149. Helping those with financial needs, and Pornography vs. littering? LDS Living articles

I ran across a couple of interesting articles on LDS Living this morning.  The first is helping those with financial needs when we suspect we will only be supporting unwise spending habits and unhealthy addictions.  I like his ideas.

The second article is about:  Why does public opinion judge petty offenses like littering more harshly than pornography consumption? 

Dave Says: How to Help the Right Way

How can we help those with financial need when we suspect we will only be supporting unwise spending habits and unhealthy addictions? Dave Ramsey has this great advice to give.

Dear Dave,

My wife and I have a friend we met through the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. She has a 1-year-old child, and she recently asked us for some money. We don't really approve of how she's choosing to spend her money--she's spending a lot of it on alcohol and cigarettes--but she does need financial help. What should we do?

Mike

Dear Mike,

I have a very simple rule for situations like this. If someone is bold enough to ask me for my money, I can be bold enough to attach requirements to the money for their own good.

One of two things will happen when you handle things in this manner. They'll welcome the help and graciously accept your conditions, or they'll get mad and act like you have no right interfering in their business. I don't have a problem helping people who have a good heart and really need a break. But if someone cops an attitude with me in this situation, I wouldn't break out my wallet anytime soon. Regardless, if you choose to do this, I'd make the money a gift and not a loan.

 Concentrate on trying to get her on a path where she thinks a little straighter, and, as a result, she will make better choices. Teach her how to make and live off a budget or help her enroll in a personal finance course. 

But right now, just handing her money is like giving a drunk a drink. This whole situation is a lot bigger than giving someone $35 for diapers. The ansewr to that is easy. It's yes. But in this case I'd probably give it to her in the form of a grocery store gift card. Many of those don't allow alcohol and cigarette purchases. Or, I'd just go buy diapers and baby food and take them to her. Actually helping people is a lot more work than just throwing money at them. To really help someone, you have to get down in their mess and walk beside them. 

Financially speaking, her problem is just as much mismanagement of money as it is a lack of money. Anyone who chooses smokes and alcohol over diapers for their kids needs to be smacked. But since you can't really do that, you can put conditions on your help that are designed to help her improve her decision-making abilities and, by doing that, improving her life.

--Dave

Why Society Accepts Pornography but Not Littering

As religious leaders and scientific studies warn of how destructive pornography is, society looks the other way. Why does public opinion judge petty offenses like littering more harshly than pornography consumption?

Have you heard this statement (or one like it)? 

“It’s not until porn impacts [someone's] personal life or sex drive that you should be concerned.”

The same article this comes from, which was posted on Cosmo "The Online Women's Magazine," also went on to say we should feel "OK" if our significant others watching pornography "regularly." (Read the full article at your own risk.)  

What? 

Pornography is addictive. Whether you're religious or not, there's no arguing about it. Study after study after study show that it upsets the chemical balance in the brain in ways similar to other highly-addictive drugs (think like cocaine). 

It's also destructive. On a personal level and a societal level. It's like a gateway drug. Consumers of pornography are more likely to exhibit risky sexual behaviors and have patterns of other substance abuse. 

President Packer said it this way: “In our day the dreadful influence of pornography is like unto a plague sweeping across the world, infecting one here and one there, relentlessly trying to invade every home. [...] Pornography will always repel the Spirit of Christ and will interrupt the communications between our Heavenly Father and His children and disrupt the tender relationship between husband and wife."

And yet, despite the numbers, the studies, and warnings, society says, "don't worry; it's fine!" and "pornography is part of a healthy sex life." It justifies that "everybody does it." (One researcher even claimed they couldn't find a single 20-year-old man who hadn't consumed pornography, even just a little.) Society would have you believe that you're the strange one for thinking pornography is a problem. 

I find that ironic.

Because this is the same "civilized" society that will harshly judge you for much smaller offenses, like dropping a candy wrapper on the ground. (Do it three times in Illinois, and you're looking at up to a $25,000 fine and 30 days of cleaning up the street--it's that serious.) We create laws and regulations about every tiny, nit-picky thing, and somehow, the plague that is pornography has escaped intense legislation? (Read more about one petition to make pornography an "opt-in" feature on all internet service providers in the US.)

Why does society so readily accept something that even secular studies have shown is a destructive influence on men, women, children, and families? Why is the stigma associated with dropping a candy wrapper on the ground worse in the eyes of society than engaging in a behavior that tears at the fundamental pillars of society?

The answer is sickeningly simple: society defines "right" and "wrong" in terms of consequences. 

Littering, and other petty crimes, are associated with fines (even outrageous ones like those in Illinois for repeat offenders). It has clearly-outlined negative effects. Leaving trash on the ground can hurt animals who might ingest it. Depending on the item, it can potentially poison water or soil or other natural resources. The US and nations worldwide spend millions each year cleaning up litter.

They also spend millions rehabilitating drug addicts. Why not make the same effort for pornography suffers?

I'm reminded of the heyday of Big Tobacco. Even after it was proven dangerous--deadly--and even after a surgeon general's warning, people still smoked. To society, smoking had become the norm, and the money backing the industry could help keep the product on the streets. Yes, society agrees it's dangerous, but not dangerous enough. 

Pornography is the same way. As we learn more and more about how it tears people to pieces, learn that it's addictive like a drug, that it's dangerous, society says, "It feels good, and you're not hurting anyone else." But like second hand smoke, pornography does hurt others. It hurts wives and husbands, children and families. It can even hurt society when addictions become strong enough and a private habit starts having public consequences.

Pornography is a plague. It's a cancer on our communities, less visible than litter, but infinitely uglier and more difficult to combat. Remember Sister Reeves' words from last conference: "The greatest filter in the world, the only one that will ultimately work, is the personal internal filter that comes from a deep and abiding testimony of our Heavenly Father’s love and our Savior’s atoning sacrifice for each one of us."