Is Being a Wife, Being a Sex Slave?

Pornification Nation (Warning: Explicit Descriptions)

This article beautifully illustrates the effect that pornography has on women from a non-LDS Christian. By definition, pornography objectifies women and increasingly degrades them.

And that is an effect that happens regardless of whether or not a man is married, or a couple consumes pornography together.

How can we not see this?

Of Course There Is Nothing Wrong With Porn

I have seen several arguments lately that pornography is a natural, and even beneficial behavior. I've noticed a few things about these comments.

First, they're almost entirely made by men.

Second, they make an age-old series of claims used by men the world over and from time immemorial to excuse their abuse of women. 1) That their sex drive is much stronger than a woman's, biologically, and that therefore a) a man can't help himself and b) a woman can't understand what it's like. 2) That because their drive is so strong, they must find an outlet for it (through porn or by guilting one's spouse into more frequent sex or uncomfortable sexual practices) or commit some other, "worse" sin. (In my personal experience, it was a threat of violence.) 3) That it doesn't hurt anyone. 4) That it's the guilt and shame that hurts, not the viewing of porn itself, and 5) that the porn can actually help increase intimacy in a real sexual relationship.

I've already written a post on what I think pornography really is (a realm where the person can be safely objectified and forced to perform to the viewer's fantasies.) With that in mind, I call baloney on the whole series of claims. First, I think it is more likely that men's sexual bullying techniques are more socially acceptable, not that their sex drive is generally higher. I also suspect that because women are a) more likely to be turned on by less visible things and b) not as often encouraged to be excited by visible things, and c) less likely to immediately betray their attraction, that their drives are less obvious.

Saying that men can't help it is selling their agency pretty cheaply. I'm a strong believer in personal responsibility. If they say they have to be either violent/promiscuous/etc. or sexual, they are threatening their partners and trying to shift responsibility for their behavior onto the partner. (Which is abusive, by the way.)

Also, pornography definitely hurts someone. It may not be the viewer in the most obvious ways, but it hurts those around them, particularly their partners. It is a not-so-subtle message that women are cheap, and that the partner isn't "enough" for the viewer.

Placing blame for the hurt on the guilt and shame is just another rather transparent attempt to avoid personal responsibility for the consequences of bad choices.

And there is no way that pornography (the objectifying of another person) can contribute to a spiritual, divine, intimate bond with a spouse. Just like the Spirit can't dwell in unclean houses, neither can respect for another live in the same place as pornography.

So I don't buy it one bit. And even though the easy topic is male-oriented porn, female-oriented porn (such as becoming sexually aroused by book characters) is just as objectifying and just as bad. So stop lying to yourself and take responsibility.

Why Pornography is Wrong (It's Not Really About Sex)

I have recently gone through a drastic paradigm shift that has led me to understand several gospel principles in a new way. One of these is pornography.

There is a great deal of discussion about pornography in the LDS blog world. At the risk of oversimplification, essentially the discussions involve three basic views. First, that pornography is evil because it exploits women and plays upon natural man drives. Second, that pornography in moderation is not that bad if it helps husbands and wives have a more fulfilling sex life. Third, that there is really nothing wrong with pornography because the women who are depicted choose their careers, and would do it whether or not any particular person used it.

But there is another, more insidious aspect to pornography that I believe may greatly damage the lives of anyone it touches in ways that ripple out to destroy wives, children and friends.

While I have not ever been involved in pornography, there is a certain level of it which cannot be entirely avoided in today's society, so I am minimally familiar with the concept. Generally speaking, pornography involves showing people in various states of undress, or depicting a sexual encounter through stories, but nakedness and sex are not what defines pornography. In fact, pornography can consist of people entirely modestly dressed, and often does. Sometimes an actual sexual encounter does not even need to be depicted or described. Pornography is not nakedness, it is the depiction of forbidden or unattainable sexual desires in a way that allows the viewer or reader to direct the fulfillment of those desires.

When a person views a pornographic picture or reads a pornographic story, they are in some ways putting themselves into the scene. They are able to fantasize about doing something that they cannot do in real life. Essentially all forms of pornography involve having someone else do what you want them to do.

In short, pornography is a way of finding sexual gratification that circumvents the agency of another person. It is about control, not about sex.

In normal, healthy, husband-and-wife sex, two people have to work together to find mutual pleasure and joy in physical expression. That's why it is such hard work, and why so many people struggle with it. It is not that there is anything wrong with the individuals, it is that divinely-sanctioned sex is not meant to be easy. It is not meant to be about fulfilling one's own needs, it is meant to be about seeking ways to meet a spouse's needs. When two people attempt this, there are bound to be missteps along the way. However, when this is done, husband and wife form strong bonds of love as they seek their spouse's needs before their own (very powerful) ones. Sex should be a form of charity held sacred to be performed only between husband and wife, so there can be a bond between them that no others share.

When a person seeks physical fulfillment in ways that ignore the agency of another person, they objectify and thus can manipulate a person (even if it is only in their own fantasy, and even if it is on a strictly limited basis). That person mocks one of the most important laws of God: the law of agency. They then damage their ability to find pleasure in giving, grinding grooves of habit that make it impossible for them to associate sex with selflessness.

Once a person ties their sexual pleasure to control and manipulation, other aspects of the marital relationship assume the taint of a need to control. Then that person can easily begin to see all relationships as relationships of control. When a relationship is about control, it is no longer of God.

If you look at scripture, about Satanic interaction with mankind as compared to divine interaction, you will see that relationships with God never, never violate the principle of agency: of choice and accountability. Satan almost always tempts in one of three ways: by convincing us there is no choice, by convincing us there is no consequence, or by telling us that we do not have to be accountable for what we choose, that it somehow isn't our fault.

Is pornography wrong because it exploits women? Undoubtedly. But it also exploits the viewer or reader, teaching them that joy comes only from control. In the end, that is far more damaging.