Temptation

[The Folk Prophet]

I've been pondering on temptation somewhat, specifically as it relates to Christ's "temptations" as compared to what we deal with. I know the Come Follow Me manual suggests "It can be comforting to know that because Christ also faced and overcame temptations, He knows the temptations we face and can help us overcome them." Now I don't doubt the truth or reality of the fact that Christ's temptations were part of how He knew according to the flesh how to succor His people (Alma 7:12). But...when I consider the temptations I face as compared to what Christ did, I have often struggled to feel as if what He really felt when tempted is in any way similar to what I do. Which leads me to tend to a greater leaning toward the miracle of the Atonement and the pains He suffered in Gethsemane and on the cross as the core basis for His understanding "in the flesh" as to our temptations, rather than the "temptations" He faced in the wilderness being key.

Forgive me if that's not clear -- it's 2 AM and I woke unable to sleep for a bit (ah...the joys of getting older) and decided to make better use of my time than lying in bed trying to sleep.

Anyhow, so I had this analogy come to mind to better explain what I mean about the inequality of temptations, and how we may, ourselves, find confusion at the idea, particularly in light of the Church's current stance and teachings on homosexuality, specifically that homosexuality (the "temptation") isn't a sin, only acting on it is. I've struggled with that idea a bit because it so easily seems to lead to some reveling in the concept that its "okay" to be gay (whatever that really means) as long as you don't...you know...make out with someone of the same sex or something. I can't help but think to myself...really?

Anyhow, it leads me to the questions: Where does the idea of "being" any given thing that is less than what we're ultimately meant to be become "okay" vs. "unacceptable". Clearly (in my mind) there is no level of acceptable imperfection eternally, and any way in which we are not like Christ must be overcome. So accepting a status that isn't as God is amounts to a status that is sinful and imperfect and should be overcome. But there are, as some are so quick to point out, certain things we cannot overcome in this life, and so from a certain perspective it is "okay" to "be" those things, particularly if we cannot overcome them. The topic at hand isn't homosexuality, of course, or whether anyone can or cannot overcome such in this life. I have my strong opinions on that matter...but it can wait for another thread I suppose. What I am interested in is what qualifies as "temptation" -- or, rather, where is the line crossed when something becomes such. Here's my example/analogy:

When shopping, say at Walmart because...why not...and one has a bit of money in one's pocket and considering how to spend it...one passes by a given item...let's say a TV. One sees said TV and thinks to one's self how they'd enjoy that TV, but relative to the money they have and the other things they have in mind that are much more important to them to purchase, they aren't interested in spending their money on a TV.

Would such a thought rightly be considered "temptation"? The mere idea that such a purchase would be pleasant, but simply not on the table for whatever reason?

I tend to think not...and yet I tend to think that is the sort of "temptation" Christ faced in the wilderness. In point of fact, I think that may be even further than Christ even went. I do not believe Christ thought for even a moment, "Hmm...it would be nice to serve the devil and gain the power of the world...but......" Of course we don't really know exactly what Christ thought in every detail. But it strikes me that going even that far would be imperfect and sinful -- and that is something we know Christ was not in any regard.

The TV idea helps me clarify the thinking a bit because when we talk about being tempted to purchase a TV we're not really discussing sin, per se, but still considering desire and choice and action as it relates to actual "temptation" So where's the line?:

It would be nice...but....
I really want...but....
I'd LOVE THAT...but....
*puts TV in cart and walks around doing more shopping as they debate putting it back or actually purchasing*...but....

Let's assume the "...but...." part of that in each instance is the same...we choose not to purchase the TV because other things matter more. When, and where, did it become actual "temptation"? When and where does that "temptation" start crossing the line of "acting on it"? Surely and obviously putting it in the cart, yes? But that isn't actually purchasing it...so.... And on the other levels, is thinking on the pleasure of something not "acting upon it" in at least some measure?

But don't we have to get to actually considering maybe buying the thing before it qualifies as "temptation"? Sure...I'd like an 85" UHD TV, but I would even consider actually buying one. A - I don't have that kind of money without sacrificing things like food, mortgage, clothes, bills, etc. B - I wouldn't have anywhere to put such a beast. C - even if I crammed it in my smallish living room we'd be sitting so close to it that it'd make our eyes bleed. So...not on the table in any regard. Am I "tempted" to buy said TV? No way, no how, not on your life. But I acknowledge that in the right circumstance that getting one would be pleasant...but....

Did Christ ever think, "Such-'n'-such sin would be pleasant...but...."? Or did that sort of thought never enter His mind? I tend to think the latter. And yet that seems to conflict with my understanding of what temptation actually is, and my belief that the scriptures stating Christ faced temptation are to be taken at their word.

Another more direct example using actual sin... I acknowledge that, being a red-blooded male, there would be physical pleasure in paying for "relationships" with attractive women. I know that is a reality, and yet, I have zero motivation to trade off my home, family, health, and eternal salvation for something I understand would bring my physical pleasure by the reality that such things are built into the male existence. If Satan came knocking and said to me, "Yo...you'd get a great amount of pleasure from this prostitute." (presents prostitute), I'd immediately say, "Are you kidding me? No freaking way!" It would be, practically, laughable. The response would be, in short, "Get thee hence, Satan!" Is that rightly considered "temptation"? How far down the "Hmm...would I?" path does thinking need to go before it's temptation?

In other words, Satan offered Christ things that Christ, while certainly understanding why and how they were tempting ideas, had no interest in whatsoever, because as much as I love my wife, family, home, health, church, and God, which love leads me to not even begin to begin consideration of visiting brothels of the like, my love pales in comparison to Christ's love of us and God.

So there's my random middle-of-the-night musings. What think ye? Insights? Thoughts? Disagreements?

[Taalcon]

I think sometimes we over-complicate things by trying to establish air-tight compartments. We sometimes come up with a strict theological/doctrinal definition in a well-meaning attempt to make sense of something, but in doing so, we sometimes miss the point. In other words, sometimes we look past the idea of what Sin is, and try to define and list specific actions as 'sins'. The results are, we either
a) over-define it so that we despair of ever overcoming something that we always do, or
b) under-define it so it becomes something that doesn't apply to us, so we don't have to worry about.

When we look at what is classified as sin, we can see that Sin is ultimately choosing to prioritize one's comfort or pleasure over the wellbeing of others. It is also willful rejection of how you know things are, over how you feel things should be. It is dehumanizing others for your pleasure.

These are things that are VERY easy to seemingly identify in others, but can be painful to acknowledge in oneself.

Something else to consider that is related: not all scripture writers would have had the same understanding of Jesus as a) each other, and b) us today.

Sometimes I think we try to over-emphasise what we think his Divine Nature should have looked like over what his human experience seems to have been.

Was Jesus ever, in his three decades of life on earth, tempted (IE, come into his mind and entertain for a moment the idea that he should act) on anything in those categories?  I absolutely believe he was.

Jesus was a kid. He was a teenager. He was a young adult. To consider that Jesus never entertained - even momentarily - an idea that's outcome if acted on wouldn't have been absolutely correct makes him absolutely unrelatable, and mythological. Frankly, unbelievable. And at odds with how Gospel writers portray him. I ... don't believe in that Christ without "passions".

We can't emulate and model Jesus' ability to overcome temptation if he was never tempted.

I think the Experience in the Wilderness, following his Baptism (what Mark calls The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ), while a powerful episode prior to his ministry, also might suggest a culmination of his previous 30 years of life. The three Temptations in the story summed up the types of temptations he HAD experienced, and also those he would YET experience. (And those WE all experience). And the Gospel writers tell us he shut those down. Perhaps it was from a culmination of a lifetime of shutting them down. The gospel writers present this ONE test, but maybe it was a compression of a lifetime of work preparing to be who we was meant to be when he was meant to be that person.

Jesus very short public ministry was the ministry taken up by a man who had been being prepared his whole life to be strong. By this point, he probably HAD come to the point when most temptations rolled off him without a moment's hesitation. But that doesn't mean he was always like that before. And even then - at the very end - he asked if there was some other possible outcome than accepting his brutal torture, humiliation, and execution as a foregone conclusion. He wanted desperately for his will to also be God's will - but when it wasn't, he didn't reject or replace his knowledge. He accepted it, understood it, and acted on it.

For me, would it matter if it turned out that Jesus had, at some point, entertained the idea of punching a bully in the face, or visualized taking someone else's money to help his poor family, or if his mind lingered on the shape of that village girl? Actually, yes. It would help me to relate to him, and know what he, as a human, could choose to overcome. It would absolutely NOT make me think anything less of him, and would not make him less qualified for my adoration and discipleship.

What the Gospels tell us is that from his Baptism forward, he was strong and resolved, and completely prepared to be an example and to fulfill his mission.

[The Folk Prophet]

Interesting. I've often heard how we shouldn't put prophets and apostles on a pedestal. I've never heard the same implied concerning Christ before.

When we look at what is classified as sin, we can see that Sin is ultimately choosing to prioritize one's comfort or pleasure over the wellbeing of others. It is also willful rejection of how you know things are, over how you feel things should be. It is dehumanizing others for your pleasure.

I'd say that sin is not doing the will of God. Most other attempts to define it run the risk, I think, of missing the target.

We can't emulate and model Jesus' ability to overcome temptation if he was never tempted.

[...]

For me, would it matter if it turned out that Jesus had, at some point, entertained the idea of punching a bully in the face, or visualized taking someone else's money to help his poor family, or if his mind lingered on the shape of that village girl? Actually, yes. It would help me to relate to him, and know what he, as a human, could choose to overcome. It would absolutely NOT make me think anything less of him, and would not make him less qualified for my adoration and discipleship.

This doesn't quite track form me. We strive to emulate Christ's perfection. This is not because He is "relatable". No one fully "relates" to Christ because no one is as He was. We can, obviously, relate in some ways. And I think that's important. But sin is not one of those ways. I'm unconvinced temptation is either, and I'm further unconvinced that relatability in temptation is important. Relating to Him because He was like us doesn't strike me as the end all here. The objective is to relate to Him by become like Him -- not the other way around.

[Taalcon]

I often think of the idea expressed Alma 7,

11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that reason is explicitly given: that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

I don't think this means just in a massive dump in Gethesemane at the end of the ministry. I think in being born, like all of us were, he suffered pain, affliction, and temptation as part of his earthly ministry to better known how to relate to those who suffered pain, affliction, and temptation. The reason his given: "that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities".

Knowledge he could have used during his mortal ministry - not just after.

We don't have any record of Jesus getting sick in the Gospels, but I bet in 30 years he got sick. By the time of his ministry, his dad and professional mentor Joseph is out of the picture. By death? Something else? We don't know. Did Jesus grieve the absence of his dad? I'm certain he did. Is it possible he married, and lost children and/or a spouse in one way or another during this period? We simply don't know. The record is silent. I also believe it very much tracks that he also suffered temptation that comes from being 'in the flesh' - being human.

It's part of what leads me to consider that those silent 30 years may have been very personal, very normal, and also very relevant to some key things Jesus grew to understand and develop compassion for only through experience.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm just not willing to go to a place of "I have [negative trait], but can take comfort that Christ also had [negative trait]."

As much as I am (I believe), overall, a moderately good man who, overall, tries...the bad thoughts, lazy attitudes, grumpiness, frustrations, rebellious attitudes, etc., that I've had in my life.... I don't believe that Christ had those experiences.

For a more evil man (we'll leave that generic because we're all "evil" men/women at some level)...one who struggles even more with bad thoughts, lazy attitudes, anger, rebellion, etc., it would mean they are, indeed, further from Christ. And yet He still knows their pains, their temptations, their sins, and their struggles as intimately and exactly as He knows mine -- As intimately and exactly as He knows all men and women no matter where they fall on the scale of struggling.

It's true...I've put the TV in the cart and walked around the store an awful lot. And sometimes (more often than I like to admit) I've even purchased the TV. But even when I've gotten to places where I don't put the TV in the cart, I still drool over it and struggle with not putting it in the cart all the time. (I'll leave it to everyone's imagination what the TV is symbolizing here. But I'm not really meaning it as a specific.)

I can't see Christ having experienced the same.

This is the miracle of the Atonement and part of its infinite nature. We can call it mythological and unbelievable. But I believe it regardless. Christ lived a perfect life. I do not. Yet He understands me perfectly. It's called a miracle for a reason.

[Taalcon]

I'm just not willing to go to a place of "I have [negative trait], but can take comfort that Christ also had [negative trait]."

I consider 'being tempted'  a human trait. And the comfort is that he took a challenge inherent in humanity and overcame it and made it a strength, and shows me how/helps me to as well.

As much as I am (I believe), overall, a moderately good man who, overall, tries...the bad thoughts, lazy attitudes, grumpiness, frustrations, rebellious attitudes, etc., that I've had in my life.... I don't believe that Christ had those experiences

I respect that perspective. I just don't share it

[Roper]

So that we're all working with the same understanding, here are a few definitions taken from LDS topics.

Sin: To commit sin is to willfully disobey God’s commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth.
Temptation: Temptation is a test of a person’s ability to choose good instead of evil. It is an enticement to sin and follow Satan instead of God. Part of the experience of this life is to learn to overcome temptation and to choose right over wrong.

From these definitions, I believe there are two key principles which must both be active in order to sin or even to be tempted to sin: Knowledge and agency.

Christ's experience with temptation:

Doctrine and Covenants section 93
12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;
13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;
14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

Hebrews 4
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

I believe Jesus was tempted throughout his life as a condition of Father's plan for His children on this earth. Once Jesus reached accountability, I believe he experienced continual temptation, as do we all, in accordance with his increasing knowledge. In the wilderness, Jesus was tempted with quick relief of physical desire (turn stones to bread.) He didn't experience the specific temptation of opiate abuse or internet pornography. Still, he chose the path which leads to God instead of the paths which lead to addiction. Jesus was tempted with riches and power (take the kingdoms of the world.) He didn't experience the specific temptation to buy ever larger and sharper TVs. Still, he chose a ministry giving his time and talents to build the kingdom of God. Jesus was tempted to doubt God's love (test if angels will save you.) He may not have experienced the specific temptation to gossip about the sister in the ward who just got divorced. Still, he chose mercy first and left judgment to God.

Our experience with temptation:

Doctrine and Covenants section 93
19 I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness.
20 For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.

1 Corinthians 10
13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Like Jesus, we are tempted throughout his life as a condition of Father's plan for His children on this earth. When we reach accountability, we experience continual temptation in accordance with our increasing knowledge. In our wilderness, we are tempted with quick relief of physical desire. We can still choose the path which leads to God instead of the paths which lead to addiction. We are tempted with riches and power. We can still choose to give our time and talents to build the kingdom of God. We are tempted to doubt God's love. We can still chose mercy first (toward ourselves and toward others) and leave judgment to God.

Jesus Christ may not have experienced the exact modality of our temptations. However, he knows how they feel and what the eternal significance is. As Alma assures us in chapter 7:
11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.
12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

In every way I can think of, my relationship with Christ is not, and can never be, a shadow on the wall of Plato's cave. I find Him intimately and eternally "relatable." As my Shepherd, he marked the path and led the way. He said, "Come follow me." He didn't say, "Come admire me."

[cook]

Interesting views.

I think temptation is just temptation. In some cases the desire is temptation.But not in all.

The desire to get a new tv is not a temptation. The desire to not fulfill my duty is a temptation. The desire to not tell the truth is a temptation. The desire to eat more than is good for me is temptation. To be tempted is to get those desires. And that is very human. I don't see any reason why Christ wouldn't get those desires for a fleeting moment. He had fasted for days. Being a human I'm sure he really was hungry. Talking about bread would rouse a desire to eat. Thus it was a temptation. I can also believe he had a momentarily feeling of I really would not like to do this Father's will thing. The greatness of Him does not come from not having experience. It comes from always choosing the right with all kinds of experience.

I don't think temptation means we need to really really desire something so much that we think about it a lot and we struggle with it. I don't think Christ walked around the shop with the tv in the cart. But I don't think he has to in order to understand me, because that part is not temptation. It is me acting on the temptation. And Christ did not act on it. That is the difference between Him and me. He doesn't have to understand what it feels to act on temptation in order to help me. He's helping me because he felt the temptation and did not act on it. He knows how to do it and I must follow him on that. But the core of the help is that he felt it and he chose the right thing. If he didn't feel it, it would be just someone giving advice who would have no idea what he is talking about. Now I know he knows exactly what he is talking about, because he went through it - the feeling, the choosing the right. Not the feeling, choosing the wrong for a while and then eventually perhaps choosing the right, not going through the wrong choice till the end of it.

[The Folk Prophet]

Reading in 2 Nephi vs 15-16

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

I think the word "enticed" matters here. But it does open up interesting questions as to how agency is relative. In order for there to be agency there must be two things to choose between. Additionally there must be accountability for that choice. And, finally, according to what we read here, both things must be enticing.

But -- not all are enticed by all sins. That is plain. My mother has never had the slightest inkling to even consider things that I struggle with. They are not enticing to her. And, yes...some of that is because of the better paths she's stayed on...never going down certain roads to develop mindsets where said things might be enticing. But some things are just the differences in people. One of the most obvious, of course, is the sexual. Some people have stronger sex drives. Women are typically not enticed by pornography and the like as much as men. And, anecdotally, some people are apparently naturally inclined towards certain sexual orientations that others are not. And, of course, on the extreme end you have the Ted Bundys and Jeffrey Dahmers who's have enticements most of us can't even begin to fathom.

Now how much of this is learned behavior and not comes into play, of course. Staying away from things, as has been suggested, keeps one out of the realms where certain choices even become enticements. And I don't know where and how the natural vs. the learned really works in all regards, though I tend towards the idea that a great deal of the enticements we face are learned. But certainly some are natural.

Still...I go back to the level of enticement. I don't think something has to be a strong desire at all to qualify as an enticement. All one needs is knowledge that something is desirable to qualify, methinks.

Back to the TV idea...if one has higher priorities, then the realization that a TV would be nice doesn't mean the strong desire is there relative to the other important things one has to buy.

We might consider this relative to many things, besides the innocuous TV purchase and the, decidedly deadly brothel example. Other example(s):

I've always sort of liked Porshe 911s. I would call them enticing. I would like to own one, but not relative to the cost. My interest in having one is diminished by the cost, the fear of being thought of as pretentious, the impracticality of them, and the reality that a thousand thousand other things are much more important.

If you asked me if I wanted a 911 the context of the question would determine the yes/no answer. Generally, I'd say yes. But if the context of the question meant actually buying one...no. As in if I went to a dealership and a salesman asked if I wanted to buy I'd say, "Nope. Just looking." Because I do NOT want to buy a 911. Very, very, very, very much do NOT want to. But...I do want one...maybe...sort of...conditionally...but probably not really in real life ever.

Another example: Eating/fitness. I'm currently working on getting back into shape. I used to be in great shape 4 or 5 years back. I've gotten out of shape. I know what it takes to get back into shape, because I've done it before. What it takes: Say no to the pizza, etc. (As well as eating good foods and exercise.) I really love pizza. But I REALLY love not being fat. So I choose. One or the other.

When someone asks at a work gathering, "do you want a piece of pizza?", the answer is "No!" No way, no how, no chance, not gonna happen! (Unless it's my "cheat" meal day...but we'll just leave that kink out...).

So the answer and reality is, no -- I don't want a piece of pizza. And yet, of course, I do really love pizza, and it would be perfectly reasonable to say, yes. I want a piece of pizza, but I want something else more.

Context.

Is work enticing? Having a job? Spending 40 hours a week working for "the man"? How many people actually like their jobs? Do those who lose a job they don't love think -- "yay...no more job!" -- or do they think, "oh no! I have to get a job!" Obviously the answer isn't always going to be the same, but the point I'm getting at is the "pleasure" of a job isn't the point behind why having one is or is not "enticing". The enticement of a job is the paycheck. (I happen to be one of the lucky souls who really, really likes their job.)

What I'm getting at? What counts as "enticing" is all over the map.

The ways, I believe, in which Christ was and was not enticed are not fully known. I think those who believe or claim He must have been feeling this are just as likely as those who believe or claim He must have been feeling that.

I don't buy off on the -- I feel this way so therefore it must be right approach though. God's ways are not ours.

I trust and believe that Christ understands me. But I also know, full well, that this is because of the miracle of the atonement. We can imagine all day that Christ did this or thought that or felt this or experienced that. But what we know is that He took upon Himself our sins and our sufferings in the Garden and upon the cross.

The example set for us by his experience being tempted in the wilderness is solid. When we face enticement, whatever level that enticement be, our proper response has been modeled. We choose God's will instead.

I don't need to know that Christ "felt" something or another to follow that model.

[Roper]

I am better able to accept the peace and healing which Christ brings when I understand that he felt what I feel.

Isaiah taught that he felt sorrow and grief.
John, and many others, taught that he felt joy.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all record that he felt exhaustion.
John records that he felt indignation (anger in some translations.)
The gospels teach that he felt compassion.
Mathew and Mark record Jesus feeling frustration.
He felt agony in Gethsemane and on the cross.
He felt empathy.
He felt hunger and thirst.
He felt alone.
He felt love.
He felt forgiveness.

I think that sometimes in our sincere efforts to glorify Christ, we dehumanize his life. He wants us not only to know about him, but also to know him. I want to know that Christ felt what I feel, so that I can have the assurance Alma had: He knows according to the flesh how to succor his people. I want to know that Jesus Christ was and is real.

[Roper]

Women are typically not enticed by pornography and the like as much as men.

This is changing rapidly. My wife, who is a counselor with LDS Family Services, told me that in one of her recent professional development courses, she learned that porn use among women is increasing faster than among men. She also said that if you include erotic literature (such as "50 Shades") then women's use of "Mommy Porn" is equal to men's use of internet porn. They are both incredibly destructive to intimate relationships, it's just that women's use is seen as a socially praiseworthy women's power/equality issue.

[Jen]

Women are typically not enticed by pornography and the like as much as men.

This is changing rapidly. My wife, who is a counselor with LDS Family Services, told me that in one of her recent professional development courses, she learned that porn use among women is increasing faster than among men. She also said that if you include erotic literature (such as "50 Shades") then women's use of "Mommy Porn" is equal to men's use of internet porn. They are both incredibly destructive to intimate relationships, it's just that women's use is seen as a socially praiseworthy women's power/equality issue.

I was shocked in an LDS mom's workout group (albeit a small one) that I was the only one not reading tawdry romance novels. There was a tall bookcase full of them that they shared around. One even said she needed to read them to have a satisfying intimate life with her husband. Sounds pretty comparable to visual porn to me.

[Fether]

Women are typically not enticed by pornography and the like as much as men.

This is changing rapidly. My wife, who is a counselor with LDS Family Services, told me that in one of her recent professional development courses, she learned that porn use among women is increasing faster than among men. She also said that if you include erotic literature (such as "50 Shades") then women's use of "Mommy Porn" is equal to men's use of internet porn. They are both incredibly destructive to intimate relationships, it's just that women's use is seen as a socially praiseworthy women's power/equality issue.

I was shocked in an LDS mom's workout group (albeit a small one) that I was the only one not reading tawdry romance novels. There was a tall bookcase full of them that they shared around. One even said she needed to read them to have a satisfying intimate life with her husband. Sounds pretty comparable to visual porn to me.

That is exactly what it is. I’m a recovering addict and I use to read parental reviews of movies and tv shows I knew had explicit sex in. The reviews were often times very good at depicting what was going on. My reading of them was no different that viewing actual images.

[Taalcon]

I think the idea that women in general have a less strong sex drive than men is one of those wierd myths men have too often used to justify their own weaknesses.

Sure, of course some women do have a less prominent sex drive than some men. But some men do too! It's just almost always been more socially acceptable for a man to publicly acknowledge the strength of their drives. That is what is changing.

It's why girls traditionally get far more 'your dress distracts boys!' talks than any similar discussion the boys would get, and why many view it as culturally/morally improper for girls to wear practical two-piece bathing suits while boys run around topless. While there is often a difference between visual/mental stimuli, the discourse is still often ... uneven and focused in terms of who has the most effect on who rather than 'yes, these feelings are absolutely natural on both sides, not sinful, and learning to manage them and properly channel them for yourself is an important part of navigating happiness in life and avoiding potentially major sorrow, hardship, and heartbreak.' - sex drives are powerful, if you're a man or a woman, and they absolutely have an effect on rational thought. It's also a natural and (potentially) great part of being human. Acknowledging this on both sides is incredibly helpful.

[JLM]

They are both incredibly destructive to intimate relationships, 

I recall reading an article from a scholarly psychology publication that challenged this assumption.  If I recall correctly, the consumption of erotic material adversely affected relationships where there was a strong cultural prohibition to such material.  However, where neither party held such adverse cultural sentiments, absence cheating, the strength of the relationships were fine.    The report seemed to indicate that going behind the other person's back was the greater cause of marital strife than the actual erotic content consumption.