What is online pornography doing to sexual tastes and youngsters’ minds?
economist.com
economist.com
My whole school life I was 'encouraged' to avoid sex, alcohol and every other vice at all costs. Going to a party on a friday night was a bad thing. Sex, whether through disease or pregnancy, would destroy your life. This is still the mantra, although nobody then told me that sex would send me to hell. That part is new. So why are we not surprised that kids today have found something else? Society tells them to avoid sex at all costs. Society is just now winning that conversation.
I disagree that it is invalid to suggest that those who abstain from having sex due to reasons such as religious traditions lack certain aspects of personal development. For example, there are studies that show a clear correlation between abstinence education and _higher_ rates of teen pregnancy [1] and STI transmission rates [2].
Indeed, considering the harm that can result, it's probably better if they learn to reach agreement on some other matter first.
Faults in agreement include parties generating agreement that doesn't reflect their values and/or desires, and the illusion of agreement by one or both parties.
While there is potential risk of harm in many other areas of development - including other areas of agreement - the stakes are not usually so high. Getting an illusion of agreement for what movie to see, what restaurant to eat at, or (at a younger age) what toy to play with, will tend to have less severe consequences than an illusion of agreement over whether to sleep with someone.
It is not clear that someone gains the most from risking the most. Why is an agreement over sex the defining developmental step of the skill? Especially since there are so many easy ways to reach such an agreement if you're not particularly picky. (I believe the classical example is, 'You give me money and I sleep with you.')
Future sexbots, on the other hand...
A bit handwavy but I'm mainly trying to say that different things are different.
Since the sexual revolution.
The larger phenomenon is, in my opinion, media substitutions for reality. It's like to much sugar and causes certain individuals problems. But it's not a problem isolated to porn and young men.
What makes it difficult for many people to look at this phenomenon in a larger context is that it is much easier to be alarmist at anything sexual. Unfortunately, many parts of societies still view sex as something shameful and thus tend to attempt to avoid anything to do with it rather than having meaningful discussion about it.
The problem is that if the theory of modified norms and behavior has for all the studies never been strongly linked. In theory, we should all be committing much more crime and violence in direct relation to the ease of access to news and movies, but crimes have steady gone down rather than up. Yearly statistics do show however an increased fear of crime in relation to reading news and watching movies, so it seems our perception about others behaviors has had a much larger impact than on our own behavior.
A recent post specifically talks about the porn consumption habits of Millennials http://www.pornhub.com/insights/millennials-demographics-sta...
There is no moralizing in this article, just people trying to understand the impact of online pornography.
Why is this disgusting?
For example, I had one girl come to me an say that a studio was claiming to "own" her real name, forbidding her from working under that name with anyone else. They had also not paid her. It boiled down to producers knowing they can bully these kids. The secrecy in which most of these girls wrap their work doesn't help. They are very hesitant to complain or reach out to lawyers.
I would argue this is not specific to the porn industry. For instance colleges rely on students being too young and naive to really understand the student loan that they are given. 10 years later many feel betrayed or scammed because they have a degree that isn't always the best in the current economy and still in thousands of debt.
As they say, "When a less-experienced businessman meets a more-experienced businessman, the less-experienced businessman gets some experience."
Not sure if there's any way around this, though. The people who avoid getting taken advantage of when they're young tend to get taken advantage of their whole life.
That particular story just bugs me. Somehow they'd rather pay attorney fees against her for doing something she should be allowed to do, vs just using that money to ... pay her for services rendered in the first place. Touches a nerve, cause I had someone not pay me. But they had money to respond to my lawsuit, and in extremely great detail (20+ pages to detail all the ways they do not owe me anything for the several weeks I built their project and delivered it to their client).
In these situations they wrongdoer doesn't face attorney fees. They pay instantly, but they win in the long run because so many wronged actresses just disappear from the industry rather than put up a fight.
Deleted comment
Of course the reason they would never do this has something to do with how porn is viewed by mainstream folks and how an aghast media would present this even if it was an actual practical solution to a problem. Would seem to be worth a try.
Also, porn is known to be capable of messing up marriages, so I guess it will certainly not solve any problems related to normal family life (which is what we want these men to pursue), and the morals that come with it.
Also, porn is known to be capable of messing up marriages
the morals that come with it
Another counterargument to your claim is that porn can provide an alternative to infidelity, which tends to mess up marriages to a greater extent.
Further, some of those societies already have many of these problems, such as objectifying women (which they do to a greater extent such as requiring them to cover their entire bodies), as a direct result of the culture being so closed in terms of sex.
Also, regardless of the "marriage" argument I made, if these men had normal relationships with women, I think the problems would be much less severe. Porn is working against that, not helping it.
Ref: Full Metal Jacket (link is a nsfw video):
Sorry, this hasn't seemed to solve it.
Very true... but I don't really see the problem.
>And therein lies the collapse of western civilization.
I suspect you are joking, but behind the joke, there's a very real, very disturbing attitude.
It's a double-standard, really; in modern times, masturbation is largely seen as a positive thing, an empowering thing for women. But not so for men; the same act is somehow shameful for men. It's like there's this attitude that a man's sexuality, to be honorable, must impose it's will on others. It's an attitude that I think is both destructive to the men in question and to those we interact with. It's an attitude that should have gone away with the idea of ownership of other human beings.
Of course, it's probably just a technical glitch.
Wonder if synonyms of a homonym are acceptable?
In your profile settings, you can set showdead to "yes" to see comments made by shadowbanned users.
To me it seems that the "anti-objectification" campaign only seeks to replace one attractor with another. So maybe less pretty women would prefer to be measured by their IQ? Why is one better than the other? Or is it generally not OK to be attracted to somebody - or only once you are married and officially in love?
I'm not saying that I like everything that is done in porn, just that I don't understand what "objectification" is supposed to mean? And it seems ridiculous to me to presume men should not be attracted to the female body. So we should just as likely want to have sex with a horse or a hedgehog as with a woman? "American Pie" was just fiction - at least I personally was never tempted by an apple pie, because the looks of "the object" matter.
My understanding is that originally, in feminist studies of pornography, "objectification" meant to be made into an object, in the syntactic sense, as contrasted with the syntactic subject. In this sense, to objectify something is to have it be the recipient of verbs. In the context of feminist critique, the verb in particular is "desire", and the complaint is that pornography is (allegedly) interested in women as objects of desire, not as subjects. That is, the wishes and desires of the women are, allegedly, less valued than the wishes and desires of the men.
I personally suspect that this critique is overwrought and largely missing the point, although not without any truth at all. Perhaps irrelevant to the feminist point, speaking as a male, I'm pretty fond of being an object, although I wouldn't like to be only an object.
As for kissing - OK, so that is one understandable definition, thank you for that.
I think sex is simply weird - if you think rationally about sex it is not really appealing. It only works in a state of arousal. That plays into the hands of feminists who frame sex as something disgusting being done to women - it works because people are rarely aroused while reading feminist pamphlets...
“There is no dignity when the human dimension is eliminated from the person. In short, the problem with pornography is not that it shows too much of the person, but that it shows far too little.” --Pope John Paul II
It is like eating a hamburger vs a fancy French meal. In both cases you satisfy your hunger. But the experience of getting there makes all the difference.
Even if, for some reason, intimacy and passion could not be faked, you could just hire couples.
A lot of couples don't mind publishing their intimate scenes for the world to see. I'd rather young people watch other people in action than professional videos which seem to have gone so plastic/mechanical/unrealistic.
The problem is that even when women play the active part it they're considered victims because a) we see sex as something "done to women" and b) most porn is targeted at men (so porn consumers "use" the women, too).
Of course what this really boils down to is the sexist idea that men can't be raped (without being penetrated) and therefore can't be the "object" of porn to the same extent as women (except in gay porn because we like to pretend gay men are just men acting as if they were women).
In the end, the most common arguments against porn can be summarized as "I don't like it, therefore you shouldn't like it either" (or "I feel guilty, therefore you should feel guilty too").
I definitely fall in the latter - most of what I watch is pretty vanilla, but at times, I'll venture into things that are more risque. I'm not at all personally into bondage, for example, and I'm indifferent to anything more than just light roleplaying, but once or twice a month I might pull up a BDSM video and enjoy it.
I doubt that I'm alone in sometimes wanting to watch something I'd not enjoy personally doing.
Seems like it would make a hell of a mess, and it also makes me think of this joke from Good Will Hunting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6il6tocb4ic
The negative explanation is that it degrades the recipient (i.e. women), adding to the sadist/misogynist aspect of heterosexual intercourse.
The pragmatic explanation is that it provides a visual cue for the viewer (particularly those who are more visually oriented) indicating the climax of the sexual act. If the orgasm were internal, it'd be hard to miss (though there's an entire niche for that, of course). As to why it's the face in particular: it's the easiest way to directly show the recipient's reaction at the same time, especially on low-resolution or small-scale displays (plus on those devices a close-up tends to be easier to recognize).
The psychological explanation has something to do with there being a long-standing trope of portraying cannibalism as the ultimate infatuation (e.g. the communion of the Holy Spirit in Christianity representing "becoming one with Jesus" by consuming his flesh and blood) and ejaculate representing the "essence" of the male orgasm (biologically speaking the entire "point" of sex is to put one person's sperm in the other person's body).
It may seem odd that there are people who are into the ejaculate itself but it's far more straightforward than a lot of other things some people enjoy (including pretty much everything else that can come out of a person's body, apparently non-sexual body parts and things that aren't even related to persons, or even BDSM which is so much about psychology it can get away without any actual intercourse taking place).
(Windows, Chrome, ABP)
Maybe your browser is in Fetish Mode?