Teens traumatised by porn - Guardian

[drhf]

Couldn’t see a thread for this already - Mixed bag piece in the Guardian with young adults powerfully and bravely describing how watching extreme porn as teens affected them - mostly very harmfully.
www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/10/readers-how-watching-porn-young-age-affected-their-life

Then this bit: “Jamie teaches sex education in an all-girls school. He said: ‘Porn doesn’t change people’s sexual behaviour in a vacuum. If a young man has been socialised into a misogynistic worldview then porn may shape it further. But I don’t agree that someone who understands consent and respect will be harmed by the porn they see. I view BDSM, which some see as extreme, and it has done no harm to me. It is also very popular. It doesn’t imply a real-life desire to hurt people. I’ve read research and found no robust evidence that porn causes harm. People who feel harmed by watching porn may be suffering because of their internalised shame. The solution is not abstinence, it is robust comprehensive sex education.’”

Then that’s the end of the piece - no comment, analysis or counter view. What is a man (if Jamie is a man) with those views doing teaching RSE in a girls’ school: “People who feel harmed by watching porn may be suffering because of their internalized shame”?

No possibility then that teenage girls could be horrified or traumatised at the thought that many potential partners expect brutalization as a routine part of sex? Or that they might feel concerned about whether the “performers” have freely consented, and be worried about their welfare? Or disgusted that sexual violence against women is so normalised that a teacher thinks girls who are distressed by it need to be educated out of their “internalized shame”?

The creepy part is the active teaching, guiding, encouraging kids towards certain sexual preferences or practices that realy should be left to the young people themselves to discover when they are consenting adults. Whether it's this BDSM teacher or the LGBTQI + primary school social club mentioned on another thread, it's inappropriate and creepy because its about adults influencing childrens sexuality. I would have no problem if these topics were covered in an evening class for adults.

I guess ‘ Jamie ‘ is not his/her/their/ zozz real name

because otherwise presumably he etc would be looking for a new job, or so we must hope.

I think though that the seeds of what we see now were sown then.

I remember in the 70s, or possibly early 80s, reading a book about women's sexual fantasies. Supposedly educational, it took a very hippy-dippy approach that women were now free to express sexual desire, and their fantasies, even weird ones, and all these were good because what we now knew was that what people fantasize about is all normal and does not mean a person really wants to be raped, have rough sex with the next door neighbour, run off with three men and another woman in some group thing, have sex with a relative, or anything else.

You can see where this idea is present in the thinking of this teacher. He extends it somewhat, but the basic idea that if something is "pretend" it won't be harmful is very questionable IMO.

Cave ladies might have done it too, but that does not mean that the current fad in western countries started with cave ladies.

It pretty much corresponds to the rise of internet porn, though Gwenyth Paltrow had a lot to do with popularizing it.

Shoot - that last was a response to the poster on page 2 who said some cultures have removed body hair for a long time.

My parents left their video tapes in the same drawer as other pg stuff, so I stumbled across porn when I was around 6/7. It certainly was not love making. I saw other stuff when I was older. Horrible stuff. Children these days don’t stand a chance. It is so damaging.

Sorry it was a typo I meant to write " Why aren't they telling teen girls that boys need to be caring lovers or forget it."

Did she? I can’t believe I remember this, but I’m sure she talked about having pubic hair on Graham Norton once. She wasn’t a waxer.

Gwyneth Patrow?
The actress?
Is responsible of violent men getting off / abusing women through sex?

Yes. I should have clarified that I meant in the Western countries. Here shaving the pubic hair is a new thing, and based on what women have told me it's their boyfriends who expect it as they built their views on what the female body looks like from porn actresses.

What is euphemistically called 'choking' is strangulation. 'Choking' is when a fish bone or something gets stuck in your throat. 'Strangulation' is when someone squeezes on your throat to hamper breathing and the movement of blood into the brain. It is dangerous, and some of the negative effects (increased risk of strokes etc.) can happen weeks after the experience.

GhostCastle · Today 14:48

My parents left their video tapes in the same drawer as other pg stuff, so I stumbled across porn when I was around 6/7.

That is horrible Ghost. In my view that was abuse of you.

+Allthegoodnamesarechosen *· Today 13:16
I guess ‘ Jamie ‘ is not his/her/their/ zozz real name

because otherwise presumably he etc would be looking for a new job, or so we must hope.

How many all girls schools, in all their wisdom, use a male teacher to teach RSE?

Not many you would think. He will be found with any luck.

In the 1980s a point of outrage, to such an extent that it was stopped, was midwives shaving a woman’s pubic hair when they were about to give birth.

It was considered to be an unnecessary intervention, and one which - far from being more hygienic - increased the risk of infection.

Pubic hair also looks better than bristle and red dots from infected pores.

It's been even more further removed from reality as it's now referred to as breath play.

That was in reference to nepata's post about strangulation and choking.

No no - she was one of the vocal early adopters of pubic waxing.

She later gave it up, after it became commonplace among the plebs. In between she tried to hawk vag steamers through her lifestyle brand.

Off the back of a related thread on AIBU yesterday I found a series of excellent YouTube lectures which others might find interesting. They are from a conference hosted by the Catholic Medical Association, to my shame I watched Gail Dines and nearly didn't watch any of the because of the source but I'm so glad my curiosity get the better of me.

The speakers are from a range of religious backgrounds as far as I can tell and none are trying to make a moral case against porn that is informed by religion, they deal with science, hard facts and personal accounts.

There are 11 films from the conference, the first is opening remarks and 3 are Q&A sessions, they cover a rang of topics related to porn including the neuroscience of addiction, trafficking and sex addiction.

The link is to the second film in the series as the first film is just opening remarks, the rest can be found on a playlist titled "Pornography: The New Drug".

This lecture is given by a neuro surgeon who discusses how porn changes the brain.
His comments on which areas of the brain "light up" on functional MRI when men watch porn is worrying and look out for the cadaverine rats! In fact most of this lecture makes the case for why no one should watch porn, least of all children, the evidence that it does harm is becoming harder to ignore.

I wish I could write a better review but it would turn this post into an essay because the films contain so much relevant material.