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.

f we infiltrated porn with videos of breastfeeding it would become mainstream and no one would get triggered if they saw it in public.

Even without the earlier post about what a bad idea this is

It still doesnt manke any sense

Obviously people would still find it a trigger, not everone watches porn

venusinscorpio

In private, my partner and I watch porn.

(We had also done everything else on your tedious list, at her instigation, before she had even viewed porn)

What you and your partner do does not justify anything.

"I define erotica as sexually suggestive or arousing material that is free of sexism, racism, and homophobia, and respectful of all human beings and animals portrayed."

Qwerty did you read the Diana Russell quote properly? Your response to it suggests not.

Degradation is not respectful and it is often sexist.

BDSM is sexist and degradation is its cornerstone.

I'm using the above quote from DR in order to provide a contrast to what pornography is and does. It doesn't mean that I agree that everything that gets called erotica comes under this definition and it most certainly doesn't mean that everything that gets called erotica is free from sexism, etc. A lot of what gets called erotica is pornography.

Making sexism free erotica in patriarchal society is a challenge to the point of near impossibility IMO.

What you and your partner do does not justify anything.

To you, no, but venusinscorpio said: "I'm not talking about what people want to get up to with each other in private" while then going on to try and regulate what people get up to in private.

Making sexism free erotica in patriarchal society is a challenge to the point of near impossibility IMO.

Beach, if a woman made a porn film showing men being tied up and whipped, would that be porn or erotica?

Qwerty IMO and according to my politics that would quite clearly be pornography. I would have thought that would be perfectly clear from my above posts quoting Diana Russell.

Pornhounds really like talking about their porn consumption I've noticed. Particularly to feminists.

It's hardly surprising that women are affected by thousands of years of misogynistic conditioning into their role as a member of the sex class, is it? Porn is still degrading to women, even if you watch it with a woman. And as a feminist I find BDSM an incredibly problematic fetish (and this is as a person whose sexual tastes run that way). In private it's not my business, but I don't see that there is a sovereign right for a commercial market in misogynistic material to exist, as much porn is, obviously including BDSM. As Beach said, porn is hate speech against women. Watched any Nazi/Jew porn recently with your girlfriend? Or white plantation owner and black slave? I think the parallel will be clearer to you.

This is an example of the vicious authoritarian streak that turns people of feminism. Not only are the women who make porn apparently degrading (lessening the value of ? ) themselves, but they need to be stopped from doing it. Men - who are not allowed to state opinions that contradict those of the feminist, because that is "mansplaining" should instead accept that the feminists have already considered the issue and all its nuances in far greater depth than they could have. Furthermore, because feminism is not for men they should leave the decision making to the subset of women who are feminists and should then get on with implementing whatever they are told is best for everyone.

I don't want to regulate what people do in private while they consent where it's not transactional or causing quantifiable damage. I think people often make some very damaging choices, but that's largely up to them. I do want to regulate or ideally ban the porn industry, and prostitution.

Beach I see your point, thank you.

But how would we ensure that all erotica is erotica and not porn? It's not a workable distinction. All porn or erotica is the commodification of the human body in a commercial context. What you call it makes no difference.

And if we did live in a non-patriarchal society, people would still express fantasises that are dark and violent. There just wouldn't be the same prevalent dynamic of male dominance and female submission. There would still be themes of dominance and submission. There would still be sexual cruelty and contempt in the world, just like there would be every other form of cruelty and contempt.

All porn OR erotica, particularly online, must be regulated and/or severely restricted. For the sake of children if nothing else.

In other words, a kind of equal opportunity exploitation is not the answer.

People who want to fuck children aren't allowed by law to indulge that in any way. Even if they just want to look at pictures. We do put legal restrictions on certain things. It's not a completely weird idea.

That's because children aren't capable of consent.

Are you saying women aren't capable of consent? Because that lack of agency makes it questionable whether you consented to be a feminist.

a continuation of the old victorian moral prescriptions where men wanted sex, but woman had to firmly lock sexuality within the moral limits of procreation. Where any woman who expressed sexuality beyond the limits of the marriage bed, or for any purpose other than babies, was a fallen (degraded) woman.

I think you will find it was not women that locked sexuality, but religion, patriarchal misogynistic religion at that.
Because, y'know, how very fucking dare women enjoy sex and their sexuality? They are men's property, for the enjoyment and pleasure of men only.

Ok, as a thought experiment...

Those of you who enjoy getting off to prostituted women being harmed on film porn...

Given that pretty much all credible research suggests that porn is becoming more violent with each passing year, and given the enormous amount of porn that is already available, how about there being a ban on producing new porn?

So you can still watch women being degraded in various ways, but no one can make any new stuff for you.

Would that be ok? And if not, why not?

Meph, are you saying that if two adults freely consent to something then no moral judgment should be passed?

It was a point that some things are considered a sexual taboo and this is borne out in law. Plenty of women involved in the sex industry don't consent or are damaged by it. And it's very difficult to tell the difference. The point that men don't really give a fuck whether they might be getting off on real filmed abuse shows up how misogynistic the porn industry is.

Ashamedly I used to laugh at Mary Whitehouse back in the day, but looking back, the old girl had a point... Saturation of freely available porn just perverts the growing mind and normalises very questionable behaviour... The Internet revolution has a lot to answer for ..

Meph, are you saying that if two adults freely consent to something then no moral judgment should be passed?

I believe I cannot morally judge unless someones behaviour causes harm to the non-consenting.

no moral argument can be made for constraining her rights to self expression.

Anyone's rights to self expression should be constrained if what they're doing is harmful to others. We have no right to do exactly as we please if it impinges on others' liberty or health or well-being.

What kind of selfish creature would think otherwise?

People consent to a wide range of things because of their cultural/moral/individual upbringings. It does not mean they are not being abused or degraded or harmed.
We have an obligation to judge that so we can change it.

Sorry all, but I need to present a particularly horrible situation. Meph imagine this scenario.

A teenage girl has fled a conflict zone - say Syria or the Ukraine. Her entire family has been killed. She is eighteen, homeless, completely alone in the world, and desperate. One day a man approaches her and tells her she can make some money sexually servicing men. She agrees. One man she sees wants her to defecate and then eat her own faeces while he masturbates. She is desperate for money, food and shelter - so she drugs herself up to the eyeballs, and carries out his request. The man films the act on his phone. She offers no objection.

So here we have no legal adults engaging in an exchange that is technically consensual.

But are you in all seriousness telling me that no moral judgment should be passed on that man's conduct or character?

sorry, two legal adults..