"Experiment that convinced me online p@rn is the most pernicious threat facing children today"

[Kathryn]

 

 

This article was on my FB newsfeed this morning and it reminded me of several recent threads here.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2432591/Experiment-convinced-online-porn-pernicious-threat-facing-children-today-By-ex-lads-mag-editor-MARTIN-DAUBNEY.html

[goldberry]

That sickens me but does not surprise me.  I know too many parents who think "I trust my kid, so I don't need to address this issue". Or parents who have no clue that internet prn is NOT like Playboy.

 

We need more articles like this.  Parents need to wake up to the world our kids are living in.

[Tangerine]

Our talk will not consist of "don't do it", but rather a very honest discussion of the difference between real and fantasy, with a hearty dose of how to treat real women, and the necessity of communication and consent.  I'm not looking forward to that awkward conversation, but think it is my duty.

[Scarlett]

I coud not read the whole article. Sickening is right.

[JumpyTheFrog]

This just reinforces my decision to not give our kids smart phones when they are teenagers. I hope in 5-10 years basic cell phones are still available.

[abacus2]

Stomach-turning.

[Dory]

This just reinforces my decision to not give our kids smart phones when they are teenagers. I hope in 5-10 years basic cell phones are still available.

 

With families that don't allow any internet usage with their kids phones, they set the phones up so that if the kid uses internet at all, the parent phone immediately sees what they've been looking at. I know adult men that keep accountable to a friend doing that.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Dory, I had no idea that was possible. We barely use our phones, so we don't keep up on all the features.

[LucyStoner]

It occurs to me that it sets some people up to be very sexually frustrated and lonely. Because sex IRL is totally different and if porn is their ideal, they are going to have trouble finding it.

[jewellsmommy]

Unfortunately this is not news to me. :crying:  I truly believe that this type of hardcore porn being more easily accessible is a big contributing factor to the problems we are seeing like the Steubenville incident where girls are treated with such little regard and respect.  Then it is deemed normal to post it for the world to see just like porn is seen readily . Porn like this makes women seem like playthings with no will of their own and are made to be 'played' with in whatever fashion desired. It is horrifying and disgusting.

[maize]

With families that don't allow any internet usage with their kids phones, they set the phones up so that if the kid uses internet at all, the parent phone immediately sees what they've been looking at. I know adult men that keep accountable to a friend doing that.

how do you set that up?

[Dory]

how do you set that up?

 

I know WebWatcher Mobile has something, But I don't know if that's what they are using or something else. I'll ask and let you know.

[LucyStoner]

Lonely and picky like this dude:

 

http://happyplace.someecards.com/26552/this-guy-would-love-to-date-you-as-long-as-you-fulfill-his-1000-criteria

 

6 inch heels and raggae music. Totally hot and into having multiple other women in bed. Who don't want to tet married or have kids. Who are Apache. Um, ok. Good luck with that then. Reading this gave me the distinct impression that 43 year old Malik's only previous relationships were with his online porn subscriptions.

[Farrar]

I read it the other day and also found it pretty depressing.  I'm not someone that thinks p@rn is inherently evil or that a teen seeing it is the end of the world, but this was truly disturbing.

 

It made me think of an article I read awhile ago about a s*x ed teacher in a high school who talks pretty frankly about those images with kids and also shows them images of "real bodies" to combat them.

[PrincessMommy]

yes, very sad and disturbing.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Wow, that list was either hilarious or pathetic. It would take a bus of women to cover all those criteria...or more.

[livetoread]

I read it the other day and also found it pretty depressing. I'm not someone that thinks p@rn is inherently evil or that a teen seeing it is the end of the world, but this was truly disturbing.

 

It made me think of an article I read awhile ago about a s*x ed teacher in a high school who talks pretty frankly about those images with kids and also shows them images of "real bodies" to combat them.

The Our Whole Lives (OWL) program does this too. In the 7th -9th grade level classes they show realistic line drawings of anatomy and couples making love. Parents have to see them first and approve them. The drawings shown were very diverse, with different ages, body sizes, genital shapes and sizes, gender pairings etc. I know they said they do this partly to counter the images of only young, super attractive people doing it.

[LucyStoner]

It's Perfectly Normal (a widely available sex ed book for older kids) shows a variety of body types and couples as well.

[nmoira]

Ugh. The Daily Mail. I had to open it in incognito mode. I'm having trouble remembering the halcyon days before the internet, perhaps because it wasn't.

 

Did anyone read Nancy Jo Sales' article in Vanity Fair this week? It was similarly sensationalistic. 

Here's a nice rebuttal:

Romance in the Age of the Internet Is Lovelier Than You Think

 

FWIW, I'd urge anyone who isn't scared of the word feminist or of female sexuality to give their 16yo daughters as a rite of passage a copy of How To Be a Woman by Caitlin Moran. The section on pornography is both concise and spot-on, but there's so much more.

[Coffeetime]

With families that don't allow any internet usage with their kids phones, they set the phones up so that if the kid uses internet at all, the parent phone immediately sees what they've been looking at. I know adult men that keep accountable to a friend doing that.

iPhones and iPods actually have really good parental controls. 

 

I know for my 12 year old's iPod touch I own the passcodes (he isn't allowed to know them) so I control all downloads and content controls. Right now, because he's not really very internet savvy (he's just not really interested in surfing the web and never has been) I also have the internet and Youtube turned off and the content controls turned on. As he gets older and more conversations happen I'm sure we will reevaluate allowing internet on with controls.

 

I think the technology is great and I have no problem letting my older kids take advantage of it-- but you HAVE to pay attention. Know what your kid's phone/ipod is capable of. Be familiar with how to use the technology and how to keep a close eye on activities. 

 

 

[mommymilkies]

I agree-Apple's settings are very easy for parents to control these things.  Google safe search is helpful, but not bullet proof.

[goldberry]

Ugh. The Daily Mail. I had to open it in incognito mode. I'm having trouble remembering the halcyon days before the internet, perhaps because it wasn't.

 

Did anyone read Nancy Jo Sales' article in Vanity Fair this week? It was similarly sensationalistic. 

Here's a nice rebuttal:

Romance in the Age of the Internet Is Lovelier Than You Think

 

FWIW, I'd urge anyone who isn't scared of the word feminist or of female sexuality to give their 16yo daughters as a rite of passage a copy of How To Be a Woman by Caitlin Moran. The section on pornography is both concise and spot-on, but there's so much more.

 

Just because it is shocking and disgusting doesn't equal "sensationalistic".  These things are really happening and they need to be discussed.  The rebuttal article read...

 

The idea that before the Internet rained hellfire on teenage bedrooms across America, girls and boys were sipping soda pops and slipping letterman jackets over each other’s shoulders is untrue and offensive. Sex was not better when women were second-class citizens.

 

That's equally sensationalistic because no one was saying that in the articles.  But to say that the internet has not drastically added to the level of distortion and abnormality that is easily available to teens is a denial of reality.

 

But talk to teenagers long enough, and you’ll also find upsides to relationships that play out online. When a person abuses you, it can actually be quite helpful to have evidence of the crime in writing.

 

Really??  The upside of having your abuse broadcast not just to your friends, social group, or even school, but to the entire internet community is that hey, at least you have evidence?

 

I absolutely agree that the de-mystifying of real sex and the acknowledgement of women's very real sexual drives and desires is good thing.  But the internet porn epidemic contributes nothing toward that.  The majority of what is on the internet is not real sex at all and does nothing to empower women, only demean and dehumanize them.

 

The implication that those disgusted by the internet porn are somehow prudish or would rather go back to the days of denying women's sexuality is both ignorant and offensive. 

[Moxie]

Just because it is shocking and disgusting doesn't equal "sensationalistic". These things are really happening and they need to be discussed. The rebuttal article read...

 

The idea that before the Internet rained hellfire on teenage bedrooms across America, girls and boys were sipping soda pops and slipping letterman jackets over each other’s shoulders is untrue and offensive. Sex was not better when women were second-class citizens.

 

That's equally sensationalistic because no one was saying that in the articles. But to say that the internet has not drastically added to the level of distortion and abnormality that is easily available to teens is a denial of reality.

 

But talk to teenagers long enough, and you’ll also find upsides to relationships that play out online. When a person abuses you, it can actually be quite helpful to have evidence of the crime in writing.

 

Really?? The upside of having your abuse broadcast not just to your friends, social group, or even school, but to the entire internet community is that hey, at least you have evidence?

 

I absolutely agree that the de-mystifying of real sex and the acknowledgement of women's very real sexual drives and desires is good thing. But the internet porn epidemic contributes nothing toward that. The majority of what is on the internet is not real sex at all and does nothing to empower women, only demean and dehumanize them.

 

The implication that those disgusted by the internet porn are somehow prudish or would rather go back to the days of denying women's sexuality is both ignorant and offensive.

Agree with all of this.

[nmoira]

Just because it is shocking and disgusting doesn't equal "sensationalistic".  These things are really happening and they need to be discussed.

These issues can be discussed without resorting to such hyperbole as "the most pernicious threat facing children today" and all-but-fainting. (Yes, hyperbole,  :lol:  )

 

With kids I'd start by discussing both internet safety and personal safety basics AND make sure my kids know where to go to get accurate information about questions they might have (e.g. Go Ask Alice). 

 

My eldest is going on 12, but we've already started to talk about issues like pornography... not in any great detail, but she knows it: (1) exists; (2) most (but not all) of it is unrealistic, formulaic, made for men and objectifies women; (3) is a huge industry; (4) is ubiquitous; (5) is not the place to seek answers to questions about sexuality and growing up because it isn't real.

 

ETA: Not porn-related, but my kids will also be well-versed in the types of psychological manipulation and  coercion techniques used to try to push bit-by-bit to consent (or at least implied consent).

 

 

The rebuttal article read...

 

The idea that before the Internet rained hellfire on teenage bedrooms across America, girls and boys were sipping soda pops and slipping letterman jackets over each other’s shoulders is untrue and offensive. Sex was not better when women were second-class citizens.

 

That's equally sensationalistic because no one was saying that in the articles.  But to say that the internet has not drastically added to the level of distortion and abnormality that is easily available to teens is a denial of reality.

 

But talk to teenagers long enough, and you’ll also find upsides to relationships that play out online. When a person abuses you, it can actually be quite helpful to have evidence of the crime in writing.

 

Really??  The upside of having your abuse broadcast not just to your friends, social group, or even school, but to the entire internet community is that hey, at least you have evidence?

 

There is a wide range when it comes to abuse, and yes, it can help to have documentation of threats or harm done, or just plain jerkiness. While I would not have chosen the Steubenville judge's comments as an example, let's look at the rest of the paragraph:

 

The Internet has made it more possible for girls to engage openly in conversations about sex—and to consume sexual images—that were previously shared among networks of boys. Pornography (which can often, but not always, be misogynistic, homophobic, and racist) has exploded across the Internet, but so have feminist and queer communities that offer support to people whose sexualities have always been marginalized. Texting with your crush is about as “disembodied†as quill-to-scroll love letters were. Receiving a text from a person you like can be a glorious thing.

 

And the Internet has done something else. It's given us a place to have a collective voice to say, "This thing happened to me/us. And it was wrong." "You are not alone." "This is rape/abuse/wrong/jerky." "We shouldn't stand for this." etc. Speaking out can be powerful. 

 

I absolutely agree that the de-mystifying of real sex and the acknowledgement of women's very real sexual drives and desires is good thing.  But the internet porn epidemic contributes nothing toward that.  The majority of what is on the internet is not real sex at all and does nothing to empower women, only demean and dehumanize them.

 

The implication that those disgusted by the internet porn are somehow prudish or would rather go back to the days of denying women's sexuality is both ignorant and offensive.

 

 

I mostly agree with the first paragraph, and didn't say the second. While pornography doesn't disgust me, most of it is... monotonous, limited in scope and not terribly imaginative. I have concerns about the industry and the way women are portrayed and objectified. This is something else we can have a conversation about without resorting to hyperbole. There has always been a sex industry, and always will because there will always be consumers. 

 

[albeto.]

The majority of what is on the internet is not real sex at all and does nothing to empower women, only demean and dehumanize them.

 

I think if you look around, you'll find the internet is not the source of subjugating and demeaning women. Violent porn is a symptom of something much bigger. I suspect these variables affect more people than violent porn does, certainly more than just teens.  We live in a society that forgets women had to fight to get the right to vote, to work along side men in the workforce for respectable pay, and to have the right to choose medical treatment independently. These "radical" ideas are less than one hundred years old in a culture that has been grooming women to accept subservience for centuries. 

 

Women are still told that their work is less valuable than a man’s, 77% to 82% as valuable, depending on statistics.

 

There are more than 93 million children out of school - 60 million of these children are girls. Uneducated women tend to  marry young, they are at higher risk of dying in pregnancy or childbirth, and their risk of contracting HIV rises sharply. Women who  have never had the chance to go to school have extremely limited earning  potential, which perpetuates the cycle of poverty, as well as dependence upon men for things like food, shelter, and medical care (including getting involved with pornography).

 

Research suggests the possibility that 1 in 3 women are beaten, assaulted, sexually assaulted, molested or abused during their lifetime because respect for their person is decreased by virtue of their genitalia. As the article nmoira linked reminded us, marital rape wasn't even a "thing" 50 years ago. Then again, interracial marriage was a radical notion threatening to corrupt youth. 

 

People like Sandra Fluke are called sluts for demanding reproductive options for women, and positively advocating for women’s health.  Women are encouraged by traditional Abrahamic religions to correlate sex with purity and sacredness, a gift to be enjoyed only in that one context. To defy this is to bring shame upon oneself, or even one's family.

 

A boy is taught to be ashamed if he throws like a girl, or cries like a girl, hang out with mostly girls, or does things that might mistake him for being a girl. Homophobic jokes, comments, and public policy reinforces this homophobia.  It ought to come as no surprise that between 30 and 40% of gay youth have attempted suicide, or that one quarter of all gay kids who "come out of the closet" get kicked out of their homes and abandoned by their families.  Legislation protects students telling classmates they should should be ashamed of themselves, and society is torn between "allowing" them to be incorporated equally into society, or mocking them for thinking gender orientation and identity are as malleable as deciding which shoes are one's favorites.

 

Youth are taught LGBTQ issues are a consequence of modern liberal ideology, but in reality these things are explained by a thing called "sin."  How many people are aware that although nearly  5 percent of  Americans identify as transgender, 41 percent of transgender youth have  attempted suicide, or that almost one in five transgender people have been refused medical care because of  their status, and some report being assaulted, even violently, in a  doctor’s office?  What does it mean when we stand together to shame people for using a word like "retarded" casually, but are completely ignorant that other innocent people are suffering right under our noses, suffering because we have a society that is so misogynistic that being gay is shameful because it means to pretend to be a girl?

 

So although I think we can probably all agree that violent and aggressively spammed porn is detrimental to society in general, I think we might consider more carefully the variables that brought about this trend and see it as a symptom, rather than consider this an isolated problem.

[Kathryn]

Meanwhile, nmoira's rebuttal article cites a study that defines sex as "heterosexual vaginal intercourse" between "never married teenagers" to prove that a minority of teenagers are having sex.

[nmoira]

Meanwhile, nmoira's rebuttal article cites a study that defines sex as "heterosexual vaginal intercourse" between "never married teenagers" to prove that a minority of teenagers are having sex.

The study and the reporting was very clear as to terms. That's refreshing. The article contained a bit more than this single claim, however.

 

How do you want to define sex? Is certainly a question open to interpretation. :)

[Kathryn]

The study and the reporting was very clear as to terms. That's refreshing. The article contained a bit more than this single claim, however.

 

How do you want to define sex? Is certainly a question open to interpretation. :)

Of course there were other claims in the article. It caught my attention though as it seemed disingenuous and I found it interesting to note, too, considering albeto bringing in homosexual and transgender issues. 

 

The article you linked claimed that "Teenagers are waiting longer and longer to have sex. In fact, Americans who have sex before they turn 20 are in the minority. " I don't find that to be very clear reporting at all given the statistic that was actually used.

 

It linked to a NYT article that stated "About 43 percent of unmarried teenage girls and 42 percent of unmarried teenage boys have had sexual intercourse at least once, according to new research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." The NYT piece then linked to the study itself, where I found their actual definition for sex as never-married teens who engaged in heterosexual vaginal intercourse. 

 

Apparently, sex is defined differently depending on how it suits one's argument. First, married teens are still teens and I find it absurd to exclude them. Second, homosexual sex is still sex. And most people I know would consider @nal penetration as sex also, whether of the hetero- or homosexual variety. I concede that we get onto shakier ground with oral or digital, but if we call it rape when it happens without consent, it seems that it fits the bill as well. 

[dbmamaz]

definitely kids are having various things that count as sodomy (at least by my state's laws), either because they think it 'doesnt count' or as a method of birth control.  I think its silly to say these kids are not having sex - they are clearly sexually active, risking STDS and various sorts of abuse and confusion

[nmoira]

definitely kids are having various things that count as sodomy (at least by my state's laws), either because they think it 'doesnt count' or as a method of birth control.  I think its silly to say these kids are not having sex - they are clearly sexually active, risking STDS and various sorts of abuse and confusion

 

The only decent numbers I've seen are from a 2008 study, on the CDC website (pdf).

 

From the abstract:

"Among teenagers aged 15–19, 7% of females and 9% of males have had oral sex with an opposite-sex partner, but no vaginal intercourse."

 

See Tables for details, Table 8 for above quote. There's no separate column for anal sex without having had intercourse, but "No vaginal

intercourse or oral sex, but other sexual contact" is 0 in 10,400 female survey participants and 3.8% fro 10,700 male survey participants. These stats are for opposite sex partners.

 

I don't see that the 15-19yo statistics are teased out for same sex partners, but I may just be missing it.

[nmoira]

Of course there were other claims in the article. It caught my attention though as it seemed disingenuous and I found it interesting to note, too, considering albeto bringing in homosexual and transgender issues. 

 

The article you linked claimed that "Teenagers are waiting longer and longer to have sex. In fact, Americans who have sex before they turn 20 are in the minority. " I don't find that to be very clear reporting at all given the statistic that was actually used.

 

Fair enough. :) If you broaden the definition:

 

In Table 5 of the 2008 study I linked above:

53% of girls and 58% of boys 15-19 have engaged in vaginal, oral or anal sex with same or opposite-sex partners. I don't find these numbers to be surprising or shocking.

 

I'll leave to someone else to come up with comparable historical figures if they like. :)

[mathmarm]

This is sickening and disheartening, but what I find equally sickening and disheartening is that people rarely talk about how porn effects adults!

Porn, in video format, has been around for a few generations now, and their have always been people who are sexually deviant or use sexual violence against others.

 

There was, in fact, video porn in the early 1900's and it became more and more explicit and prolific in the 60s and not to mention adult sex shops popping up in the 70s and 80s, so while it wasn't as accessible, until the 1990's its been around for generations. Imagine the effect of youths who viewed porn in the 60's and 70's and went to adult stores in the 80s and 90s before using the internet to fulfill the majority of their porn needs starting ~15 years ago?

 

Think of the kids who visited porn shops in the 70s and 80s? Boys who began viewing porn back then and have grown with this issue.

I hate that these type of articles and movements often exclude any demographic above 18yos. Millions 18+ are suffering.

[nmoira]

This is sickening and disheartening, but what I find equally sickening and disheartening is that people rarely talk about how porn effects adults!

Porn, in video format, has been around for a few generations now, and their have always been people who are sexually deviant or use sexual violence against others.

 

There was, in fact, video porn in the early 1900's and it became more and more explicit and prolific in the 60s and not to mention adult sex shops popping up in the 70s and 80s, so while it wasn't as accessible, until the 1990's its been around for generations. Imagine the effect of youths who viewed porn in the 60's and 70's and went to adult stores in the 80s and 90s before using the internet to fulfill the majority of their porn needs starting ~15 years ago?

 

Think of the kids who visited porn shops in the 70s and 80s? Boys who began viewing porn back then and have grown with this issue.

I hate that these type of articles and movements often exclude any demographic above 18yos. Millions 18+ are suffering.

 

 

Where are these cadres of the porn-addled? [And for what it's worth, while there are certainly some seedy sex shops out there, most of the ones I've been in have couples as a substantial part of their clientele. And there's nothing wrong with toys... see the TeA Thread for a well trained discussion.]

 

Studies do exists that link excessive porn viewing with sexual dysfunction (though I'm not clear to what degree the, ahem, heavy-handedness of self-pleasuring techniques might be responsible), and while I'll buy that too much of anything -- video games, porn, whatever -- can have an adverse effect on a relationship, you'll have to go a long way to convince me that moderate "use" is harmful.

[Scarlett]

Where are these cadres of the porn-addled? [And for what it's worth, while there are certainly some seedy sex shops out there, most of the ones I've been in have couples as a substantial part of their clientele. And there's nothing wrong with toys... see the TeA Thread for a well trained discussion.]

 

Studies do exists that link excessive porn viewing with sexual dysfunction (though I'm not clear to what degree the, ahem, heavy-handedness of self-pleasuring techniques might be responsible), and while I'll buy that too much of anything -- video games, porn, whatever -- can have an adverse effect on a relationship, you'll have to go a long way to convince me that moderate "use" is harmful.

I believe porn was a huge contributing factor in the destruction of my first marriage. It is much too painful to detail the path but it didn't happen overnight.

[Farrar]

This is sickening and disheartening, but what I find equally sickening and disheartening is that people rarely talk about how porn effects adults!

Porn, in video format, has been around for a few generations now, and their have always been people who are sexually deviant or use sexual violence against others.

 

There was, in fact, video porn in the early 1900's and it became more and more explicit and prolific in the 60s and not to mention adult sex shops popping up in the 70s and 80s, so while it wasn't as accessible, until the 1990's its been around for generations. Imagine the effect of youths who viewed porn in the 60's and 70's and went to adult stores in the 80s and 90s before using the internet to fulfill the majority of their porn needs starting ~15 years ago?

 

Think of the kids who visited porn shops in the 70s and 80s? Boys who began viewing porn back then and have grown with this issue.

I hate that these type of articles and movements often exclude any demographic above 18yos. Millions 18+ are suffering.

 

I'm sure some adults do have a problem with p@rn, but the specific issue in the article that struck me was that children whose ideas about s*x and s*xuality and the opposite s*x are so unformed and ignorant are viewing the most extreme p@rn out there, which is warping their ideas about what s*x should be and actually, as the studies cited in the article show, changing their brains.  While an adult can have issues with p@rn, adults who didn't come of age viewing these images constantly and who have had actual relationships with real members of the opposite s*x watching p@rn is a whole other issue because they're doing it in the context of a brain that isn't growing like an adolescent's and after having had relationships of various sorts.  I think that's a pretty key difference that makes it a totally different discussion.

[mommymilkies]

I feel like the record is skipping. We just had this discussion less than a month ago.

[mathmarm]

Where are these cadres of the porn-addled? [And for what it's worth, while there are certainly some seedy sex shops out there, most of the ones I've been in have couples as a substantial part of their clientele. And there's nothing wrong with toys... see the TeA Thread for a well trained discussion.]

 

Studies do exists that link excessive porn viewing with sexual dysfunction (though I'm not clear to what degree the, ahem, heavy-handedness of self-pleasuring techniques might be responsible), and while I'll buy that too much of anything -- video games, porn, whatever -- can have an adverse effect on a relationship, you'll have to go a long way to convince me that moderate "use" is harmful.

I didn't even imply that 'moderate "use" is harmful', I was pointing out the fact that pornography troubles millions of people over the age of 18 simply because porn has been available to people for a few generations now--and therefore, it is reasonable to assume abused

by some fraction of those using it.

 

Factoring in the idea that every year sees more people being introduced to pornography (which started in the 1900's and grew noticeably during the 60s, 70s and 80s) it is reasonable to assume that many teens and kids today have parents that are porn viewers and a smaller portion (which is still a sizable population) addicts. Many articles fail to talk about the millions of young men and women ages 18-50 who feel that pornography is negatively effecting their lives. Also, sexual addictions and specifically pornography addiction isn't even well understood by many professionals in the fields, its likely that porn addiction has been undiagnosed, misdiagnosed and improperly treated for years.

[dbmamaz]

There has been premarital sex since there was marriage.  I dont think we are trying to say that people who choose to wait are wrong, but that enforcing that choice on others by use of shame is wrong.  Also, there will be young people having sex.  No amount of 'just say no' is going to change that.  So we need to deal with the real world where lots of teens are going to have sex, and see if we can find ways to help them have healthier sex.  

[Tangerine]

  I don't feel like this demeaned me to remain pure!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

 

The alternative for the rest of us being?  Filthy?

[nmoira]

Here's a review of the program advertised on the OP's link.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2013/sep/30/neuroscience-psychology

 

(ETA: It focuses on the science and the strength of the assertions made in the program.)

[Jennifer3141]

The alternative for the rest of us being?  Filthy?

 

 

 

Yeah. I'm not filthy and neither was DH. Neither of us had any interest in marrying at 20 but we were both happily sexually active before that.

 

I will not allow that, "filth" talk around my kids. There are good reasons not to have sex. But that isn't one of them.

[Moxie]

I waited until my wedding night to have sex and I strongly object to using the term "pure" to describe a person. It is so harsh and judgey. Blech.

[Dory]

I have no tolerance for porn in this house. I have seen it ruin too many lives. I'm not sure how they can do realistic studies on pornography use because any of the guys that I know, that have a problem with it, aren't about to tell a counselor about their problem. It destroys families and hurts relationships. That might sound strong when I'm talking about what a lot of world sees as normal, but when it has affected so many people I care about, I feel that it's appropriate for me to hate the stuff. Sex is an addictive thing. It's supposed to be that way. Hormones course through us to help us bond with the other person involved. When a guys numerous first experiences are with an unrealistic person on his screen, no other girl is going to be as satisfying. He might be able to deal with that and still enjoy sex, but he is never going to be as excited or happy with it as he would be with the girl on his screen who is so perfect and vocal and willing to do anything. For the guys that can't seem to reconcile themselves to the differences, then they put pressure on their partner, they expect things that will never happen and are dissatisfied with the relationship. Or worse yet, they demand what they've seen and people end up hurt. I think those scenarios are a lot more common than people like to admit. Admitting them is humiliating for all involved. Better to just never talk about it.

[Tangerine]

The 12 or so exclamation points kind of led me to believe it was something you felt strongly about.

[dbmamaz]

Seekinghim, even tho we are on very different life paths, I really liked your post!  You retold something that actually happened to you, rather than making wild generalizations, and I liked your conversational tone with your kids.  Ok, the last bit was slightly judgmental, but overall - keep participating!

[Scarlett]

Seekinghim, even tho we are on very different life paths, I really liked your post!  You retold something that actually happened to you, rather than making wild generalizations, and I liked your conversational tone with your kids.  Ok, the last bit was slightly judgmental, but overall - keep participating!

 

 

I liked it too.  And she is working hard on stating her opinions without running away scared because others disagree with her.  That is very difficult for some people.

 

I do think the porn issue is less about premarital sex though and more about the damage it can do to individuals and relationships.  I  totally agree with Dory and I  have seen it played out IRL many many times.  It is the conversation I am having with my son13 in hopes of getting him to turn away from it when he is faced with the choice to look at it.  Because in this day and age he will have access to it.  Makes me feel quesy, but it is a fact. 

[albeto.]

I guess the problem I have with this post is that it shows that our society has forgotten that some things are right and some are just wrong..  It seems like society is saying that  because I saved myself for my husband  and he did the same that somehow we re repressed.  I'm probably sheltered, but I figured out se- with my husband.  It was beautiful.  By choosing this path we avoid STD as well as the emotional pain of breaking off a sexual relationship with another person ( because se- requires emotional connection regardless of what society says.)  I don't feel like this demeaned me to remain pure!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In what way does this post suggest society has forgotten some things are right and wrong? Society is constantly fighting with itself to preserve the status quo and liberate those oppressed by the status quo. I don't think you mean to suggest the status quo that oppresses women is the "right" that society is forgetting, but I'm not sure how the information in my post would be used to support such an idea otherwise. I'm just confused! :)

 

By the way, I'm glad you enjoyed your experience with sex. Not everyone is so lucky to have a beautiful "first time." However, I think it's misleading to suggest that waiting until marriage is the only way to avoid STDs and emotional pain. You know what they say, purity pledges break more than condoms. ;) People who know how to be safe, will reduce risks. People who have good social skills and support, will likewise reduce the risk of lasting emotional trauma.

[albeto.]

( Although all of us are filthy compared to God!!!)

Not me. 

 

That said, I am practicing what my therapist told me to.  I can actually state my opinion.  I normally stay out of discussions like this one or run the other way or defer to whoever I am talking to.  I am not saying you are bad for feeling your way about the issue, but on the other hand, I don't have to feel bad for stating my opinion.  Yeah..... I did it...  I'm working on doing this on face to face encounters as well.

Go for it! I just hope you understand that when I disagree with you, it doesn't mean anything about you. I disagree with an idea, but as a fellow human, I'm glad to see you embrace empowerment. Feels good, doesn't it?

 

[Jennifer3141]

I'm not "filthy" compared to a god. At least I'm corporeal. :laugh:

[HRAAB]

I waited until my wedding night to have sex and I strongly object to using the term "pure" to describe a person. It is so harsh and judgey. Blech.

 

I'm glad you said this.  Personally, I dislike purity constantly being attached to sexual activity.  We are sexual beings, not to mention that purity talk is usually directed towards females.  I know Christians call men to be 'pure', too, still so much of this responsibility is put on the woman's shoulders  Purity has to go deeper and have more meaning that virginity.  If I'm looking to judge purity, I'm going to be looking much deeper than whether the person has ever had sex or not.

 

And none of that means I'm advocating promiscuous behavior or pornography.