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?
Bill said:
“but I was wondering if men see it as a problem in the same context.”
I should certainly hope they do. Pornography is pornography, degrading however and whoever is looking at it.
Mary, I slightly disagree with your last statement.
Unfortunately, pornography is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. If we accept the definition of P as:
“Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal”
Then there are many, many things that fall into this catagory. In addition, something that might cause arousal in one person may not in another.
In addition to the usual suspects, it is claimed that things like certain types of footware or even automobiles can cause sexual arousal in some people. Are these things degrading? Perhaps only to those who find them arousing?
I guess that leads to another question, is P defined by the intent of the writer / designer / photographer, or by the viewer, or does it take some of both?
For instance, is the statue of the Venus de Milo classified as P? Some say the intent of the sculpture was not to cause feelings of arousal. I’m sure some are when looking at it though.
How about the young boys scouring the most recent issue of National Geographic, hoping to get a glance of something forbidden? Does that mean we classify National Geographic the same as Playboy since some of the pictures are arousing to some?
While it is easy to think of P (I’m just tired of typing the whole thing out) as the stereotypical adult magazines, web sites, movies, and books, I think it is too limiting and can cause a false sense of security.
“Pornography is pornography”
It’s just not true.
To a pedophile, your baby pictures may be pornographic, to you they are (I assume) not.
Pornography is tought to deal with because everyone has a different definition, and some definitinos can change because of the context. The high art vs. pornography debate is ongoing. Nudity in a medical textbook is perfectly acceptable.
It’s not all black and white.
What I mean is, when pictures are taken or drawn, to show a naked body in a provocative way, that is pornography. The body is sacred and should be treated so.
I believe that even partially dressed (covering up all the private places) people, who pose in a way to elicit sexuality, that is also pornography.
If a man watches a T & A movie is that worse than a woman who reads romance novels soft porn) since they simulates the thought process?
Does soft porn create an unfair image in a woman’s mind of what a man is supposed to do to be romantic? Could soft porn novels create greater conflict between a man and wife than pictures would? Could reading soft porn novels be worse than watching a porn movie?
I would say they are both wrong (though having had no experience with either the novel or the movie, I couldn’t say). As far as romance, sexuality is not irrevocably conneected to romance. There is more to romance than sex.
I don’t think either would be worse, I think it would be the same.
I understand what you are saying but the question I have is that the women in porn have bodies that have been air brushed into perfection and no real woman looks like that. The men in rommance novels do all the right things to rommance the woman and will a woman compare this perfect sounding character up to her man in the same vein as the air brushed body?
Maybe they do. But my idea of romance is help with the dishes, the laundry done, a good shoulder rub, walking with the baby at night if she needs it, and just listening to me. That’s romance.
I don’t read those “romance” novels, because they seem to me to be trite and stupid. But that’s just me. I appreciate a well written book and don’t read to tantalise my senses in that regard. So I can’t really judge based on that. And personally, I find any extreme intimacy whether on screen, or in a book to be embarressing as it seems to violate a sense of intimacy that is supposed to be between a husband and wife and not in a voyeuristic way. If a woman compares her spouse to this so-called “ideal”, it is likely there are other areas in her marriage she is unsatisfied with and mistakes it for being “romanced”. What she really wants is a husband who is interested in her, who shows it in considerate ways, who is thoughtful, helpful, etc etc. All that passion, lust, etc etc is minimal. We aren’t looking for that. We know we will get the intimacy we need and want if our husbands are considerate and loving in other, more important ways.
What you have described can also be accomplished using hired help.
Romance is the way your husband treats you that makes you feel special.
no it can’t. you are misunderstanding me. if you think that helping out around the house doesn’t show love than you misunderstand the female psyche. yes, the way your husband treats you is showing you he cares by being interested in YOU, helping YOU in different ways. and yes that includes housework. ask a woman if she is more interested in a husband, a true helpmeet, or in a sexual companion. she’ll pick the helpmeet over someone who is just physical and mushy all of the time.
and it seems to me you aren’t talking about romance, you are talking about sex. and there is a huge difference between sex and romance.
Typical female response. I did not mention sex. I said all the items you mentioned can be accomplished with a maid. You can be with men all day long and you will not feel anything for them. You can spend a few minutes with your husband and you will feel different towards him. The way you feel towards your husband depends on the rommance that is happening between you or not happening.
Sex is different from rommance. Rommance may lead to sex bu rommance is the special way you are treating each other.
Bill
No they can’t. A maid can’t show you how much she loves you and cares about what you do, show love through the things she does to help you out. A maid can’t bring you a small bouquet of flowers or say ” you know what you have been working hard all day, let me take care of the dishes after supper, you go sit down and read for a bit”. or “you have been up nursing the baby forever now, she isn’t settling down, so let me take her for awhile and you get some rest”. Yes, that is romance. When my husband shows me how much he cares about my well being, my happiness, and myself. When he puts his arms around me and tells me he loves me and that I am beautiful. You referred to those “romance” novels and from what I understand they are full of overt passion and sex. So, yeah, sure sounds like you were talking about sex.
You keep referring to helping out with the house as mere maid’s work. You don’t understand then, what it is like for a stay at home mum, or for a wife/mother who works all day and then STILL has to come home and do housework. You don’t think that her husband being a support and help is a big deal? That it doesn’t show he loves her? Maybe you aren’t married (but I assumed you are)but if you think your wife doesn’t know you love her when you help her with the mundane, day to day things then you don’t have much of a clue about the female psyche.
Yep, typical female response, but you ask for what females think, and I gave you what THIS woman thinks. You will find I am not alone either.
My husband is always romantic. I always love him, always feel loved by him, because he is my helpmeet, my companion and my love. He doesn’t ignore me or the children and treat us like we are there just for convenience. He romances me by making supper, by folding laundry, by being a dad, by just being with me. Sure he does other “romantic” (by your definition) things but *I* feel much more romantic towards HIM when I feel he is doing those “maid” things you talk about. Maybe it’s the oestrogen in me.
and stop being condescending just because you don’t understand with or agree with the response. you aren’t a woman and seem to have very little understanding of women if you think we are all desperate for the “passion” in romance novels.
The thread is about women-porn-addiction – the questions are about if women read romance novels is this similar to men looking at porn.
I have not expressed my thoughts or beliefs concerning domestic chores. I also do not believe all women are desperate for the passion of romance novels nor all men need/watch porn. There is a % of both sexes that do use these materials. Would you consider tv soap operas to be porn? I do.
I don’t watch TV soaps.
You asked this question:
“Does soft porn create an unfair image in a woman’s mind of what a man is supposed to do to be romantic?”
I answered and then expounded on what I feel is romance oriented.
Bill, in answer to your question, I say “yes.” I don’t watch them, either, but I used to. I can see how addictive they can be.
I think women become addicted to romance, though, not pornography. Those novels are very romantic. Not that I read them, either. But, still…
And also, Bill, I say, “no” I don’t think those romance novels rise to the level of porn. I found a couple of porn magazines once in my son’s room. It was pictures of sodomy. I won’t describe more than that.
Womens’ romance novels do not even come close to that level of degradation.
On the subject of Victorian novels, have you read Jane Eyre? Read it and get back to me if you think that’s porn. Or go a little more modern, read Rebecca, or how about Mistress of Mellyn.
Then talk to me about women and porn.
I would believe that romance novels and soap operas would not be as degrading to women as porn. But can Soaps and R Novels be just as addictive as porn can be? Can they pervert the normal relationships between husbands and wives?
People are treating this as though it is “unfair”, or that women may perhaps have less vices than men, but I can’t help but wondering how many LDS women go home after Church on sunday and turn to a vibrator or other such device to deal with their own pent-up sexual energy, and, is this any better or worse than the male habit of pornography? Just as straight males seem to be conditioned from birth to drool over the female body, women are also conditioned, indeed by their very anatomy, to engage in what is perceived by the religious world as a vice: masturbation. Most women, in fact, never experience climax unless they engage in this practice, and often use it even at the same time as love-making with their spouse. They may justify it as just part of intercourse, but from an honest assessment, it is not, and it is essentially the female equivalent of the man who uses certain drugs or looks at skin magazines to get worked up before or during intimate relations with his spouse. And, I have a feeling the women are just as shy if not more so with this as the men are with their pornography.
After reading of bishop interviews above, I should add also the female perspective that my wife shared with me: She told me that when she was in her late teens and early twenties that she did this on a regular daily basis, while during the same time period being active in the Church, holding callings in the primary, and attending baptisms at the Temple, for example. She said she has never, ever heard a leader say anything about female masturbation, and never understood it to be part of the law of chastity (unless it was accompanied with unclean thoughts), and that she has never been asked any question about it during any worthiness interview, so she assumed (and still does assume) that it is acceptable behavior for females (just ‘private’ and slightly embarassing), that she in fact has considered it a blessing that God has given women these feelings and a body part dedicated exclusively for this purpose, and that she can draw spiritually nearer to God by doing it. In other words, that it may be a form of worship or spirituality for at least some females? I have read other women express similar views in greater Christian discourse, and have read that some Jewish women actually consider it a mikvah (commandment) because the Bible states somewhere (according to the translation of the person who stated this) that “when a man touches one’s self it is sin: for it is for the woman to do so.” (which has been understood to mean that it is a prescribed female practice, according to God’s word, for a female to touch her own body)
I was amazed to hear these things.
After I read concerned’s words I thought about a Priesthood meeting I was in about 35 years ago where the Bishop dismissed the youth and then proceeded to tell the men how to have sex with their wife. This was before the 2 piece. He said the Lord had created the slit so a man could use his fingers to prepare the woman to allow the man to mount her. The one piece was to be worn at all times except to bath. He went on to say that no other sexual actvity between a man and his wife was allowed.
I wonder what this Bishop would say about Concerned’s writings?
Bill, assuming you are actually serious about this, by the slit are you referring to the overlapped front opening in the current one-piece style garment, or something different about the one pieces of the time?
All I’ll say is Bill has lived in some wierd units. That Bishop is sicker than any porn worshiper the GA’s are always ranting about. How many people did that nut job chase from the church? And think of his poor wife. But, come to think of it, she was probably cheating on him to have stayed in such a pathetic situation. Very sad.
As far as Concerned’s comments, masturbation isn’t a sin, be it male or female, and the church has wisely walked away from that nonsense. Just wait and see if there are any further printings of that sad 1976 BKP diatribe once he passes on to his reward.
In the FTSOY pamphlet it says:
“Before marriage, do not do anything to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage . . . Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.”
What do you suppose that refers to, Steve?
Interesting though that recent publications avoid specifying “masturbation” as a sexual sin.
“All I’ll say is Bill has lived in some wierd units.”
I have to agree. A lot seems to happen in areas you have lived Bill! And I assume you have been involved in many church courts to be aware of the rampant sin that seems to be occuring.
“Interesting though that recent publications avoid specifying “masturbation†as a sexual sin.”
Probably because masturbation isn’t the only thing that should be avoided.
But other things are mentioned specifically (such as petting for example).
Regarding the Bishop’s Wife. No I was being truthful.
Regarding the HT and the little girl. Yes it is true and the Church settled for 1 million. Interesting side note – the family are no longer LDS.
Why should Bishops, SP & GA not be held to a higher standard. They love to point out our wonderful they are and how the Lord has blessed them. They need to be held to a higher standard.
Bill,
You perplex me because with your last statement in 90. That is a common attitude in the church, particularly in our leadership ranks, but you don’t seem to be the type who would buy into such nonsense. The folly in that kind of thinking is it implies that GBH, BKP, a SP, Bishop, whatever, somehow need the atonement less than you or I or that pedophile HT do. It is only by the grace of JC that one gets back to G-d. Upon coming into grace, a person’s good works are done out of love for the Lord and their fellow beings and have no bearing on exaltation. Exaltation is a free gift available to all who desire it for which JC has already done the heavy lifting.
In priesthood we still hear about masturbation as a sin, usually in conjunction with talks on pornography, in spite of what Steve EM said in number 84. But I wonder if the sisters today have a widespread belief that female masturbation is okay since they never get talked to or asked about it? Can any sisters here give their thoughts on this? Why the different standard for the men and the women?
I cannot remember a single priesthood lesson (since being home from my mission) in which masturbation was ever specifically mentioned.
“But I wonder if the sisters today have a widespread belief that female masturbation is okay since they never get talked to or asked about it?”
I have never heard that it was ok, nor do I believe it is. Sexual sin is sexual sin. There is no different standard for men and women (unless of course you live in the same place Bill does? He seems to have bizarre stories such as this).
Quite the contrary Mary – Actually I was surprised that women are not asked about masturbation. I asked and what I found out is that women are told to not let men touch them or to touch men and to resist giving oral sex. I also asked about the masturbation and was told that was never asked of them.
OK, I grew up in the CofJCofLDS of Bishops obsessed with boy’s self pleasure. But that church thankfully doesn’t exist anymore. We’ve lived in a number of units, and none of my kids, male or female, ages 24-6, have ever been asked about masturbation, not from a Bishop, SP, MP, or anyone, not ever. I know because my wife and I keep a pulse on this.
I’ll add that the prostate gods are now taking their revenge on those masturphobes of yesteryear. The whole issue is quite sad.
Bill, I am a woman, you are not. I think I would know more about what women are asked than you would. In my 35 years of being alive I have never been taught that it is ok, I have been taught that it is not.
Many , many women are into porn! One needs only to consider the countless females who pursue this line of work (what . . . you thought they were being victimized? Wake up!), and are loving the attention they receive because of it.
Sally claims:
We certainly hear tons about these actresses, through the media, when was the last time you saw read or heard a major national media outlet report on some guy masturbating to Barely 18 or Shaved magazine?! You haven’t, because men who are masturbating to pornography are generally doing it in private (hence the trench coats). Pornography is one of the strongest tools of Feminism in that it subjugates men to women! It is also one of the most sexist comments to label a male with (saying he is addicted to porn). Porn is a choice not an addiction!
To answer Mary, women are placed on a pedestal because of our patriarchal societal system which dictates that women need to be protected, not only from the evils of this world, but from themselves as well (hence, the many porn starlets).
I agree with Bill when he states,
Men are wired differently than women, it takes different strokes for different folks (pun intended).
But I find it repugnant when he spews, “So mister turban head (Taliban) why don’t you wear a piece of cloth and cover the things you think? ugh.” How childish! If you must resort to racial intolerance than attack a nation that truly deserves attacking – attack an American!
I agree with JM, “Pornography is in the eye of the beholder”. Just as art too is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes the two are indistinguishable between to differing viewers opinions. So could art be pornographic? How about pornography as art?! Why don’t we ask Tasha Diamant for her opinion.
Mary contends, “When pictures are taken or drawn, to show a naked body in a provocative way, that is pornography. The body is sacred and should be treated so.” Once again though your idea of provocative posing may not be your neighbours, or the rest of society’s for that matter, idea of provocative posing. What makes you an authority on provocativeness relating to pornography? Just as I, thankfully for freedoms and rights, you are not an expert on this matter! And Mary, your ongoing bickering with other people over their opinions amounts to nothing more than flaming. It is actually quite embarrassing to read, as you seemingly expose yourself as someone incapable of entering into intelligent discussion without causing the debate to deteriorate into an argument of titanically childish proportions. Because I’ve read your other posts, in which your comments would seem to indicate this discussion as an aberration upon your usually thoughtful responses, I am willing to bet you must have been having your period while engaged in this discussion.
I agree with Concerned Brother in post #79 – A well thought out response.
Finally, in posts #95 & #99 Mary, you seem to indicate that you do not masturbate. Is this true?
And by the way, how did we digress to a discussion on the merits, or lack thereof, of masturbation when we began to talk about pornography? I fail to see an absolute connection between the two subjects since pornography is not exclusively related to masturbation, just as masturbation is not necessarily connected to pornography. Seems that we tend to take quite liberal strides with our assumptions while discussing the two (very diverse) subjects.
Just goes to show that human sexuality is possibly not an area where any religious body should be dictating rights and wrongs. One need only look to the one true source for guidance the Holy Bible. And, I do not need some quasi-intercessory person (prophet, priest, bishop, deacon, etc) to dictate that to me either, since all understanding comes through God and all mankind equally shares the ability to commune with Him. I shall take my guidance from Him. For what is right for me, He alone knows. And this is quite possibly not the plan He has for you.
Just a side note, pornography is nothing new – it has been around since shortly after the dawn of mankind. Did you all know that pornography was around, and is reported on, in the Bible?! Its true!! Go ahead see how many instances you can find.
This discussion took place a very long time ago, so there isn’t any “ongoing bickering”. As far as my views on pornography, I do have a strong view of them and will always say and believe the body is sacred. And no, I certainly was not on my period, though what that has to do with anything I don’t know. Any time someone (usually a man, for some reason) hears a woman getting heated up about a topic, he automatically assumes she is currently menstruating. Not sure why we aren’t allowed to be passionate about a subject without being branded hormonal. And the reason I was not, am not on my period is because (if it is any of your business, but you asked) I have not had a period in over 2 years (it was 2 years this past December) due to the fact I have been pregnant and then breastfeeding during that time, and my cycles have not yet returned. Do you want me to let you know when they do? (yes, sarcasm).
Sexuality isn’t wrong, but treating the body like a marketable object and ignoring the sacred nature of it, is wrong, in my opinion.
None of your business and very invasive, I must say.
My beliefs in the sacred nature of sexuality are based in my spiritual beliefs and also in my work as a NFP teacher and childbirth educator. And as a woman. Do I think all women think this way? No, of course not. But I am not here to police their opinions, nor does it matter to me what others think. I am responsible for what I believe.
For the record, I believe that sexuality is far too maligned and treated with disregard in the media and in society.
Interesting what you accuse me of, just because you don’t agree. If you have read any of my comments or posts, you will see that I am strongly opinionated, and do respect other’s opinions, even if I don’t agree. My discussions with Bill/George (and another username I won’t name, they are all the same person) you can’t understand as you have not been here long enough to see where many of his comments have come from. Oh and guess what, my opinions are not “conservative” though you probably peg me as a religious fanatic. Oh it’s funny.
I find it rather amusing that you are “embarrassed” by something that is not only almost a year old, but which you don’t understand, as is evident by your comment.