Curing Porn Addiction with BJ

Must save porn

Bill Johnson of the American Decency Association sent me another worthless email today. He calls it “Don’t Seek Secular/Godless Counselors for Deep Spiritual Issues”.

He’s offended by something he saw in his local newspaper, the Detroit Free Press. The offending article is a relationship column called Sexcetera. That title alone should have warned him off, but he somehow feels compelled to read these things. I guess BJ ignores all warning signs. It’s amazing he has lived as long as he has.

Chainsaw warning

The column is written by “Steve and Mia”, who are apparently as qualified as BJ for handing out advice. Their bio states:

Steve is a 50-something married man who’s been around the block. Mia is a younger, recently married woman with an altogether different attitude. They may not agree, but they have plenty of answers.

That’s all we need. More unqualified people telling others how to live their lives. At least Steve and Mia don’t claim to be speaking for God.

Let’s see what has BJ so upset. He quotes extensively from the article, so I’ll label who is speaking.

SEXCETERA: Question: I recently discovered that my husband has been watching hardcore porn on his computer. He left it up on the screen and I just happened to see it. I’m completely disgusted with him. I can’t even look at him the same way. To me, it’s the same as if he cheated. What do you think I should do?

Chainsaw warning

Bay of Fundie response: Almost all guys look at porn. The simple fact that hubby did so does not necessarily indicate that there are any problems in the marriage. However, this matter clearly has you distressed. You need to discuss this with a qualified marriage counselor. Do not think you can get good advice from a couple of no-nothing newspaper columnists. And for dog’s sake, whatever you do, don’t discuss it with a clergyman!

Of course that’s not how BJ responded when he read the question. Here’s what he wrote:

BJ: This is a totally valid question. The only difficulty that I have is why in the world is this woman asking Steve and Mia? Can’t she find someone that lives a Godly faith with years of faithfulness, purity and a reputation for being blameless?

Yeah, good luck with that.

BJ: Yes! She has been cheated on. Jesus own words state that having lustful thoughts is the same as committing adultery. [Matthew 5:28]

I’m sorry, I somehow missed an important detail: Where did Dr. Christ earn his PhD in Marriage and Family Counseling?

MIA: Can you let it go? I ask because there’s no use trying to get between a man and his porn collection — unless you want to join in on the fun.… If you get on his case, he’ll just go underground with it and do a better job of hiding it.

BJ: Pornography is highly addictive. That is settled ground!

No, it’s not. As usual, BJ does not cite any data. Pornography is like alcohol. Most people use it responsibly. It is only a minority who use it to the point that it becomes a problem in their life. By BJ’s logic, we should ban wine. Of course we can’t, because that’s Jesus-approved.

BJ: A person addicted seeks harder and harder material to get that “gratification.”

While it is true that the kinkiness and intensity of internet porn has been increasing lately, that trend seems to be driven by a minority of the porn-consuming populace. I have seen no evidence that normal porn users are gravitating to the heavier stuff en masse.

So tell me, BJ, are you a heroin addict yet? I assume you must be. If you’ve even so much as tasted the highly-addictive beer or wine, you would have been compelled to move on to whiskey, then cocaine, then heroin. Or are you the sort who likes meth? Just how much Sudafed have you been buying at Costco?

BJ: So Mia, you counsel this heartbroken woman to “just let it go?” If she lets it go, it is only going to become more intrusive into his and her life. If her husband doesn’t stop and get under control and return his heart and affections to his wife she will be living with a man whose sexual life is perverted and he will either destroy himself, her and/or others.

Or he’ll get bored with the porn and check out ESPN.com.

BJ: Many of us who have overcome pornography (including myself) have discovered that with having the power of God in our lives (based upon a living, personal relationship with Christ) we could not have overcome this wicked addiction.

Actually, if you reread that sentence carefully, you’ll see that BJ is admitting that having God in his life prevents him from overcoming his addiction to porn. That must explain all of those fallen preachers.

The newspaper column then gives Steve’s response:

STEVE: If every wife divorced her husband for viewing porn, marriage would cease to exist in five years. Porn isn’t cheating, but it can be addictive and that’s where the danger lies.

Steve is using a sloppy definition of addictive, but he’s right that overuse (of anything) can cause problems. This answer isn’t godly enough for BJ.

BJ: Porn isn’t cheating? Usually when you hear a guy talk like this he is a big pornography user – justifying and/or rationalizing his lusting after pornography.

Or maybe he’s expressing an opinion based on the experiences of most people.

STEVE: You should talk with your husband about this, but in a nonaccusatory way. Remind him that the real thing is better than the fantasy. Once this gets aired out, I think you’ll both feel better about it.

BJ: Totally simplistic answer “When this gets aired out, I think you’ll feel better about it.” If only it were so easy; a simple misunderstanding? No. Your husband needs to seek the help of God and of an expert who knows how to help a person through confessing their sin, going through a process of true repentance, cleaning out their pornography cache, getting a filter, etc., etc., and humbling themselves – truly – before his wife and an accountability partner! Long term!

That’s how you guys “cure” homosexuality, too, isn’t it?

25 Responses to “Curing Porn Addiction with BJ”

  1. Lindsay Says:

    BJ certainly speaks from experience! And now with God’s help, he is able to refrain from getting a boner when cruising the internets looking for porn and sex talk.

    It’s like hiring a former alcoholic to be a bartender….

  2. J. A. Baker Says:

    What does it say about me that when I first saw that “Jesus is Coming Hide the Pr0n” picture, I immediately wanted to change the “o” to a “u” and add a second “m” next to the first?

  3. L.Long Says:

    1st just what is porn? Everyone uses the word but so far as I can tell any woman not in a tent is porn.

    Because if naked is porn, then BJ must get his BJs under the blanket so he can’t see it or he’d be watching porn.

  4. Aegis Says:

    A man’s porn is sacred, if anything is. Hey, BJ, you want to hear about a real intelligent design? Computer mice with built-in browser controls so you can use the Internet one-handed!

  5. sue blue Says:

    And who says wives don’t look at porn? I guess if your husband is looking at women with watermelons on their chests and you have fried eggs, you might feel a little insecure. And if you’re looking at studs hung like donkeys, your husband might feel inadequate. But cheating? Come on. Looking at porn is the ultimate in safe sex. As long as it’s not snuff or kiddie porn, so what? Why did Gawd give us all these bits if we weren’t supposed to look at them or use them? It’s like baking up a big batch of cookies, putting them on a plate right out in plain sight, and saying to your kids, “Don’t touch, don’t eat – don’t even look at them – or I’ll cut your fingers off, you worthless little bastards!”

  6. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I agree completely with the BoF response except that I might add that she should talk with her husband to see what it is he is getting from the pr0n and if there is any unfulfilled need. Communication is sexy and all that.

    I mean maybe he just wanted to see some hot sweaty naked hardcore action from a couple professional hard bodies, or maybe he was exploring that anal fantasy he’s been having for a while. Take it up the pooper and maybe he’ll cut down on it.

    But seriously… Both her and BJ… as bad as cheating?! Jesus Holy Boner Christmas. That’s beyond excessive!

    It’s not all just the men folk either. Sometimes my wife looks at gay porn. Considering I have never even been the slightest bit bicurious, that’s the only way she’ll get to see two dudes fencing, so more power to her.

  7. Ron Britton Says:

    Everybody who was commenting on this article was getting thrown into moderation, because I had “porn” as a keyword for possible spam.

    I’m getting much less of that now that I’m using the captcha. I just removed porn from the spam list. If spam starts getting through again, I’ll have to relist it.

    In the meantime, you may resume your discussion, hopefully unimpeded.

  8. J. A. Baker Says:

    Oh, and BJ? The Internet is for Pr0n! The Internet is for Pr0n! Why you think the net was born? Pr0n, Pr0n, Pr0n!

  9. OtherRob Says:

    If a husband (or wife) is using porn *instead* of being intimate (physically, emotionally, or mentally) with their spouse, then there is a problem. But it’s still not cheating. Sheesh.

  10. Brian Says:

    This is what I love about America. In the years to come, when Christian theocrats encroach ever further into the lives of every citizen, in the end it won’t be science, or reason, or even simple human decency that finally stomps religion into a permanent minority. It will be porn.

    This is, I believe, the proverbial line in the sand for most men. Sure, we’ll complacently stand by as our children are rendered stupid by an impotent science curriculum. We probably won’t even bat a collective eye as women’s rights are rolled back several centuries. A few holy wars against brown people won’t be any big deal. But when the American Taliban comes for our porn, the shit will be on. This is the one true enemy of Christianity that it can never defeat, because somewhere, somehow a guy is going to figure out how to watch midget lesbians pooping on an octopus, and he’s going to find a way to share it.

    We tried this once with Prohibition, but stupid people never learn.

  11. 4theist Says:

    Dear BJ,

    Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” depicts a dystopia, not a Christian utopia.

  12. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Brian – Yes.

    One way to stop the tealiban is to VOTE. So everybody go VOTE if you haven’t already. I don’t care if you haven’t received your favorite pony from Obama or not. VOTE TO PROTECT OUR PORN!

  13. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Too good to not spread around as I know there are a few here who think Obama hasn’t done anything so far. http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

    NOW GET OUT AND VOTE!

  14. Parrotlover77 Says:

    And staying on the political topics… Establishment Republicans did well. Teabaggers… not so much? Although they did get Rand Paul elected. Personally, I think a giant multicolored illuminated extrawide dildo would do a better job as Senator, but I don’t live in Kentucky.

    The weirdest part of last night is that although the House did worse than expected by most, the Senate did better. That’s just weird.

    But then again, that’s what gerrymandering districts will do.

    And proving, yet agian, that they understand playing dirty better than liberals ever will (or are extremely lucky), legislatures will be very red when districts are redrawn next year.

    PERMANENT TEAPARTY MAJORITY?!

    Well, no, not even close, but back to business as usual!

    Great job, Americans! You finally do the right thing two years ago after eight years of complete insanity, then you get scared or get frustrated with the pace and throw up your hands and let the corporations take over again.

  15. Ron Britton Says:

    Great job, Americans! You finally do the right thing two years ago after eight years of complete insanity, then you get scared or get frustrated with the pace and throw up your hands and let the corporations take over again.

    That’s what pisses me off. Americans are so stupid that they’re constantly voting against their own self interest.

  16. Jeff Says:

    Americans are so stupid that they’re constantly voting against their own self interest.

    It really is rather unbelievable that we managed to remain on top for so long.

  17. Brian Says:

    I think the problem is, of course, our collective ignorance, impatience, greed and narcissism. These traits make us basically ungovernable as a country, at least when it comes to serious issues. I am not any more disheartened that the Republicans than I would have been if the Democrats had won. Both parties suck in their own special ways, and, yes, I know the Republicans/teabaggers are nuts, but I don’t see us ever ridding ourselves of far-right wingnuts, at least until they make things bad enough to spark another revolution.

  18. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Brian – You had me until the “both parties suck” part. Democrats are not ideal liberals, I will not argue that they are. But I think the gap between Republican and Democrat is only getting wider as time goes on.

    Losing the House is not as bad as losing the Senate, but both are bad in obvious ways.

    The main thing you need to always remember, and this is far more important than most people realize, is that even the worst Democrat can be convinced to vote (or at least not block) appointments. This is fricking huge. Look at the Supreme Court. Look at the age of the Supremes. We simply cannot afford to let Republicans appoint any more Supremes (let alone the lower courts, cabinet positions, heads of departments, and so on).

    The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican. This wasn’t always the case and will not always be the case, but for now it is.

    This is what I’ve been saying all along. This isn’t about getting your favorite pony now. This is about building the stable, so that those ponies are given a change to grow into strong thoroughbreds.

    All that said, this lame duck session is a good opportunity to get some liberal legislation passed before the Republicans start trying to disassemble it all. WRITE YOUR REPS.

  19. Jeff Says:

    Losing the House is not as bad as losing the Senate

    How so?

  20. Brian Says:

    PL,

    I think we’re going to have to just live with a difference of opinion about the Democrats. I see the point you are making, but I can’t accept your premise without reservation.

    You raise the all-important issue of judicial appointments. Yes, judges and justices confirmed by Democrats will be far saner than those confirmed by Republicans. Here is the problem: when Republicans controlled the Senate with a smaller majority than the Democrats had the past two years, they routinely made sure Bush’s craziest, least qualified nominees got through the confirmation process, with nary a whisper of protest, let alone actual filibustering from the Democrats. Switch the roles and put the Dems in charge and the mere threat of a Republican filibuster is enough to hold up dozens of presidential appointments.

    What I am getting at, in brief, is that Democrats may know what the right thing to do is, but they lack the balls to fight for it. Yes, there are times when compromise is the best, if not the only option, but there does come a time to say “enough” and stop moving to the center – especially when the other guys are absolutely insane.

    I’m not dumping on Obama and his party because the health care bill isn’t perfect. I never expected it to be. I am taking issue with their cowardly submission to a party that is a clear and present cancer to the long-term viability of America.

    The Democrats had a once-in-a-generation to make Republicans irrelevant for years to come, and they were too scared and too beholden to large financial donors to do it. Fuck them, I say.

  21. Brian Says:

    Sorry about the typos. My lack of a real keyboard on my phone makes commenting harder than it should be.

  22. Parrotlover77 Says:

    How so?

    Presidential appointments

  23. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Brian – I’m of the opinion that if the liberal Democrats had made more noise, less would have been done. It might be satisfying to take Republicans out to the shed, but at the end of the day, nothing would be done. I think that’s where our difference of opinion lies, and that’s fine. It’s a strategy argument and, really, neither one of us would probably do half as well as the real professional politicians. :-) The more important part to agree on is policy, anyway.

    Also, I will agree that the fact is that Democrats do SUCK at being a minority party — no argument from me. None. I wanted them to use the filibuster more (for example). I agree that they would probably not have paid any price for doing so, and it would have saved a lot of really bad policies from being implemented.

    You know one of the biggest problems Democrats have is messaging. And is simply isn’t a matter of “just needing to get the word out.” The media is structurally not set up to present the Democrats’ side. I’ve heard countless interviews where that question is asked to politicians on the radio and teevee, and many times the response is, “I am talking about the benefits of bill x, y, and z. I am saying that Republicans opposing it will cause problems a, b, and c. But the media isn’t reporting it.”

    The media is lazy and doesn’t want to cover it objectively supported with research and instead takes the “on the one hand, but on the other hand” lazy way out. Since Republicans run on fear and Democrats on hope (even before Obama popularized the phrase), fear being a baser instinct tends to win out in frustrating ways a lot of the time.

    Also, Obama is black. If he got too “bully pulpit” it wouldn’t be long before calls of his “arrogance” turn into teabaggers riding their scooters through the streets, terrorizing kids with their canes, rioting by throwing their fake teeth through windows.

    I actually roll my eyes at the bully pulpit argument because I think it’s a bit of an antiquated idea with the structure of media the way it is. Whatever the narrative is, that’s what will be told. Obama is on for a few minutes to a few hours, while the rest of the 24 hour news cycle will be analysis of what he said. It’s not an easy balance.

    If somebody can figure out how to get the message out for Democrats as efficiently as Republicans do with Fox News, things would be much better.

    Oh yea, and appointments matter. Oh god they matter. I won’t ever concede that. No matter how firebagger you feel, you simply can’t let another Alito get appointed. You can’t!

  24. Brian Says:

    PL,

    Very good points. The media is a BIG problem for those of us who truly want to move everyone forward. There is a risk for Democrats to not win in the eyes of the public no matter what they say or do. For my part, I think if they passionately defend reasonable arguments they’ll be better off than by being the milquetoast opposition we’ve become accustomed to.

  25. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Brian – I can definitely agree with you there. I like it when Dems call it as they see it. I just don’t want the emphasis to be on looking like you are doing right over actually doing right.

    Interesting post I read this weekend on my other favorite blog talks about What Would Hillary Have Done? Of particular note is that Hillary probably would have compromised a lot further on health care to have more time to move to focus on jobs before the election. I’m glad Obama stood his ground and got that thing done. Even if it cost Democrats more House seats. I just think the health care bill was that important. http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/11/06/its-3-am-i-must-be-lonely/

    Don’t get me wrong though, I think Secretary Clinton would have, overall, made a fine president had things turned out different in the primaries. Maybe we didn’t get health care, but I’m sure we would have gotten other things.

    But I also think it’s important to get some perspective on Obama’s actions by comparing him to his peers. Obama has faced (and continues to face) the most hostile opposition to any sitting president in possibly 100 years. He’s done pretty good so far considering that.