Regarding Holland's recent statements about porn, here is a link to a story on the website ScientificAmerican.com, based on good solid scientific r4search, that says porn is not harmful.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sunny-side-of-smut/?responsive=false

The headline on this piece is: The Sunny Side of Smut

and the subhed is:

For most people, pornography use has no negative effects—and it may even deter sexual violence

Here is a key quote from this article:

“There’s absolutely no evidence that pornography does anything negative,” says Milton Diamond, director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. “It’s a moral issue, not a factual issue.”

And here is a link to a story (again based on research) that says porn "addiction" is nonsense:

http://www.complex.com/life/2016/03/adult-film-addiction-not-real-says-science

=====================================

Of course, we know that tscc is fearful of science because science often clashes with dearly-held LDS beliefs; and because it is so fearful, tscc will certainlhy reject these findings. After all, if god is giving you "revelations", why waste time and money doing science?

When One spouse does (omits) Anything that is disagreeable to the other, there's the possibility of harm.


Attending Church, 'bearing testimony' (at home), porn, gambling, substance addictions, etc., ANYTHING.


For some people, living alone should be the default choice.

What would Mormonism be without make believe "problems"? Mormon love is a strange thing. Love is like sex. Even when it's bad it's good, but what a freak show.

Fortunately I have the brethren to tell me smoking hot super humans having rodeo sex isn't real life.

Amen! Call me "Porn Again"!

As with marijuana, 'it' may not hurt people (and the jury's still out on that), but the cartels certainly do.

Sorry, OP, but behavioral addictions do exist, are recognized by the scientific and medical field, and include sex, gambling, shopping, booze, drugs, and many others. Porn addiction is a type of sex addiction and is just as real as other behavioral addictions. It is not a moral issue, no matter how much Mormons want to make it one. It is a psychological/psychiatric disorder. It can affect relationships, family, jobs, finances, and a lot of other areas of the addict's life (again, just like any other addiction).

For more about what scientific research says about it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3164585/

Is there a cure for my RFM addiction?

I think the point is that porn, by itself, does not cause wide spread problems any more than sex, food, exercise, facebook, etc. Behavioral addiction can revolve around pretty much any behavior so therefor its not a reason to call for the restriction or elimination of anything.

For example, I keep things that I buy, but I am not a hoarder. Just because some people cant throw things away doesn't mean that we should shut down Wal-Mart. I could list a million examples of course.

Porn is NOT a public health concern. No one is dying from it, its causing no significant problems except for people who A) have a behavior addiction that happens to revolve around porn(but could just as easily be gambling or going to church) or B) is a devout religious person who allows other people to define right or wrong for them.

Far more good in the world would be achieved by doing away with religion and all the guilt and loss of personal control that comes with it than by doing away with pictures of the human body doing thing that are natural for human bodies to do.

IOW, the scientific research in this area is inconclusive.

IAC that is sufficient to say that the views of Holland et al should be regarded with lots of caution and skepticism---because he (and his pals) has various motivations for distorting what we know.

Like it's monolithic, conclusive, true, and not influenced by hypothesis, selection, biased interpretation, let alone employment, departmental policy, and funding.

I have far more trust in research saying that porn is "not so bad", than I do in any words out of the mouths of Holland et al--including "the", "and" and "a".