Record holder out of Porn
I read this article from XXX Church today. I am very glad to hear about this woman getting out of that industry, and giving her life to the Lord. While I am neither encourage or discouraging anyone from giving money to this cause, I just wanted to post this link because it includes some of her story. I personally remember the 620 men, I heard about that on the radio when it happened, and how that was a world record. I also read at a later date in time about her being married and thinking how much I would not want to be that guy. To anyone that may read this that is into pornography, look at her story and realize what your “harmless” activity is doing to the men and women involved in the industry. I also encourage you to look around the XXX Church website, and see how they can help you to overcome any problems you (or your friends) may have with pornography.
Everyone that is reading this as a Christian, I encourage you to lift this woman up in your prayers.
Not PC. 
November 3, 2008 at 2:06 pm
People choose to go into porn all the time of their own, free will. When someone is in the industry for years on end (a big rarity by the way) and then decides to make a dramatic change, he or she likes to take a sob moment to lament all the things he or she now views as wrong or stupid. They do this to themselves because everybody likes a pity party.
November 3, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Do you consider it a pity party for someone who used to be a gangster and kill people, which they got into of their own free will, then comes out later and says that what they did was wrong?
Or what about a reformed drug dealer? (Some people thing there is nothing wrong with drug sales/use just like people think there is nothing wrong with porn.)
November 3, 2008 at 7:36 pm
This is a classic “have you stopped beating your wife?” question. The answer to the question is always going to look either incriminating or serve to derail the point into what you want it to be. The problem is with the question itself.
Humans aren’t biologically wired to kill people for money. We’re wired to kill other animals as predators, sure. But there’s no “kill people for money” center of the brain. Same with drug dealing. Neurologists have yet to find a “sell meth on street corner” parts of the limbic system.
But sex, a natural bodily function and desire like hunger and thirst is a) programmed into us biologically and b) something perfectly legal in which people engage all the time. If sex was the equivalent of selling drugs or killing people for a living, you can bet the human population wouldn’t be in excess of 6.5 billion people. People who make porn only serve to help us stimulate our biological needs, like people on cooking shows stimulate our taste buds by showing us new dishes to make. Should TV chefs lament that they gained 100 pounds over their careers of standing in kitchens 12 hours a day and acquired hypertension or diabetes from tasting fatty, calorie dense foods all day? And will we compare them to gangsters and drug dealers too?
November 3, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Ok, I’ll give you that humans are necessarily wired to kill people for money or deal drugs. However we are wired for addiction to drugs, so rather than making the comparison between a porn star and a drug dealer, maybe a better comparison would be between a porn star and a drug user, who later laments their drug use. If you want to contest the fact that we are wired for drug addiction, consider the fact that methamphetamine places into our body four times the amount of dopamine that sex (the highest internal producer) does.
I also contest that porn does not stimulate natural biological needs, based on your latest blog entry you promote sex particularly in regards to procreation. Pornography rather discourages actual sexual intercourse that can result in procreation, but rather masturbation, which does not achieve said end. Also, people that become addicted to pornography often find themselves lacking in the desire for actual sex. And in some cases, completely impotent without the stimulation from pornography. (I personally know people that this is true for. )Therefore further inhibiting the natural desires to have proper sex, and by proper sex I mean with an actual human being, not hand/toy love.
Also, pornography, like drugs, (often) requires increase in intensity to achieve the same effect over time. A (straight male) person may find themselves initially stimulated by pictures of women in bathing suits, only to later find that un-arousing. Therefore they move to topless, then bottomless, then sexual pictures, then sexual videos, then sexual videos with multiple partners, and so on.
November 3, 2008 at 10:56 pm
1. Why do you insist on comparing sex with something really bad? Even at the expense of biology which says that humans can get addicted to narcotic substances but that it’s not our natural state. A drug user doesn’t naturally crave drugs as soon as he or she hits 13 or 14. He or she has to be introduced to drugs and use them for a while before addiction sets in. But 99% of all humans (there’s an elusive 1% of people who don’t care about sex) will desire sex when puberty stars. Again, your comparison is biologically inaccurate.
2. How many neurotransmitters drugs release has nothing to do with what the body normally does. Methamphetamine is not a natural substance. It’s a synthesized drug that manipulates our natural brain mechanisms. Your claim the the equivalent of saying that because people enjoy drinking soda pop, it must mean that the desire for soda pop is naturally wired within the limbic system. It’s not. Just our thirst is.
3. You seem to have strange beliefs about pornography which sound very surprising to anyone who’s studied human reproduction or spent a great deal of time with a professional scholar of human sexuality. A significant percentage of married or exclusive couples enjoy pornography to see possible ideas for new things to try in bed or just get in the mood after a rough day. To say that it discourages sex is like claiming that watching someone eat a juicy steak discourages hunger. It just doesn’t fit with what is known about human psychology and biology.
4. I did not promote sex for procreation on my blog. Instead, I pointed out how religious texts which give recommendations on procreation have a very Darwinian twist to them.
5. There are people who have a problem with pornography. There are also people who have problems with coffee. And tanning. And obsessive working out in gyms. And gambling. And food. And credit cards. So what’s your point? That there are dysfunctional addicts who become obsessed with something?
6. Personal anecdotes are meaningless. You know people who can’t get aroused without porn. I know people who watch a lot of porn and easily get excited at the first promise of sex with a person. My anecdotes just canceled yours out. I can also name you ten people who after watching porn long for nothing less than another person in their beds. Now what?
7. Slippery slope arguments are a type of logical fallacy. Different people find a different effect and want a different effect in porn.
November 4, 2008 at 10:44 am
1. I’m not comparing sex with something really bad, I’m comparing pornography with something really bad.
2. Pornography is not a natural stimulus for sexual behavior, it is synthetically created in a studio, and often causes people to desire more porn. Just like drugs cause people to desire more drugs, and sodas cause people to desire more soda.
3. I’ve never claimed to be someone who has studied human reproductive behavior. I’ve seen the effects porn can have on the people involved in the industry, as well as people that watch a lot of it. I don’t put a lot of stock in people who are “professional scholars of human sexuality” because there are a lot of things that these people condone as normal harmless behavior that in fact cause tremendous emotional damage.
4. Sorry, misinterpreted.
5. Pornography affects relationships, how people view sex, and how people view sexual attractions, often negatively regardless of addiction.
I guarantee that we have differing views of what constitutes a healthy relationship and/or healthy sex life, outside of just pornography, therefore we are going to have certain irreconcilable differences. I’m going to put a stop to this debate here, you’ve made your point and I’ve made mine, and all of this is taking away from my initial intention in posting the blog entry.
November 4, 2008 at 2:12 pm
1. Pornography is a visual representation of sex. So it’s ok to have sex and sex is good but showing sex is bad?
2. What’s your proof for this? You’re telling all of your readers (and me) that when humans see a visual of sex, they don’t become aroused? I’m sure that the hundreds of labs and universities that found the reverse to be true would be amazed to see your definitive tests on the matter.
3. So you haven’t studied human sexuality and you’re sure that sex therapists and psychologists who study sexual behaviors condone terrible things? How would you know the latter if you admit that you’re ignorant of the former? It’s like me saying that I’ve never learned anything about cars, but I don’t trust mechanics because they do terrible things to cars in the darkness of their shop. How would I know that? I never studied about cars!
5. Where can I find proof of this from a legitimate university study? Yes there are people who become addicted to pornography much like there are people who become addicted to alcohol, video games or something else and ruin their relationships in the process. But what percentage are they of the total? The porn debate reminds of the gambling debate. If you have a small percentage of people going overboard with something entertaining, does it mean you have to ban it for everybody else because a few don’t have a sense of self-control?
6. My apologies on raining on your parade. Of course the important point here is that people have different views of what a healthy sexual relationship is like, so how you can rush to define what is and isn’t a healthy sexual relationship and porn’s role in it, especially if you haven’t studied human sexuality, is a quite confusing to me.
November 4, 2008 at 2:51 pm
1. Sex is good or bad based on context. I think sex in the context of pornography is damaging to the people involved in both production and consumption.
2. I never said they don’t become aroused. I said it wasn’t natural, in regards the same way that drugs are not natural. Porn sex is not “real” sex, it is acting. It is synthesized sex that manipulates our natural brain mechanisms into becoming aroused.
3. I have studied it, though not in depth, and not a “professional” on the matter.
5. Is subjective to your view on healthy relationships and sexuality, thus number 6.
6. I don’t believe that we should accept multiple views as correct views, I am a black/white right/wrong kind of person, and there are certain things that because of my belief systems I believe are right or wrong. There are certain things I believe constitute healthy relationships or unhealthy relationships. One of the things that I think constitutes unhealthy relationships/sexuality is the involvement of pornography, because it results in you being turned on by a recorded image rather than your partner (whom I believe should be your spouse). If you have a problem with that, refer to the blog name, and consider that your disclaimer.