Guest-blogger Ziff of Feminist Mormon Housewives wonders

Number of times pornography has been mentioned in General Conference in the past 20 years: 128

Number of times rape has been mentioned: 4

I’ve been wondering recently why General Authorities spend so much time condemning porn use and so little time condemning rape. Porn use and rape seem like related problems: they’re sexual wrongs that men do to women. (I realize they aren’t exclusively done by men or exclusively done to women, but this is their most common variety, and that’s what I’ll talk about.) So why in the Church is there so much focus on one and so little on the other?

Source: Feminist Mormon Housewives

Ziff says he has basically no experience with either rape or porn, and says therefore most of what he says should be considered speculation. And based on some of his speculation you can sort of tell. That said he also drills in very nicely.  From his list of why the church might choose to focus on rape.

6. GAs may blame women for rape, at least to some degree. I think this is evident in the excessive rhetoric on modesty they direct at young women with the rationale that women control men’s thoughts. It’s a short step from blaming women for men’s thoughts to blaming women for men’s actions. Their attitude probably shouldn’t be surprising considering the ages of the most senior GAs: they were raised in a time when blaming women for rape was probably typical.

7. GAs may not realize that most rape victims are raped by men they know. This is pretty speculative on my part, but if GAs are hanging on to the old belief that rapists are mostly strangers lurking in dark allies, they may feel like it’s hopeless to preach to such psychopaths. Again, given their ages, it wouldn’t be surprising if they believed this.

And from his reasons why his church should address rape more directly than it has been.

A. Mormon women are particularly vulnerable to being raped. They are taught to be deferential and submissive.

...

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with being tender, kind, and refined. But resisting rape requires toughness, and probably also coarseness and rudeness. Women who are taught that toughness is worldly and therefore wrong are women who are less likely to stand up and say no when their boyfriends or husbands are pushing them sexually in ways they don’t want to go.

B. Mormon women are particularly likely to blame themselves for being raped. As I’ve already mentioned, there’s not much Church teaching out there on the topic of rape. A woman who is raped is likely to find only the old line of thinking popularized by President Kimball that a woman is better of dying than ‘allowing’ herself to be raped. She may also connect the dots as I did in reason #6 above, and figure that she must be to blame for being raped because of what she wore (or if she doesn’t do this, people around her may do it for her).

Both of these teachings are incredibly destructive. Women are not responsible to sacrifice their lives if attacked by a rapist. Women’s clothing choices are not to blame for rape. The last thing women who are raped need is a heaping pile of guilt to add to their pain. GAs’ choice to leave these teachings out there unrepudiated is a choice to let women suffer more.

It's good stuff.  And while he, as a Mormon, is specifically referencing the teachings of his particular church it's really, seriously important not to get caught saying "oh yeah, those whacky, out-of-touch Mormon elders."  Because, duh, the same dynamics affect a heck of a lot of other denominations.

For that matter, as has been much observed lately, the same dynamics affect <em>atheists!</em>  Who may not rail about porn as much but sure as heck ruminate on rape in their own communities.

Speaking of impacts on communities, another of Ziff's speculations ought to make every self-interested heterosexual male take note.  (Emphasis mine.)

Rape is far more evil than porn use is. This is the obvious response to #1. A man who rapes a woman not only hurts her in the moment of the act, he also likely causes her to suffer for a long time afterward. Her experience of sex, which should be such a wonderful way to connect with her partner, becomes laden with horrifying associations. Her ability to trust other people will likely be harmed, making all kinds of social interaction more difficult. Her feeling of personal safety may also be reduced, restricting her ability to go to particular places or to go out at particular times. I can’t see that porn use is anything like as bad as this.

You know, the funny thing about stereotypes is that even nominally "inoffensive" ones like, say, things we "know" must be true about Mormon men given their church's history, can be damagingly off the mark.

Almost by definition allies aren't soul mates.  (For instance the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were allies in world war two!)  And so almost by definition we're going to have differences with allies that we might not have (or that we at least overlook) in soul-mate affinity groups.  But we can find allies in the most unexpected places.  And we overlook or, worse, alienate allies at our peril.

Candice Wing says

I’ve met a good many mature men looking for affairs and divorced men looking for a second wife. None of them have said – “oh dear me, my wife is old and fat and thus unattractive and therefore I feel compelled to seek a younger and therefore more attractive option”.

Source: Candidly Candice

She goes on to list real reasons men have told her for separating from their partners

• Wife does not want to have sex with me or wife does not want to have enough sex with me.
• Wife does not like me and does not have sex with me.
• We are not compatible and I am looking for more than just boring sex.
• Wife is not affectionate.
• Wife is boring in bed and generally boring.
• Wife is a cranky harpy.
• Wife is lazy and boring with poor grooming and presentation.
• I (or wife) want to divorce.

You can read the whole thing yourself, and if you do you'll get her simple one-paragraph explanation of why the vast majority of men remain perfectly attached to their partners.

Candice has been writing a lot about her own experiences sex, love, and aging. This is another great post along those lines.

While, sure, some people (not just men) really do lose interest specifically over their partner's looks, it happens at any age. And if it happens at any age then emphasizing one age over another is just stereotype reinforcement.

Meanwhile the other reasons you list are much more plausible, particularly for very long-term relationships. Although, hmm, now that I'm thinking about it even that shows up more predictably at certain points in a relationship than at certain ages. For instance I seem to recall there's a spike in divorce rates at the 21-22 year mark whether the couple marries in their late teens or mid 40s. And if you just think about it for a minute, if some people in their 40s find their flames going out while others in their 40s find themselves igniting, then age probably isn't the cut-off factor young people, hack novelists, and pop social scientists keep claiming it is.

Either way I agree with Candice that it's way more complicated than the popular but too-pat stories about husbands leaving because their partners "lose their looks" post-menopause. In fact it's so complicated it might not be happening for specific age-related reasons at all.

Sex educator Julie Sunday offers the following pithy summary of an analysis by Professors Kathrin Stanger-Hall and David Hall of state sex-education policies and rates of teen pregnancy and birth.

Sex education matters, yes, but access to services is more important. Teens do not have sex for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy--they have sex because sex is fun. If adults and policymakers want teenagers to use birth control, they will--but we have to teach them how to use it and help them figure out how to get it instead of erecting [heh] insurmountable barriers to keep them from avoiding pregnancy and spreading STIs.

Teen sexuality is like the Titanic--the ship is definitely going down. We can either play music and pretend we're not sinking or provide life jackets and get the people off the ship already. Considering that the House's recent budget proposal included renewed funding for the terrible, horrible, no good very bad Community Based Abstinence Education program (Read: federal government gives money to religious organizations to provide "education" in public schools and make cheesy PSAs), this country is still letting the ship sink without enough lifeboats for everyone.

Source: How to Have Sex in Texas

It's an interesting, sort of back-handed twist on the Titanic metaphor but I think that's about right.  The idea, incidentally, isn't to make birth control and sex safety materials available so that teenagers (or anyone else) will have sex, it's so that those materials will be available if or when they do.

So over the years you might have noticed that some people stereotype the owl-poop out of whole classes of people. It's not always malign or dismissive. Sometimes stereotyping can arise from positive or shared experiences with individuals that... can get spatula'ed onto everyone who matches the "category" in question. Which might be fine if the category of persons all really were as a) ideal as claimed, and b) as interchangeable as claimed. Oh, and c) as willing to be homogenized in someone else's mind with all the thousands or millions of individuals the onlooker imagines they resemble.

When one does this -- when one opines that "oh, 'all Africans' are so beautiful and accepting" (based, say, on your Peace Corps experience in a single village in a country continent (almost) bigger and more populous than all of North and South America put together) or "Asians are my favorite students" or "ooh, librarians are hot," etc. -- one may have nothing but the best intentions but one is still engaging in objectification.

One can be no less objectifying even if the category one is drawn to is more often negatively stereotyped. In fact, one can be no less objectifying even when you yourself are a member of the negatively stereotypes category.

I mention this first because one of the most controversial forms of objectification revolves around sexual attraction. And second, because I stumbled across a pretty cool post by new-to-me male fat activist Brian of Red No. 3 who does a very cool job of distinguishing attraction from objectification.

So, I’ve noticed some of my fellow male fat admirers throwing tantrums when women object to be sexualized without consent. These dudes whine about how the women are telling them aren’t allowed to find fat bodies attractive.

Cut that shit out. Like now.

No one is out to confiscate your boners. Sexual attraction to fat bodies is totally awesome. There may be people out there who want to shame you for your sexuality, but its not these women. So, by all means, holster your outrage and listen up.

The issue these women are complaining about isn’t sexual attraction. They are asking to be treated with respect and dignity. Try not to be shocked at this stunning request. You still get that be sexually attracted to fat women. Just, maybe respect them.

And actually, strike that maybe.

Source: Red No. 3

It's definitely worth reading the whole thing. It's ok to be attracted. It's just not ok to forget the who who always and necessarily goes with your what.

Actually, if I can briefly bring in another contentious term, we're all entitled to our preferences. In fact try not being! We are not, however, and never can be entitled to the favors or affections all or even any individuals who happen to embody our preferences.

The rest of Brian's post is similarly sharp and it would be great if you just went and read the whole post. One thing I really appreciate is the way he invokes both altruism and self-interest.

This is especially important for fat women who already live in a culture that conspires to desexualize them. They often find themselves in scenarios where they are told to choose between never being desired sexually or always being objectified sexually. That’s fucked up and wrong. You should be able to know that by just basic empathy, but I’d submit that as fat admirers its in our interest to combat thin privilege and male privilege. Not just because standing with our current or prospective romantic and sexual partners on issues of basic human dignity is the right thing to do (though that really should be enough), but its in our self-interest, too. Those restricted options women face impact us, too. We are being taught that our sexuality is wrong and that if we act upon it that we are deviants. We are told we don’t deserve to open, loving relationships with partners we are sexually attracted to. We are told we shouldn’t date them because they are “unhealthy”. We are told there must be some defect that causes our sexuality. We are being denied the opportunity to embrace our sexuality in the ways men with conventional attractions take for granted. The women who complain about objectification of fat women aren’t trying to take away our sexuality, they are trying to fight for it! We should stand with them and resist those who tell us to sexualize and objectify fat women because they don’t deserve better and we don’t deserve better.

This is just brilliant. When we judge and objectify we subject ourselves to equal objectification and judgment and consequently we reduce ourselves in the eyes of others.

And this is a universal point. Brian ends his post by opening his point

Oh, and if you’re a dude who isn’t a fat admirer, feel free to take the word “fat” out above and it apply the same to you because we all know you dudes do this shit, too.

I'd just add, finally, that the likelihood that it's men who get called for objectification is more an artifact of prior dating conventions than something (stereotypically!) innate to men: as more women take the initiative in dating, as more and more women continue to ask rather than wait to be asked, it'll be easier to notice how objectification tends to be more of a human characteristic than a gendered one.