" was to accuse him of smearing the church. So, yeah, it's denial mode. One of you was reasonable, and it wasn't you.


Quote:
You are arguing here againts a point that I wasn't making, and one that I had even conceded--which leaves me to wonder if you actually grasped the point that I was making.


You tell me, Wade. What was your point?

Quote:
That is because my "accusations" were based on what Rollo had said (his "reasoning and assumptions}, and not on what the article had said. I didn't need to read the article to correctly determine that Rollo was fallacious in what he said. I didn't need to read the article to suspect Rollo of wanting to smear the Church.


And yet Rollo's post contained no reasoning other than that the brethren's focus on pornography might be justified, and no assumptions that I could see. Again, which assumptions were you challenging, and what part of what Rollo said was fallacious? And what in the post led you to believe he wanted to smear the church? What I suspect is that you have a past history with Rollo, so you read into the post things that weren't there, kind of like the way I respond to you. I'll readily admit as much. Will you?

For what it's worth, I've known Rollo a long time, and one thing that has always impressed me is that he genuinely does love the church and has a faith that I admire. It's really funny to me that he's so vilified by some of you because he won't sweep the difficult under the rug, and he's not afraid to speak up when the church is wrong. But in my conversations with him, he's always stood on the side of faith.

Quote:
A WORKABLE solution would be for me to be less defensive and more charitable towards Rollo, and consider him to be acting in good faith. Do you agree?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


That would be a start. It would also help if you responded to what he actually wrote. :-)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:23 am 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 14025
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
GIMR wrote:
Please excuse me. I have an appointment with my pimp. Sales have been down this month, and he's pissed. Usually people are far more "jolly" this time of year. I told him the economy was unstable and to get off my back.


Heh heh heh. . . No pun indended, I presume? :-)

_________________
"Belief is driven by psychology, not intelligence."

--Analytics, 09-11-2019


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:32 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:27 am
Posts: 4085
Location: Planet Earth
Runtu wrote:
Which assumptions are you challenging? Rollo simply states the obvious: Utah leads the nation in "TBM words" and "less-than-TBM words." So far, he's right on the money. He then says that the brethren's focus on porn might be justified. So, Wade, which assumptions are you challenging? Rollo raised no concerns, so yes, he made a commonsense point: pornography is a problem in Utah, and the brethren seem to agree. Your "concern" was to accuse him of smearing the church. So, yeah, it's denial mode. One of you was reasonable, and it wasn't you.

I had honestly thought lately that the Church has been overdoing it when it comes to online porn, thinking they were making a bigger deal than it really is among LDS members. I have a brother who is a bishop in Utah, and he's told me the #1 problem in his ward are men addicted to looking at online porn. I assumed he was also overblowing the problem a bit and simply parroting the party line these days on the subject. Then I saw this report which bore out that Utahns (nearly 70% of whom are LDS, whether active or not) seem to be leading the nation in searching online very un-"TMB-like" words, which supports the concerns and warnings preached by the Brethren, as well as the experiences of my brother. I'm not smearing the Church any more than an apostle who speaks out of the Brethren's growing concern of online porn use by members (which several GA's have done).

Quote:
For what it's worth, I've known Rollo a long time, and one thing that has always impressed me is that he genuinely does love the church and has a faith that I admire. It's really funny to me that he's so vilified by some of you because he won't sweep the difficult under the rug, and he's not afraid to speak up when the church is wrong. But in my conversations with him, he's always stood on the side of faith.

Thanks, Runtu. In my view, you just described me to a 't'.

_________________
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:43 am
Posts: 2485
Location: In an Utrecht coffeehouse with my lady friend
Rollo Tomasi wrote:
Runtu wrote:
Which assumptions are you challenging? Rollo simply states the obvious: Utah leads the nation in "TBM words" and "less-than-TBM words." So far, he's right on the money. He then says that the brethren's focus on porn might be justified. So, Wade, which assumptions are you challenging? Rollo raised no concerns, so yes, he made a commonsense point: pornography is a problem in Utah, and the brethren seem to agree. Your "concern" was to accuse him of smearing the church. So, yeah, it's denial mode. One of you was reasonable, and it wasn't you.

I had honestly thought lately that the Church has been overdoing it when it comes to online porn, thinking they were making a bigger deal than it really is among LDS members. I have a brother who is a bishop in Utah, and he's told me the #1 problem in his ward are men addicted to looking at online porn. I assumed he was also overblowing the problem a bit and simply parroting the party line these days on the subject. Then I saw this report which bore out that Utahns (nearly 70% of whom are LDS, whether active or not) seem to be leading the nation in searching online very un-"TMB-like" words, which supports the concerns and warnings preached by the Brethren, as well as the experiences of my brother. I'm not smearing the Church any more than an apostle who speaks out of the Brethren's growing concern of online porn use by members (which several GA's have done).

Quote:
For what it's worth, I've known Rollo a long time, and one thing that has always impressed me is that he genuinely does love the church and has a faith that I admire. It's really funny to me that he's so vilified by some of you because he won't sweep the difficult under the rug, and he's not afraid to speak up when the church is wrong. But in my conversations with him, he's always stood on the side of faith.

Thanks, Runtu. In my view, you just described me to a 't'.



Rollo is one of the really true Mormons, in my opinion. I have one other friend, a Mormon also, that reminds me of him. I love Mormons like Rollo. I only wish they were all like him. Open, inquisitive, and especially non-judgemental.

This is a rare quality to be found, in anyone to be sure, but in a Mormon, it's like hitting the motherlode. He calls a spade, a spade, but always in a way that leaves open a chance for dialogue. My hat's off to you, Rollo.

_________________
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:43 pm 
2nd Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:56 pm
Posts: 405
Location: Draper Temple Slough
asbestosman wrote:
MormonMendacity wrote:
(by the way: I just assume I am the #1 contributor to the chocolate searches -- and the porn searches...but I don't know for sure.)

Isn't that something like click fraud? Trying to generate embarassing statistics for Utah and all.

No! Bill Gates and Donald Trump each send me 5¢ for every click. It's the latest thing. I'll forward you the e-mail I got about it.

_________________
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:53 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 6215
Location: in the dog house
MormonMendacity wrote:
asbestosman wrote:
MormonMendacity wrote:
(by the way: I just assume I am the #1 contributor to the chocolate searches -- and the porn searches...but I don't know for sure.)

Isn't that something like click fraud? Trying to generate embarassing statistics for Utah and all.

No! Bill Gates and Donald Trump each send me 5¢ for every click. It's the latest thing. I'll forward you the e-mail I got about it.


My virus checker tends to reject such things as spamilicous, highly dangerous to the computer's health, and highly dangerous to one's mental health. I do, however, find such things entertaining in the way that the Darwin Awards are entertaining. I just love looking at the list of people who were dumb enough to forward the email to me. I put the names in a special book of people I plan to sell Amway to.

How much can I put you down for? ;o)

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:13 pm 
2nd Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:56 pm
Posts: 405
Location: Draper Temple Slough
asbestosman wrote:
MormonMendacity wrote:
asbestosman wrote:
MormonMendacity wrote:
(by the way: I just assume I am the #1 contributor to the chocolate searches -- and the porn searches...but I don't know for sure.)

Isn't that something like click fraud? Trying to generate embarassing statistics for Utah and all.

No! Bill Gates and Donald Trump each send me 5¢ for every click. It's the latest thing. I'll forward you the e-mail I got about it.


My virus checker tends to reject such things as spamilicous, highly dangerous to the computer's health, and highly dangerous to one's mental health. I do, however, find such things entertaining in the way that the Darwin Awards are entertaining. I just love looking at the list of people who were dumb enough to forward the email to me. I put the names in a special book of people I plan to sell Amway to.

How much can I put you down for? ;o)

Dude! Fools mock, but any day now my Amway-boat will come in!

Have you ever seen these circles...?

_________________
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:14 pm 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am
Posts: 4792
Hi Rollo,

Quote:
I had honestly thought lately that the Church has been overdoing it when it comes to online porn, thinking they were making a bigger deal than it really is among LDS members. I have a brother who is a bishop in Utah, and he's told me the #1 problem in his ward are men addicted to looking at online porn.


Yep... I'm pretty sure many leaders will tell you something similar. My understanding is, porn and abuse are the top two issues most bishops are dealing with these days.

Nothing will improve until the underlying issues are dealt with... hint: it is NOT SATAN!

~dancer~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:19 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 21507
Location: Koloburbia
Wade, do you think the non-mormons use Yahoo or Microsoft (evil empire) searches instead?

Has anybody asked the question if any of this has to do with our heavy stratification toward a young population and having more computers and connectivity than any other city in the US.

Real porn addicts never bother with Google. They go right to the source with their credit cards. Just ask what's his face.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:25 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 6215
Location: in the dog house
moksha wrote:
Real porn addicts never bother with Google. They go right to the source with their credit cards. Just ask what's his face

Hugh Heffner?
Mark Foley?

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:32 pm 
2nd Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:56 pm
Posts: 405
Location: Draper Temple Slough
truth dancer wrote:
Hi Rollo,

Quote:
I had honestly thought lately that the Church has been overdoing it when it comes to online porn, thinking they were making a bigger deal than it really is among LDS members. I have a brother who is a bishop in Utah, and he's told me the #1 problem in his ward are men addicted to looking at online porn.


Yep... I'm pretty sure many leaders will tell you something similar. My understanding is, porn and abuse are the top two issues most bishops are dealing with these days.

Nothing will improve until the underlying issues are dealt with... hint: it is NOT SATAN!

~dancer~

What I find really interesting is that forcible rape has declined since the WWW really began to catch on. Wouldn't one have intuitively thought that this type of crime would have increased because all those nasty little thoughts were being stirred up in men's brains?

Year Population Forcible Rape
1990 248,709,873 102,560
1991 252,177,000 106,590
1992 255,082,000 109,060
1993 257,908,000 106,010
1994 260,341,000 102,220
1995 262,755,000 97,470
1996 265,228,572 96,250
1997 267,637,000 96,153
1998 270,296,000 93,103
1999 272,690,813 89,411
2000 281,421,906 90,178
2001 285,317,559 90,863
2002 287,973,924 95,235
2003 290,690,788 93,883
2004 293,656,842 95,089
2005 296,410,404 93,934

Source: Disaster Center Crime Statistics

_________________
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:34 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 6215
Location: in the dog house
truth dancer wrote:
Hi Rollo,

Quote:
I had honestly thought lately that the Church has been overdoing it when it comes to online porn, thinking they were making a bigger deal than it really is among LDS members. I have a brother who is a bishop in Utah, and he's told me the #1 problem in his ward are men addicted to looking at online porn.


Yep... I'm pretty sure many leaders will tell you something similar. My understanding is, porn and abuse are the top two issues most bishops are dealing with these days.

Nothing will improve until the underlying issues are dealt with... hint: it is NOT SATAN!

Well then what is the underlying issue?

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:56 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 14216
The problem is sexual repression and fear of sexuality within the LDS church. I feel safe guessing that most LDS women aren't that interested in sex, and their husbands are sexually starved. They're desperate for an outlet.

It's a cliché that the strictest, fundamentalist religions breed lots of sexually dysfunctional behavior behind closed doors. I think there is probably some truth to that cliché.

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:43 pm 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am
Posts: 4792
Hey A man... :-)

Quote:
Well then what is the underlying issue?


Briefly....

Humans are sexual beings. We have very strong needs, deeply imbedded in our humanness.

The way to deal with our sexual needs is to find healthy ways to meet those needs, NOT repress, deny, and blame Satan!

As Beastie suggests, the less satisfying one's sexual, emotional, physical life is, the more one searches for ways to fulfill those needs. The needs WILL get met one way or another.

It is my observation (along with quite a bit of study), the desire for porn diminishes as a healthy, fulfilling, intimate relationship improves.

In other words, in my opinion, when a man finds a relationship (sexual and otherwise), that surpasses the pleasure of his animalistic need to ^%$# anyone, the more evolved desire and pleasure replaces the more primitive urges.

It is like choosing steak over dogfood... or a symphony orchestra over a first year recorder student.... or a jag over a twenty year old broken down lemon! Ya know? ;-)

~dancer~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:50 pm 
truth dancer wrote:
It is like choosing steak over dogfood... or a symphony orchestra over a first year recorder student.... or a jag over a twenty year old broken down lemon! Ya know? ;-)


Hey, dogfood with Spicy Red sauce isn't too bad you know.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:28 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 6215
Location: in the dog house
Hi TD, thanks for the reply.
truth dancer wrote:
Humans are sexual beings.

I agree that we don't keep the species going by being asexual.
Quote:
We have very strong needs, deeply imbedded in our humanness.

Companionship is certainly a strong need--even for a relative recluse such as myself. But it seems to vary quite a bit from person to person. I imagine the same is true for sexuality.
Quote:
The way to deal with our sexual needs is to find healthy ways to meet those needs, NOT repress, deny, and blame Satan!

I wouldn't dream of blaming Satan. I blame the individual. Satan only fits into the picture as a reason that one should always be mindful of potential problems. One should always think before acting. Certainly such doesn't require the belief in a devil. I just happen to think the acknowledgement of a devil helps us to realize that sometimes what we think we want isn't necessarily what we really want. Where Satan becomes problematic in my opinion is when people think they may as well give up because they imagine Satan is too hard to be worth fighting or when people blame Satan for actions in others which they dislike.

I think it good to deny many urges. I strongly advise against a person's urge to get wasted with drugs. But certainly sexuality is different from drugs. If a guy can wait until marriage before sex, then why can he not be sensitive to his wife's desires? And what about those who are not yet married or who are widdowed? What are they to do about sexuality except control it?
Quote:
As Beastie suggests, the less satisfying one's sexual, emotional, physical life is, the more one searches for ways to fulfill those needs. The needs WILL get met one way or another.

In our dreams (so to speak). Mother nature seems to have provided a perfect outlet all on her own in case of emergancy. Fortunately there is no such emergancy in my life currently.
Quote:
It is my observation (along with quite a bit of study), the desire for porn diminishes as a healthy, fulfilling, intimate relationship improves.

That may be true, but I have also heard of men who still ike a little in the way that one might still enjoy a little junkfood for a light snack even after an extremely delicious meal.
Quote:
In other words, in my opinion, when a man finds a relationship (sexual and otherwise), that surpasses the pleasure of his animalistic need to ^%$# anyone, the more evolved desire and pleasure replaces the more primitive urges.

I'm not so sure it replaces them as much as helps to lessen the appetite. I remember being told time and time again that being married is no cure to pornography and that many men still had to fight it.
Quote:
It is like choosing steak over dogfood... or a symphony orchestra over a first year recorder student.... or a jag over a twenty year old broken down lemon! Ya know? ;-)

Maybe to a degree. I may prefer entertainment of good quality, but sometimes inferior products have their own charm. It's like using an old 8088 computer instead of a new dual core Pentium just because it's fun. It's like living in a shelter you constructed instead of your warm home just because it brings variety and new challenges.

As for whether or not Mormon women are not sexual enough, I do not have good evidence of this. Through my wife it appears that the women in my ward are quite comfortable with it. Why they even had a lingerie party not too long ago (for women only). If the women aren't sexual enough for their men, I suspect it's because the men are not considerate of other needs their wives have whether it is fatigue from watching little ones or not a strong enough feeling of appreciation from their husbands.

While porn may be a symptom of greater issues, I would not quit focusing on the dangers of it. It breaks a woman's heart. Certainly more could be done to facilitate communication between the sexes, but I don't think that's a problem that will go away anytime soon. The Bible says that the languages were confounded at the Tower of Babel but the Bible is wrong. The first problem in communication happened when God created a distinction in gender. Of course it's still worthwhile to put forth effort into it. I certainly do hear plenty about how husbands should be more considerate of the feelings of their wives as well as making time for them so in that regard I think church is doing the right thing.

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group