How many people would like their sexual inclinations open knowledge? That is the question for a human society where humans are so concerned with obfuscating their own biology that bad food habits are acceptable and bad sex habits are acceptable. The problem is that bad sex habits consist of complete sexual abstinence.

I mean really, if the bishop is beating himself once a month and having sex with his wife once a week, how scandalous is that?

In my opinion hiding our sexuality is a path of humans trying to learn how to express themselves sexually in socially acceptable ways by themselves alone and only with another sexually repressed human to help while over feeding themselves to console themselves in their "bad sex habits" when a standard of complete abstinence or complete dependence upon a spouse is required.

It creates this. Some juicy bits of proof of this including the claim that sexual content now leads to pedophilia.

Good luck Jeff Holland. You disease is built in to us. Maybe you should start preaching original sin.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/in-utah-the-fight-against-porn-is-increasingly-being-framed-as-a-public-health-crisis/ar-BBJfnhe


“It’s not the job of the government to sit in a dark room and review porn,” said Utah Rep. Michael McKell (R-Spanish Fork),

Paula Houston, the first and only porn czar, was quickly inundated by requests to get supermarkets to stop carrying racy magazines, prevent lingerie catalogues from being delivered and remove R-rated videos from public libraries. She said she ended up spending a lot of her time “just talking to people about the First Amendment, the Constitution and their rights, and that those rights apply to everyone.”

Those themes have had a significant impact on the legislative agenda of state Sen. Todd Weiler (R-Woods Cross). While he co-sponsored the bill to erase the porn czar position, saying he was simply eliminating “a dead statue,” Weiler has sponsored at least 10 bills or resolutions related to pornography in his six years in the Utah Legislature. Some colleagues have even joked they would like to make him the state’s next porn czar.

One initiative that does seem to have taken hold, though, is Weiler’s 2016 effort to declare pornography “a public health crisis.” That nonbinding resolution, unanimously passed by both chambers of the state Legislature, warned “this biological addiction leads to increasing themes of risky sexual behaviors, extreme degradation, violence, and child sexual abuse images and child pornography.”

“That’s the real problem with the whole porn addiction model,” Ley said. “It diagnoses the symptoms and not the issue. If I walk into the doctor’s office and I’m sneezing, my doctor doesn’t say ‘you have sneezing addiction, and you need to stop sneezing.’”

Rebecca Sullivan, who lectures on feminist media and cultural studies at the University of Calgary, said she is disconcerted that Canadian lawmakers adopted a porn-is-unhealthy mantra born in a conservative U.S. state.

“This isn’t a public health issue,” she said. “Are there concerns about porn? Absolutely. But they’ve framed it as a virus. Porn is not a virus. Porn is not a condition. Porn may be a symptom of greater social concerns such as lousy sex education, lack of consent-based education and rigid gender norms.”

“We do need to see this like avian flu, or cholera, or diphtheria, or polio,” Elder Jeffrey Holland, a member of the second highest governing body in the LDS church, told Utah Coalition Against Pornography conference attendees in 2016. “It needs to be eradicated.”

You have to look at who the people are, who take these unhealthy positions on sex. It's usually not an attractive woman who dates a lot and has a reasonable number of male friends. It's usually not the well adjusted man who knows how to relate well to the women in his life, both family and who he dates romantically.

The average person against sex and pornography are the same people who aren't getting any sex and/or who don't relate as well to others socially. They hide behind their religion and disparage anything that the church tells them to disparage. Most of them fear pornography because they themselves find it irresistable. And if they can't have it, they don't want others to have it either. They don't know how to have healthy parent/child birds-and-bees types of discussions without conveying shame over the topic, so they fear that their children will be drawn to pornography. Like alcahol, parents should follow the law when making reasonable attempts to prevent their under-age children from being exposed to sex and pornography. But they should still prepare their children in advance, to live-in, and even partake in adult things, for a time after the child has become an adult. So you don't give the child alcahol. You give them advice about how to handle alcahol as they approach adulthood. That advice should include more than just "don't do it". The same thing goes for sex. All the church wants is for all adults to be like children, and in ignorance.

I was a shy teen with TBM parents and being brainwashed each Sunday, which did not give me very much confidence when talking to girls. If it wasn't for a hot nevermo coworker, I would be owned by the Morg today.
If a church can control the girls, they will control the boys. I despise many formal religions for this reason.

chipace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If a church can control the girls, they will
> control the boys. I despise many formal religions
> for this reason.

I don't think it is so sex specific. If a church can claim moral high ground despite its history and practices as well as exclusions and collusions it will continue to exist.

Modern humans are all about external things in judging themselves and other and getting their youth to follow their elder human's leadership.

Sexual expressions without high moral hang-ups are more natural. The cultures and societies which allow these religious structures to thrive tell both boys and girls how to express themselves sexually. Boys are as much bait as girls in this entrapment in my opinion.

Shy boys aren't assertive and being assertive often attracts mates. So shy boys use proxies. Christianity offers a proxy - Jesus - the asserter on the mount.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2018 12:10PM by Elder Berry.

My DH and I were lucky in that we did not have to deal with the "virginity" issue. We had both been married before.

Our bishop (back then) had the notion that it was up to HIM whether or not we would be allowed to marry. Huh. DH was in his very late 30s and I was in my very early 40s. The bish wanted us to wait and get married in the temple. I told him very bluntly that if we had to wait much longer, there would very likely be a chastity issue to deal with. He tried to have a face-down with me, but I had been well-schooled by my mother. The bish blinked first.

He agreed to marry us, so we set the date and sent out invitations.

catnip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bish wanted us to wait
> and get married in the temple.

Other than some deranged test of faith I've never understood this with both sealing and baptisms for the dead.

What is the problem when you have safety nets in your beliefs?

Western society seems to have more sex and less intimacy these days.

Western society seem to have a long historical progression from human nature.

Sex is either something to get regardless of the connection to the other human being or something sublimated by intimacy with only one other human being.

Sex and intimacy suffer in both cases - a contraband commodity or a license to monogamy. Intimacy with animals is the only place humans can be human outside monogamy. Regardless of whether you've pissed off a partner shouldn't be a reason to withhold either sex or intimacy but it is for the virtuous to suffer in modernity. In ancient Western societies "virtue" was not something tied to chastity.