The effect of porn on teenage boys and young men

[DeviTheGaelet]

Did anyone else hear the section on R5 about porn addiction the other day? They spoke to a doctor who is looking into the defects of porn on men. A study in Italy found 40% of young men were having erectile issued, of those 60% were psychologically caused ( I think those were the stats).
The doctor suggested that watching porn during adolescence is training men to be aroused by purely visual stimuli and the visual stimuli are not realistic. As a result they are not being wired to find the smells and touch of actual sex arousing. As a result they are having election issues.
He described porn as "stunt sex" and said it was creating a generation of men who's sexual relationships were with their hand and a screen rather than another person.
I found it really interesting. We talk a lot on here about the harm porn causes women and girls but I've not heard so much about the impact on boys.
I think this should be discussed in PSHE in schools. Maybe this will be the personal impact many men need to see how harmful porn can be.

Speak

Is it the old "they don't know what they are doing" argument ?

It's not necessarily that they don't understand, just that the thousands of years of conditioning for women as the inferior sex who is used for male sexual gratification is important to bear in mind. Their actions have consequences for other women, as they are perpetuating that role. But as part of the system you can avoid thinking too deeply about that. And being part of the system rather than a victim of it can be attractive.

You're being a goady fucker now grow.

It's about the impact on women as a group, not the impact on the individual.

I take it you don't want to engage with that argument and explain why you think that I'm wrong? Again I'm left wondering why you're bothering if you don't actually want to discuss.

I see what you mean Beach.

I would just say that all commercial representations of sexuality that are designed to arouse are inherently questionable. It's very difficult to distinguish positive 'erotica from negative 'porn' without a clear moral criteria by which to do so - and there isn't one. The Russell distinction is a gendered-political one. While that is completely right and valid, it is insufficient on its own.

Moreover, erotic representations are always corrupted by any commercial forces underpinning them. As soon as an economic value is attached to human sexuality, then you have a problem.

Within the context of capitalism certainly (whether that capitalism is patriarchal or not) I see no hope of a healthy erotica.

Given your statement it is not possible to logically argue that the women either directing or acting in a porn film are not degrading themselves since "porn degrades all women"

It is not what I am arguing though so I would appreciate it if you didn't attribute that view to me or my words growapear.

I think slavery degrades humans but I don't think slaves degrade themselves.

I'm using the dictionary definition of "degrade" - the Cambridge Dictionary actually uses pornography as an example.
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/degrade

to cause people to feel that they or other people have no value and do not have the respect or good opinion of others:
Pornography degrades women.

And the reason I use the word degrade is because pornography doesn't have to be violent or overtly abusive in order to harm women and negatively impact on how others perceive and treat women. I also used it because degradation is cited as a violation of a person's human rights and is therefore a concept that is central to my objection to pornography.

There is a clear moral distinction between something which involves violence and something which does not.

I understand that still leaves all the commodification problems, but to say we cannot make a distinction based on pain and obvious abuse is not the case. That's part of how censorship of mainstream film works.

What about emotional abuse?

speak

There is nothing much to engage with. You basically believe that you have developed or rather have read and agree with a cutting insight that gives you a special lens through which to view all human activity. Further - that if those involved in any given activity would just think about it properly they would arrive at the conclusions that you have and likely desist. Feminists usually react with great anger at the idea that women should be told what to do, but are happy to tell them what to do themselves.

Speaking of ideas and vacuums - your own are merely an expression of the ideas you surround yourself with which are largely an echo chamber whereby an expression of a contrary opinion is held to be "goady".

tartansnowman, you're welcome, and thanks.

Beach

And the reason I use the word degrade is because pornography doesn't have to be violent or overtly abusive in order to harm women and negatively impact on how others perceive and treat women

Doesn't this just basically mean that the naked female form - if revealed to men, causes men to objectify women and for this reason it should be hidden from view ?

The slavery analogy is not good since I am unaware of any recorded evidence of slaves saying that they loved being slaves and that other people should have slaves and should become slaves themselves.

Well, if I'm wrong, it should be easy to point out how. I'll promise I'll listen. I'm disappointed you've given up without even attempting.

Oh could you also tell me what you do to escape your own echo chamber?

Arguing that contrary opinion in a reasoned way isn't goady. Copy and pasting the same poorly thought through response to two different posters' arguments without engaging with them on their substantive points is arrogant and goady,

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.

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.

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

"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.

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

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?

That last was to Pink.

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.

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.

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?

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.