The effect of porn on teenage boys and young men

Last sentence isn't mine. Copy and paste for quoting error.

You are saying that these women think "since it's ok if my husband does it, it's ok for my 10 year old son"? How stupid do they have to be. If "does it" is porn it's fine but if "does it" were say alcohol it wouldn't be fine?

It was asked what role women can play in preventing porn from harming their DC, and I think that discussing the potential dangers with the DC before they view it, and I do think those conversations should come from the men in their lives, but mothers can discuss it too.
I think one reason these discussions are not happening is that the users of porn get very angry when the possible negatives are pointed out, and for some women, they may not be having the discussions because they don't actually think it's harmful as their dhs have been watching it without any issues, many don't realise just how grim mainstream porn is now too.

I don't think it's a case of being ok with their 10 year olds watching it, I think it's more of a hoping they won't, to me, it makes sense to give the boys the tools to say no when their mates try to show them whatever in their phones, but can they do that if nobody is talking to them about it before it gets to that point?

I said similar in my second post, that the dangers of smoking can be pointed out to children without thise who smoke getting angry and defensive. Even the people who smoke point the dangers out to their DC. Why can't the Dads and men who use porn do the same?

Sadly as thread shows, when women try to discuss the harmful effects on our children, in this case our sons, porn users go on the defensive and get pissed off, and the issue of the potential harm to young boys is ditched.

This really annoys me, because the men that have warped views of women were exactly those 10 year olds.

venus "Pornography degrades women as a class." - How? Because the sex depicted is in your OPINION degrading? Because it doesn't depict it how you like to do it with your other half? In addition, you mistake porn for a cause rather than a symptom.

Porn is reality. It is frequently staged, but it is actually happening.

PinkIsRad you are talking about your private life, relationships and sexual preferences.

If a random bloke you didn't know, like, find attractive or desire came on your face and posted a film of it on the internet would you love that too?

An action is not always exactly the same thing. Ejaculating on someone's face is not always the same action done with the same intention. Intercourse can be a loving intimate act like it can be something a couple does because they want to have a baby like it can be rape.

"I like being ejaculated on therefore ejaculating on women's faces is never intended to degrade" is not a robust argument.

and qwerty - you never did respond to MephistophelesApprentice's question

venus actually I personally think that porn has a much more detrimental impact on young boys. Your argument assumes that every single consumer of porn is unable to distinguish from reality. Whereas that is much more true for boys than men. Hence why above I said one has to intervene early. But you are generalizing on a grand scale based on your personal opinions. And that means nothing.

Whatever you say qwerty.

Exactly venus.

It's almost like those liberal feminists are centring men and their needs.

No it isn't. Pornography degrades women as a class. It's hard to judge individual people who are members of the oppressed class as they have to work within the context of that oppression.

'Slut-shaming' is bullshit dreamt up by solipsistic liberal feminists which has played right into the hands of people like you growapear.

Cambridge is endorsing the slut-shaming view that women in pornography degrade themselves.

Well it is isn't it.

It isn't irrelevant how things are defined, and not all definitions are equally correct.

Censorship of restriction of distribution depends on the context of a particular act, not just the act itself. It isn't an impossible act to deem some media degrading under the law.

PinkIsRad Utilitarianism and a codification of rights does not work, you are right. It is more that porn is wrong in and of itself rather than it being a human rights issue.

All discussions concerning human rights end up in hopeless tangles.

Do you not see a problem with boys and men receiving a repetitive portrayal of women being subjected to treatment that a large number of women would find upsetting and degrading and humiliating? Notwithstanding any fetish you might have? If it was being shat on that I was describing, would that make it easier for you to wrap your brain around?

You like doing something that most women arguably find degrading. That's up to you. Some people like being pissed or shat on. It's a fetish.

Beach - what you define porn as, is somewhat irrelevant. Someone else can come along and define it differently. E.g. I don't remember if it was you or someone else, but someone in a list of "degrading" examples used the cum on face example. Personally I love my DP to cum on my face. Not every time, but sometimes. Ironically, he absolutely loves it if I can squirt on his face. Inb4 you say something similar to girls posting nudes because that's what porn culture makes them think is right. That is why I asked you to put forth an argument for porn being against the human rights declaration. You can replace porn with a plethora of other words in that argument. And given a set of opinions you would be "right" in every case.

TLDR - your views and opinions are no more "correct" than that of others.

That last was to Pink.

It rather depends on what type of images we are talking about, as to whether it is reasonable to criticise people who call them degrading or not. Unless we're in really wanky navel gazing relativist Pomo bollocks territory.

I think qwerty's example of the Syrian woman might qualify unequivocally as degrading?

growapear if you disagree with the dictionary definition and usage of "to degrade" (one that is used by the UN in documentation defining human rights) then take it up with Cambridge - perhaps you could ask them to remove the example "pornography degrades women" from their pages so that the hard of thinking don't conclude that Cambridge is endorsing the slut-shaming view that women in pornography degrade themselves.

HTH

"Extraordinary to think that wanting men not to wank over degrading images of women is considered a "stunted, myopic moral fetish""

As usual you misunderstand Russell. The point is they don't consider them degrading, and view your view of them (as degrading) as a "stunted, myopic moral fetish". That is wholly without a judgment of who is right. Just pointing out your logic fail.

Thanks tartan. I wasn't entirely clear what you were saying.

Venus, emotional abuse would still be censored in mainstream media, wouldn't it? It still forms part of film classification.

Obviously that's only based on what is depicted. How the performers are treated and their social context off camera is still an issue.

I've read evidence of black Americans after the civil war where they were interviewed and basically lamented the end of slavery because they had suffered hardship after it. That doesn't make slavery morally justifiable.