Explaining Porn Usage And Correlation With Religion

In reference to a color-coded map supposedly showing porn usage statistics in the U.S., with Utah showing a high usage, the question was put:

"This image shows porn subscriptions per thousand home broadband users. The data comes from the zip code of the credit cards used to pay for porn. Utah is ranked number 1 (Utah is ranked #1 even if this metric is measured in a number of other ways).

The study tried to correlate a number of factors to porn use, but couldn't find any that were meaningful. For example, regularly attending religious services seemed to have little or no correlation to the amount of porn consumed.

The bottom line is that Utahns consume a lot of porn and we don't why. Yikes!!!"

To which I responded:

While I am in no position to say whether or not the study is accurate, I do have a few comments:

1) There is no universally-accepted definition of "porn." Thus, it is awfully difficult for a study of this kind to be meaningful without further explanation about definitions.
2) It would surprise me if there were a higher rate of porn use among church members than among the general American population. For some people, I suppose porn has a greater appeal the more it is suppressed, and it is definitely suppressed in the LDS faith. However, my own speculation is that effect of the cultural suppression of porn within the church is probably stronger than what I'll call the "self-fulfilling prophecy effect" (whereby people are actually more likely to use porn because of its attempted suppression). Therefore, I would expect porn use in Utah among church members to be slightly lower than among the general population.
3) What is almost certainly the case, in my opinion, is that a very large percentage of the religious population hides their true views and habits concerning sexually-oriented materials. They put on a show to fit in in their conservative communities, but in reality, no amount of preaching or prayer or attempted religious devotion "cures" them of the inherent sexual nature God gave them. In my own view, the overly zealous suppression of that sexual nature does more harm than good, and in many instances causes the fractionization of people's lives; only in private are they allowed to be themselves, and they must face the daily battle of pretending to be someone they are not. That being said, I am not advocating tossing all sexual restraint to the wind, but I am saying that rules mandating sexual restraint, to be morally binding on us, require a compelling justification (i.e., not just, "because God says so.")

*Edit: And in response to my comments above, the comment was made:

"What's instructive here is the manner in which the author reduces human sexual behavior and proclivities to something alone the lines of a plethora of inherent, innate instinctual drives or innate, programmed psychological types (being ourselves) and then even lays the blame for the existence of these inherent, ontologically programmed desires at the feet of God (who now appears to be a kind of cosmic voyeur enjoying from his throne in the clouds our persuit of pornography and sexual stimulation outside of what is understood to be the boundaries of his laws ans counsel concerning our sexuality).

Psychological or ontological reductionism of this kind, popular since the sixties, makes human sexuality something alone the lines of plate tectonics; something that simply "is" and exists as a matter of the play of natural forces over which human beings have little control.

This is all quite convenient, of course, given the ultimate end sought by such arguments. The impression given that sex and sexuality are at the very core of daily life for most people, and form the nucleus around much of human existence (as over against a balanced and integrated aspect of a much larger, broader range of interests and goals) is standard for the genra of sexual revolution philosophy which I grew up with throughout the seventies and has now become anything but revolutionary.

Assertions that many, or most people are somehow sexually repressed by prudish or puritanical sexual restrictions and rules is another nice trope left over from the sixties and early seventies when it was fashionable (as it still is) to point the finger of mockery at anyone not yet fully Hefnerized.

It may just be the case that much of our perception of sexual repression may be as much a function of our culture's cultic obsessiveness with sex and eroticism as any alleged opressive atmosphere."

To which I responded:

Thanks for your response. It appears to me that you are dismissing my argument as incredible or invalid because it resembles or is identical to arguments perpetuated as part of the sexual revolution. I don't consider that to be a very strong argument. I never said God is a voyeur. I believe in God. I also believe that somewhere along the path of humanity's existence, someone got the idea that sex, because it is a big deal, is inherently suspect as a cause of humanity's problems. That idea, I think, is what gave rise to what I consider to be overly tight restrictions on human sexuality. Again, as I have said many times on this board, I do not and never have argued in favor of lifting all sexual restrictions. Some restriction is good for humanity and also for the soul. But many of the restrictions found in the LDS faith, in my opinion, do more harm than good.

One other thing: I have yet to see a reliable empirical study that really shows that LDS restrictions on sexuality are feasible for the bulk of society. There may be a very small percentage of men, who, for reasons I do not understand, manage to have the type of sex drive and discipline which is compatible with LDS policy. But the empirical evidence, from what I have studied and from what I have experienced in my own life, suggest very strongly to me that there is a serious disconnect between the LDS view on sexuality and what the reality is. The LDS model is a flawed one which assumes a reality which doesn't exist.

Does anyone know of any statistical evidence on, say, the percentage of LDS male missionaries who never masturbated during their mission? Does anyone have any reliable statistic on the percentage of temple-married LDS men who do not think of another woman while having sex with their wives? Does anyone have any statistics on the number of times per day that LDS bishops have erotic thoughts about women to whom they are not married? I doubt you will find it, and there is no way for us to get inside those people's heads to know for sure whether they would be telling us the truth.

Here's what we can be relatively certain of: because our society associates sex with a certain amount of shame, admissions of having erotic thoughts about people to whom we are not married are much more credible than denials. An anonymous survey would be much more likely to have accurate responses than a public survey, because the respondent would have much less fear that he/she would be put on the spot. Here's a study that I found very interesting, which was published in the Journal of Sex Science: In an anonymous study of students and faculty at a U.S. university, 98% of men, and 80% of women, admitted to having regular sexual fantasies about people other than their long-term-relationship partner. Interestingly, there was no significant difference for married people versus co-habiting couples. Also interesting: the longer the relationship had lasted, the greater the incidence of sexual fantasies about someone else.

We need more studies of that kind. You can argue until you're blue in the face, you can kick against the pricks, but it appears to me, that ultimately, you are probably living in dreamland if you imagine to yourself that God expects the entirety of humanity to only engage in sexual expression when it is towards and about their spouse. That does not mean that we should abolish marriage or marital commitments or fidelity in terms of sexual relationships with other people. But it does mean that we have to be realistic in our expectations and our restrictions. From what I can tell, many couples, with consent of each other, use pornography and it does not seem to cause a problem in their relationship. From what I can tell, what often causes the problem is that one spouse, usually the wife, is fed an unrealistic expectation by society (or in many cases the LDS faith) that any erotic thoughts of her husband which are not about her constitutes infidelity to her. She comes to expect and believe that, if he really loves her, he will only fantasize about her sexually. Because of that false expectation, fed by the church based upon an unrealistic model of human sexuality, she takes offense at her husband's way of life, and it can cause all sorts of problems in the marriage. Therefore, in many instances, it is the false beliefs which oppose pornography, not the pornography itself, which cause the so-called breakdown in the family.

Caveat: there are forms of pornography which, in my view, truly are harmful, such as child pornography, coerced sex, or violent depictions of sexuality. Pornography also can have a different effect on different people. Some are able to easily separate the fantasy from reality, and others seem less able to do so. It is also likely that some people would use pornography as an alternative for otherwise available sex with a spouse who wants, but cannot have, sex because the other spouse's interest in pornography has decreased their interest in sex. This is a perfectly legitimate concern for spouse 1 who is interested in sex, but is not able to get it from spouse 2 because spouse 2 would rather use porn. On the other hand, if spouse 1 doesn't feel like sex anyway, and spouse 2 does, is it fair to spouse 2 to deny them all sexual experience? I say clearly not. We do not choose marriage to become prisoners, we chose marriage in part to have a relationship and to more fully experience our sexuality. If spouse 1 is obese, or out of town, or sick, or depressed, or disabled, or any host of other conditions which put a serious damper on the couple's sexual relationship, then spouse 2 has a right to take care of their own needs. Pornography can be a safe way of doing that, so that sex with another partner outside of marriage is unnecessary. For that reason, and others, pornography actually serves a great public good; it can foster the continuance of stable relationships by reducing the likelihood of sex outside marriage. Similarly, it can help single people hold off on pre-marital sex.

On an empirical level, I predict that what we would find, if we had reliable data, is that societies which legalize sexual media have more dialogue on what is and is not acceptable, and there are probably fewer unwanted pregnancies and less sexual abuse/rape. If anyone has any statistical data on this, I'd love to see it.

*And in response to the above comment by me, the comment was made:

"Don't be shocked...this is an ongoing theme for Mr. James. Apparently, in his opinion, the Law of Chastity is an impossible law to live."

To which I responded:

That is not true in most instances. If the law of chastity is simply, "thou shalt not have sexual intercourse with anyone to whom you are not married," (and, by the way, I believe the temple ceremony used to have that as the language in the early 1900s, and the "relations" language only came along later), then it is, in my view, possible, and in most circumstances, reasonable, to live. It is the expansive reading of that law that is unrealistic. The debate, in my view, is not whether it is possible to live the commandments God has given us, but rather, what are God's commandments really? Since we are left to figure out that question with limited and imperfect evidence (i.e., science, scriptures, philosophy, emotions, spiritual experience, history, preaching, philosophy, purported revelations, etc.), we can only do our best. If reality seems to me to be inconsistent with a purported commandment from God, then it is likely, in my opinion, that the purported commandment is not a commandment at all, but just the philosophies of men.