S/O Hypersexualization of Today's Culture /Media's Impact on Youth Sexuality

[umsami]

This is a must watch IMHO.  

 

 

[Momto6inIN]

That broke my heart ?

[Scarlett]

I can't hear it at work.....can anyone give me the cliff notes?

[Liz CA]

Wow. This may offend some people in terms of language but unfortunately it is today's reality for so many teens. Thanks for posting.

[AmandaVT]

This was hard to watch, but a really necessary video. Thank you for sharing. I forwarded it off to my therapist co-workers. 

[Rachel]

Commenting so I can find this later. 

[hellen]

Thanks for sharing.  I signed up for the parent class.

[nixpix5]

I am so glad to see the candid way she approaches this topic. Every time I have had a workshop with parents about this topic they just don't want to hear it because it sounds overwhelming and they have to make some hard calls. I have seen teen sexuality change so much in the past 15 years especially as a counselor. So many girls talk about how they want their boyfriends to choke them or hold them down when they have sex. I am talking 15, 16 year old girls here and not just a few...so so many. It is a hook up culture and while hook ups have always existed, the current culture is telling girls they can have sex with whoever they want, dress as proactively as THEY want and that nobody should be able to say anything about it. They have convinced girls to be progressive feminists they should dress half naked and own their sexual nature. It sounds like something a group of men thought up...seriously. who says the only way to be feminine is to parade yourself like a commodity on Facebook? Girls are thoroughly convinced though that their self worth is in their exposure. 

If you go back a decade teens on shows still tended to wear loose fitting jeans and baggy tees etc. Now teens on shows are drinking, smoking weed, having sex with multiple partners and it is mainstream. I counsel 7 and 8 year olds that watch porn. I have worked with young teens exposed to some horrific porn content and they now have fetishes. I will tell you there is next to no way that truly works to treat a fetish. If your son especially watches violent porn at the onset of puberty and becomes aroused to those images, that desire can root and crystallize. There after it can be challenging to become sexually aroused without fantasizing or viewing those images. That can happen with any type of porn be it group sex porn, swinger porn, fetish porn and so forth. It is dangerous and we have no idea what the next group of adults will be dealing with who grew up on this. When most of us were kids, any porn we saw was mild and specific to magazines. This is a whole new issue and it is terrifying. Parents would be shocked at what kids have told me. Not "bad" kids. Good, sweet, typical run of the mill kid. 

[Liz CA]

10 minutes ago, nixpix5 said:

I am so glad to see the candid way she approaches this topic. Every time I have had a workshop with parents about this topic they just don't want to hear it because it sounds overwhelming and they have to make some hard calls. 

If you go back a decade teens on shows still tended to wear loose fitting jeans and baggy tees etc. Now teens on shows are drinking, smoking weed, having sex with multiple partners and it is mainstream. I counsel 7 and 8 year olds that watch porn. I have worked with young teens exposed to some horrific porn content and they now have fetishes. I will tell you there is next to no way that truly works to treat a fetish. If your son especially watches violent porn at the onset of puberty and becomes aroused to those images, that desire can root and crystallize. There after it can be challenging to become sexually aroused without fantasizing or viewing those images. That can happen with any type of porn be it group sex porn, swinger porn, fetish porn and so forth. It is dangerous and we have no idea what the next group of adults will be dealing with who grew up on this. When most of us were kids, any porn we saw was mild and specific to magazines. This is a whole new issue and it is terrifying. Parents would be shocked at what kids have told me. Not "bad" kids. Good, sweet, typical run of the mill kid. 

 

I have brought this up in a treatment group setting (men only) and this seems to get their attention. It has far reaching implications. If I heard Dr. Dine correctly, she just mentioned in the presentation that over 30% of males between 17 -27 suffer from erectile dysfunction. 

I am very glad she has addressed this and provided many resources. I think we (health professionals, churches, parents, youth leaders / mentors) need to focus on this issue with renewed intensity. There is so much at stake. 

[Pen]

I want to watch this when I have more data or WiFi. Is it suitable for viewing at a public place or by a 16yo?

[Bluegoat]

37 minutes ago, nixpix5 said:

I am so glad to see the candid way she approaches this topic. Every time I have had a workshop with parents about this topic they just don't want to hear it because it sounds overwhelming and they have to make some hard calls. I have seen teen sexuality change so much in the past 15 years especially as a counselor. So many girls talk about how they want their boyfriends to choke them or hold them down when they have sex. I am talking 15, 16 year old girls here and not just a few...so so many. It is a hook up culture and while hook ups have always existed, the current culture is telling girls they can have sex with whoever they want, dress as proactively as THEY want and that nobody should be able to say anything about it. They have convinced girls to be progressive feminists they should dress half naked and own their sexual nature. It sounds like something a group of men thought up...seriously. who says the only way to be feminine is to parade yourself like a commodity on Facebook? Girls are thoroughly convinced though that their self worth is in their exposure. 

If you go back a decade teens on shows still tended to wear loose fitting jeans and baggy tees etc. Now teens on shows are drinking, smoking weed, having sex with multiple partners and it is mainstream. I counsel 7 and 8 year olds that watch porn. I have worked with young teens exposed to some horrific porn content and they now have fetishes. I will tell you there is next to no way that truly works to treat a fetish. If your son especially watches violent porn at the onset of puberty and becomes aroused to those images, that desire can root and crystallize. There after it can be challenging to become sexually aroused without fantasizing or viewing those images. That can happen with any type of porn be it group sex porn, swinger porn, fetish porn and so forth. It is dangerous and we have no idea what the next group of adults will be dealing with who grew up on this. When most of us were kids, any porn we saw was mild and specific to magazines. This is a whole new issue and it is terrifying. Parents would be shocked at what kids have told me. Not "bad" kids. Good, sweet, typical run of the mill kid. 

 

What you've said here that I bolded is something that I think is important and needs to be dug into a bit.  I don't think it's just random exploitation for money that is behind this.  I've been seeing messages for years from what are sometimes called sex-positive therapists, starting back with Dan Savage I suppose, that fetishes are a form of diversity to be celebrated.  Not only are they not a problem, they are positive forms of sexuality and opposition or resistance to the idea is not only prudish, but almost akin to racism.  Exploring your kinks through books, movies, workshops, and with your partner is a kind of healthy self-discovery that will make you more fulfilled.  And what's more it is what open, healthy people would want to do.  There are books on all the topics you mention, and more, at our local  woman-positive sex-positive bookstore/shop, or you can take a workshop on how to be empowered through anal play, and so on.  And this stuff is considered absolutely appropriate for teens getting a sex-positive education.

The idea that there could be such a thing as disordered sexuality is almost non-existent, because the only metric as far as what is healthy and good is consent.  The idea that there could be an unhealthy culture or practice that people want to consent to isn't something that exists in that mindset.

I think it's really easy for people, adults, to fall into these assumptions, but a lot of them lead to a place where this kind of porn culture is just fine, and teens watching it is just fine too.  I kind of wonder how many of the parents are actually conflicted because they believe those things, and are maybe involved in them themselves.  A lot of them have to be porn consumers themselves, statistically speaking.

[Momto6inIN]

20 minutes ago, Pen said:

I want to watch this when I have more data or WiFi. Is it suitable for viewing at a public place or by a 16yo?

It uses the F word quite a bit and talks pretty explicitly about porn images. Definitely not in public and ymmv but while I would/will discuss the content with my 16 yo I will not have him watch it with me.

[Momto6inIN]

25 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 If I heard Dr. Dine correctly, she just mentioned in the presentation that over 30% of males between 17 -27 suffer from erectile dysfunction. 

 

It would seem to me that this more than anything would get most men's attention.

[nixpix5]

28 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

What you've said here that I bolded is something that I think is important and needs to be dug into a bit.  I don't think it's just random exploitation for money that is behind this.  I've been seeing messages for years from what are sometimes called sex-positive therapists, starting back with Dan Savage I suppose, that fetishes are a form of diversity to be celebrated.  Not only are they not a problem, they are positive forms of sexuality and opposition or resistance to the idea is not only prudish, but almost akin to racism.  Exploring your kinks through books, movies, workshops, and with your partner is a kind of healthy self-discovery that will make you more fulfilled.  And what's more it is what open, healthy people would want to do.  There are books on all the topics you mention, and more, at our local  woman-positive sex-positive bookstore/shop, or you can take a workshop on how to be empowered through anal play, and so on.  And this stuff is considered absolutely appropriate for teens getting a sex-positive education.

The idea that there could be such a thing as disordered sexuality is almost non-existent, because the only metric as far as what is healthy and good is consent.  The idea that there could be an unhealthy culture or practice that people want to consent to isn't something that exists in that mindset.

I think it's really easy for people, adults, to fall into these assumptions, but a lot of them lead to a place where this kind of porn culture is just fine, and teens watching it is just fine too.  I kind of wonder how many of the parents are actually conflicted because they believe those things, and are maybe involved in them themselves.  A lot of them have to be porn consumers themselves, statistically speaking.

I am on my way out and will come back and add to this but the difference is that most of the kinky sexual lifestyles that have existed have been mostly done by consenting adults who have only been exposed to it as adults. The difference is the exposure to those images as a teen forming a sexual identity which is new to the tech era. The first arousal, masturbation etc at onset of puberty with images is key here. So while adults who were not kids during the tech revolution can have kinky lifestyles and manage it, kids who are viewing these images are setting themselves up to becoming aroused only by certain sex. That is different. That can permeate and effect their lives in extreme ways. Not being able to maintain an erection with a spouse for example because the sex is not enough. The harder part to this is the extreme porn that could be setting up a future of needs to rape or have violent sex, be a voyeur, and so forth. I have worked with a copious amount of 17-24 year old men with fantasies of rape due to porn and I have had girls in that age range fantasize about rape and one girl wanted to be canabalized because of some porn she watched with her friend at 13. She was 18 and could not get that fantasy out of her head. The other can of worms here too is that while I know and believe there are people born gay and that is true and real for them, many teens who view group sex porn, three way porn, or gay porn during puberty do acquire an srousal response to the sex, then the images, then that type of sex. It does alter who and what they find sexually arousing. This has lead to a culture of teens who want same sex sexual experiences but not necessarily a relationship and it is confusing them deeply. Especially when they are being told they are gay if they feel aroused and they should want told be in a same sex relationship. 

It is a time when we need to be highly sensitive and alert because this is new terrain for all of us and our young people. I think we should not treat our young people like adults. This culture seems crazy to me in what we have grown to feel is fine for young teens.

Anyone who watches alot of serial killer documentaries or shows or have read true crime know that most serial killers report early exposure to sexual images and linked arousal coupled with some type of violence. I would love to hear from any one on here who works with sex offenders or with these populations to hear more about this piece of it. 

[Bluegoat]

8 minutes ago, nixpix5 said:

I am on my way out and will come back and add to this but the difference is that most of the kinky sexual lifestyles that have existed have been mostly done by consenting adults who have only been exposed to it as adults. The difference is the exposure to those images as a teen forming a sexual identity which is new to the tech era. The first arousal, maturation etc at onset of puberty with images is key here. So while adults who were not kids during the tech revolution can have kinky lifestyles and manage it, kids who are viewing these images are setting themselves up to becoming aroused only by certain sex. That is different. That can permeate and effect their lives in extreme ways. Not being able to maintain an erection with a spouse for example because the sex is not enough. The harder part to this is the extreme porn that could be setting up a future of needs to rape or have violent sex, be a voyeur, and so forth. I have worked with a copious amount of 17-24 year old men with fantasies of rape due to porn and I have had girls in that age range fantasize about rape and one girl wanted to be canabalized because of some porn she watched with her friend at 13. She was 18 and could not get that fantasy out of her head. The other can of worms here too is that while I know and believe there are people born gay and that is true and real for them, many teens who view group sex porn, three way porn, or gay porn during puberty do acquire an srousal response to the sex, then the images, then that type of sex. It does alter who and what they find sexually arousing. This has lead to a culture of teens who want same sex sexual experiences but not necessarily a relationship and it is confusing them deeply. Especially when they are being told they are gay if they feel aroused and they should want told be in a same sex relationship. 

It is a time when we need to be highly sensitive and alert because this is new terrain for all of us and our young people. I think we should not treat our young people like adults. This culture seems crazy to me in what we have grown to feel is fine for young teens.

Anyone who watches alot of serial killer documentaries or shows or have read true crime know that most serial killers report early exposure to sexual images and linked arousal coupled with some type of violence. I would love to hear from any one on here who works with sex offenders or with these populations to hear more about this piece of it. 

Yup, I totally agree with all of this.  But I think part of the reason people don't see it is that it doesn't seem compatible with what they've come to believe about the nature of sexuality.

Your point about watching porn with homosexual activity and that having an impact is kind of similar I think - for a long time, there has been one set of facts that people have been told about that, namely that someone's experience has nothing to do with their sexual response in terms of interest in (or no interest in) same sex activity.  Believing that is seen as a moral test in the same way that being non-racist is seen as a moral test.  I've said a few times in discussions with people that I think that is simplistic, that there really is cultural/experiential impact on sexual expression and even identity, and people find it actually shocking that someone might consider that a possibility.  

 I think a lot of the discussion around porn, kink, fetishes is built around the same ground as has already been laid with regards to the origin of sexuality - having a fetish is seen as being very similar to being gay.  If it's believed to be so, it is very difficult for people to accept that it might be a problem, it seems like an immoral statement.  We just aren't supposed to question people's private lives, or sexual expression or identity, or how healthy it is.  There is huge pressure to deny the kind of links, or outcomes, you are pointing out.

 

 

[nixpix5]

8 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

Yup, I totally agree with all of this.  But I think part of the reason people don't see it is that it doesn't seem compatible with what they've come to believe about the nature of sexuality.

Your point about watching porn with homosexual activity and that having an impact is kind of similar I think - for a long time, there has been one set of facts that people have been told about that, namely that someone's experience has nothing to do with their sexual response in terms of interest in (or no interest in) same sex activity.  Believing that is seen as a moral test in the same way that being non-racist is seen as a moral test.  I've said a few times in discussions with people that I think that is simplistic, that there really is cultural/experiential impact on sexual expression and even identity, and people find it actually shocking that someone might consider that a possibility.  

 I think a lot of the discussion around porn, kink, fetishes is built around the same ground as has already been laid with regards to the origin of sexuality - having a fetish is seen as being very similar to being gay.  If it's believed to be so, it is very difficult for people to accept that it might be a problem, it seems like an immoral statement.  We just aren't supposed to question people's private lives, or sexual expression or identity, or how healthy it is.  There is huge pressure to deny the kind of links, or outcomes, you are pointing out.

 

 

Absolutely. My time working in research before switching to counseling taught me that. It is the difference between looking at this from a neurobiological framework vs from  a social science perspective. Removing the organic brain based science one can box it into a moral reasoning. Yet the data is there to support all that I have said. It is not ok in the current zeitgeist to dig up the research or to conduct deeper research. It is career suicide and nobody will fund it with a ten foot pole. It is hard for people to live in the grey and understand that yes, someone can be born a certain way but yes it is also true that someone can alter their trajectory in adolescence. That isn't even my biggest issue though. Being bisexual or wanting to experiment in those ways doesn't harm in the same way violent porn can harm. That becomes a society problem with increases in sexual violence, beliefs and in extreme cases, murder. That is truly horrifying to me. One 12 year old I worked with stumbled upon violent gay male/male porn and at first it really made him feel ill. He eventually became aroused by it as his exposure threshold increased our brains naturally are made to adjust neurotransmitters to become ok with things we see over and over. He ended up assaulting his 8 year old male cousin. He ended up being housed in a boys home. Now, he had some other issues within his family structure but he was clearly able to lay out his porn trajectory and he himself said he "felt" the switch for him from finding it gross to him to wanting to try it. He did alot of physical harm to his little cousin ? it was heartbreaking. 

[Liz CA]

45 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 I think a lot of the discussion around porn, kink, fetishes is built around the same ground as has already been laid with regards to the origin of sexuality - having a fetish is seen as being very similar to being gay.  If it's believed to be so, it is very difficult for people to accept that it might be a problem, it seems like an immoral statement.  We just aren't supposed to question people's private lives, or sexual expression or identity, or how healthy it is.  There is huge pressure to deny the kind of links, or outcomes, you are pointing out.

 

 

Of course there is huge pressure to deny the outcomes we read about in an increasing amount of empirical data because the industry will do anything to silence this type of research. You can get more grant money to study the sex life of ants than the impact of porn on society. 

I am actually okay with not questioning people's private lives. I really don't want to know, however, when something occurred in the past that has an effect in the presence or something criminal occurred in the context of sexual contact, then I have to address it. 

I also want to say that while many of you are likely younger than I am, the type of porn we associate with the word "porn" is nothing like what is on offer today. Anonymity, Affordability and Accessibility have escalated this and will likely continue to escalate this which is why I think we need to address it straightforward, scientifically and without  shaming.

[nixpix5]

29 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Eh, let's not over-focus on the gayness of porn, given most porn is marketed to straight men.

Or derail a porn discussion into 'made that way' discussions.

It's all porn. Most of it is marketed to straight men.

 

Alot is marketed to straight men yes, but it just isn't true anymore that most is. Female porn viewing is at an all time high and females consume alot of porn actually. I think when she says girls come to the set "porn ready" this speaks to a trend we are seeing. Alot of porn people view is amateur porn people make up their adventures in the bedroom. Girls gravitate toward this in particular. 

I agree the thread should not be derailed by a debate that doesn't pertain which is why I am trying to focus on porn connected with violence and objectification. However, this does all pertain because our vulnerable gay community is at risk by the stereotyped porn young gay teens are subjected to. There is alot to unpack in this topic on porn and I am happy to see bold speakers begin to address an uncomfortable but necessary topic.

[Liz CA]

11 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Eh, let's not over-focus on the gayness of porn, given most porn is marketed to straight men.

Or derail a porn discussion into 'made that way' discussions.

It's all porn. Most of it is marketed to straight men.

 

 

Yes. There is still some of the mindset that "men are wired that way" and there is nothing to be done. Another lie perpetuated by the industry.

[Bluegoat]

14 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

Of course there is huge pressure to deny the outcomes we read about in an increasing amount of empirical data because the industry will do anything to silence this type of research. You can get more grant money to study the sex life of ants than the impact of porn on society. 

I am actually okay with not questioning people's private lives. I really don't want to know, however, when something occurred in the past that has an effect in the presence or something criminal occurred in the context of sexual contact, then I have to address it. 

I also want to say that while many of you are likely younger than I am, the type of porn we associate with the word "porn" is nothing like what is on offer today. Anonymity, Affordability and Accessibility have escalated this and will likely continue to escalate this which is why I think we need to address it straightforward, scientifically and without  shaming.

 

I think though any larger question of how society deals with sexual topics is going to be closely related to outcomes in terms of how people are affected.  I don't know how that can be separated from some kind of impact on what people do individually or privately.  For example, with porn, if that is going to affect man people in a medical way, or affect how people relate to each other, or the hyper-sexualization of teens, how do we address that without talking to people about what they do, at least in the abstract?  We are either saying, look we need laws or regulations around this, or we need to be telling people their private choices are having these negative effects for many people.  How to do that without impinging on what some will say is purely a private decision?

So also, something I was wondering while watching the video, and your post makes me think of it too.  I never got a great sense of why she thinks this happens.  What is it in human nature, and also in our culture, that feeds this?  Technology enables it, but I don't think it's really the source.  I got some sense that she thinks capitalism is to blame, and that gender is to blame.  In the first case I say yes, it absolutely pushes this, but it doesn't really explain why it is so powerful.  Is it just about appetite?  She also seems to indicate that "gender" is part of it.  I find that a little unsatisfying though, because it seems like it just creates the question of where gender comes from and why it would create power structures, and I've never found the more common feminist arguments about that wholly adequate.  

And I wonder - what does all this tell us about the nature of sexuality, what it ought to look like.  Because I think, you can't just give people a negative, and tell them, this is unhealthy, this creates exploitation, this is going to make you impotent.  You need to give them some kind of vision of how to be integrated and truly relational.  And I'd even say moral, though I think that word would probably create a backlash very quickly.

[Bluegoat]

47 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Eh, let's not over-focus on the gayness of porn, given most porn is marketed to straight men.

Or derail a porn discussion into 'made that way' discussions.

It's all porn. Most of it is marketed to straight men.

 

 

I don't think that's really the issue.  It's that if you think that at a fundamental level all sexual expression is innate and unaffected by how it is culturally expressed, and that it is by nature private and based on consent, and accepting that represents true tolerance and diversity (which are Unquestionably Good Things), you have nowhere to go in discussing why porn is harmful.  Pierre Trudeau was the PM here who presided over the loosening of most of the old laws of sexual behaviour, and has a famous quote about the government having no place in the bedrooms of the nation.  Around here, that now seems to be understood as a fairly fundamental progressive principle.

I think that addressing porn will require a change in the narrative.

[Bluegoat]

4 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I'd use the word 'ethical'.  But people will bend over backwards to justify 'ethical' porn, just like they do 'ethical' sex work. So it doesn't really work as an alternative to 'moral'.

 

 

Yes, IMO because they don't really see it as a system problem.  

[Liz CA]

2 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I think though any larger question of how society deals with sexual topics is going to be closely related to outcomes in terms of how people are affected.  I don't know how that can be separated from some kind of impact on what people do individually or privately.  For example, with porn, if that is going to affect man people in a medical way, or affect how people relate to each other, or the hyper-sexualization of teens, how do we address that without talking to people about what they do, at least in the abstract?  We are either saying, look we need laws or regulations around this, or we need to be telling people their private choices are having these negative effects for many people.  How to do that without impinging on what some will say is purely a private decision?

So also, something I was wondering while watching the video, and your post makes me think of it too.  I never got a great sense of why she thinks this happens.  What is it in human nature, and also in our culture, that feeds this?  Technology enables it, but I don't think it's really the source.  I got some sense that she thinks capitalism is to blame, and that gender is to blame.  In the first case I say yes, it absolutely pushes this, but it doesn't really explain why it is so powerful.  Is it just about appetite?  She also seems to indicate that "gender" is part of it.  I find that a little unsatisfying though, because it seems like it just creates the question of where gender comes from and why it would create power structures, and I've never found the more common feminist arguments about that wholly adequate.  

And I wonder - what does all this tell us about the nature of sexuality, what it ought to look like.  Because I think, you can't just give people a negative, and tell them, this is unhealthy, this creates exploitation, this is going to make you impotent.  You need to give them some kind of vision of how to be integrated and truly relational.  And I'd even say moral, though I think that word would probably create a backlash very quickly.

 

I encounter this professionally so yes, context is a little different. Also the difference is this: Are we talking about adults or are we talking about minors? Those parents who still think porn is relatively harmless because it's nothing much more than "naked girl pictures" are often left aghast when they realize what today's porn actually is. So when it comes to minors I definitely think we need to bring it up and have discussions. Also, given the stats how many men become violent sexual predators after years of porn consumption, it is even more imperative to intervene early. One case in point that I keep remembering is Dobson interviewing Bundy and Bundy repeatedly mentioned years of porn use before he acted out.

Among adults, I have no problem saying whatever you both consent to is fine. It becomes a problem when one person is pressured or coerced into something he/she did not want to do. With minors, I am a lot more proactive and do discuss very openly how they can be harming themselves and the future potential for a healthy relationship. And yes, we are often having to go back and model / teach truly relational skills. So many people do not see this modeled in their homes anymore. Movies certainly are no help either so very few (overall speaking) children come into adolescence and adulthood with the basic on which to built those skills.

 

[Liz CA]

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

 

I don't think it's as simple as this. But it's probably a derail from the main topic.

 

I was responding to the difference in which I handle adult issues versus issues concerning minors in professional settings.

I am definitely not saying all is well with porn if it's "adults" only. This is a complicated package of issues spanning a lot of areas from moral/ethical, brain health to crimes and more.

[nixpix5]

30 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

 

I am happy Gail Dines has such good resources. She gets a lot of flack for not being a 'sex positive' feminist. Personally, I can't think of a more sex positive act than to opt out of porn culture.

I wish I could give you a standing ovation emoticon for saying this. Yes I want to see a counter culture where kids embrace feminism by opting out of porn culture and putting themselves on display. 

Quite honestly that we still have Miss America parading around in a swimsuit competition as part of our culture makes my blood boil. Heaven forbid if someone represents America that doesn't rock the swimsuit and evening wear competition. Bleh.

[Bluegoat]

Just now, nixpix5 said:

I wish I could give you a standing ovation emoticon for saying this. Yes want to see a counter culture where kids embrace feminism by opting out of porn culture and putting themselves on display. 

Quite honestly that we still have Miss America parading around in an swimsuit competition as part of our culture makes my blood boil. Heaven forbid if someone represents America that doesn't rock the swimsuit and evening wear competition. Bleh.

 

I find it so tricky though.  There are a lot of things that feed into it. I get really annoyed when the students at schools here, in the name of feminism, object to dress codes which they say target girls more than boys.  Well, yeah - I want to say - have you looked at the fashion industry?  For the most part boys are not coming to school in hyper-sexualized clothing.  But this is seems as a retrograde and oppressive idea, that maybe you do actually have to think beyond what "appeals" to you in terms of your freedom.  And if you suggest that the hyper-sexualization of women's and girls clothing might have a negative effect on the boys in the school, you will basically be sen as a pariah.  

 I think the principle is very closely tied to what we've been talking about here, but I don't see much support for that POV among parents or even many people who ought to know better.

[nixpix5]

5 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I find it so tricky though.  There are a lot of things that feed into it. I get really annoyed when the students at schools here, in the name of feminism, object to dress codes which they say target girls more than boys.  Well, yeah - I want to say - have you looked at the fashion industry?  For the most part boys are not coming to school in hyper-sexualized clothing.  But this is seems as a retrograde and oppressive idea, that maybe you do actually have to think beyond what "appeals" to you in terms of your freedom.  And if you suggest that the hyper-sexualization of women's and girls clothing might have a negative effect on the boys in the school, you will basically be sen as a pariah.  

 I think the principle is very closely tied to what we've been talking about here, but I don't see much support for that POV among parents or even many people who ought to know better.

Agreed. That is why I always picture a bunch of men sitting in an imaginary board room contemplating how to get women in society to do exactly what they want. "I've got it! If we can just convince them it is their right to be half naked all of the time and they want to have sex with a bunch of people in the name of being a feminist then we are no longer the bad guys" (insert evil laugh and twirling of mustache here). 

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here- about your last statement-  and this is why. What a person self-identifies as is not a sound predictor when it comes research as far as actual sexual behavior. There is a reason why in research we do not use what people identify as to actually crunch the numbers. We use what admit they DO, and people in general I have found when I worked, have some impressive skills of denial, or disassociation or whatever you want to call it. So you will see them labeled as MSM in the research- which mean Men who have Sex with Men- and only a proportion of them will identify as gay or bisexual, leaving a whole lot more that identified as straight. Behaviorally bisexual or gay is different than identifying as such, and identifying as gay or bi is extremely taboo in certain ethnic populations. So.....with all of that. Someone might identify as hetero, but consume something totally different when it comes to porn, which means that gay porn is hugely lucrative, because it's not only a small subset identifying as gay that's consuming it. Same with prostitution, and thus exploitation- it runs all sorts of ways. The populations are larger and they overlap. A very large number of straight identifying men, have sex with other men, and an even larger number of straight-identifying men consume gay porn, even if they might not actually have sex with other men. It's not cut and dried. I agree is primarily marketed to men, but I don't think you can group it quite so easily. 

 

Some of this "misidentification" is due to therapists and different definitions. A few years back one of my good friends confessed she was in marriage counseling to figure out of her husband was gay.  She'd stumbled upon porn in his browser history and it had a definite bent.  Their therapist basically figured out that he'd been sexually abused as a child, which the husband reluctantly admitted. After a few months of therapy their therapist said he was straight, he was attracted to women, but some percentage of straight men use sexual relationships with men or gay porn to try and resolve their molestation.  Which came from a different place than attraction or identity.

Now you could also argue that since knowingly exposing a child to porn is sexual abuse, and letting children stumble onto gay porn or anything of an extreme nature would definitely give them similar issues to work through in the future, but I doubt anyone is going to be warning about that soon.  It's too close to the slippery slope of condemning people who are sure they were born with a certain orientation or otherwise claiming they are lying or were abused before they were old enough to have conscious memories of it.

[Liz CA]

5 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I find it so tricky though.  There are a lot of things that feed into it. I get really annoyed when the students at schools here, in the name of feminism, object to dress codes which they say target girls more than boys.  Well, yeah - I want to say - have you looked at the fashion industry?  For the most part boys are not coming to school in hyper-sexualized clothing.  But this is seems as a retrograde and oppressive idea, that maybe you do actually have to think beyond what "appeals" to you in terms of your freedom.  And if you suggest that the hyper-sexualization of women's and girls clothing might have a negative effect on the boys in the school, you will basically be sen as a pariah.  

 I think the principle is very closely tied to what we've been talking about here, but I don't see much support for that POV among parents or even many people who ought to know better.

 

This is a very good point. Why do girls feel like they need to dress in such a way that it looks like they are offering merchandise? This is the other side of the issue: How porn has influenced girls' thinking.

[Bluegoat]

11 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Yeah, i don't understand all of what you are saying about identity. If you are a man having sex with other men, you have a bisexual or homosexual orientation. It doesn't really matter whether you are honest about your orientation; pretending to be straight doesn't make your orientation heterosexual.

I'd like to see the % on the market. Got any links ?

 

 

Maybe this is the issue - maybe those things aren't really identities?  What the heck does that really mean, anyway?  It does seem to imply some kind of self-perception.

My sense is that most people think of a homosexual identity as someone who was born being sexually and romantically attracted to the same sex.  It's innate, in the same way as maleness or femaleness, or as they often think about maleness or femaleness. It's that that makes it essential to who they are.  Which is likely great as far as it goes, but it breaks down a little for them if suddenly there are some people who engage in homosexual behavior who don't see it that way, or perhaps come from a different situation.  Take societies where most men at times engage in homosexual behaviour, or places like prisons.  It's not that they are more likely to be innately gay in some way - it's a response to environment, or even learned deliberately sometimes.  

I don't think most people would call that a gay identity, and it muddies the issue for them - it doesn't seem to fit into the framework they accept very easily.

I know quite a few celibate gay men too, some of whom would never call themselves gay.  That also seems flummox people.

[Liz CA]

3 minutes ago, nixpix5 said:

Agreed. That is why I always picture a bunch of men sitting in an imaginary board room contemplating how to get women in society to do exactly what they want. "I've got it! If we can just convince them it is their right to be half naked all of the time and they want to have sex with a bunch of people in the name of being a feminist then we are no longer the bad guys" (insert evil laugh and twirling of mustache here). 

 

Couldn't have said it more succinctly. 

[nixpix5]

3 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

This is a very good point. Why do girls feel like they need to dress in such a way that it looks like they are offering merchandise? This is the other side of the issue: How porn has influenced girls' thinking.

I think this is some of what the speaker was saying. It is a cycle that becomes so ingrained in the culture that we stop questioning why and just get a visceral emotional fight response to protect rights. Sometimes what we are fighting for seems really bizarre to me. We think ourselves in circles. Educated beyond our intelligence.

[Bluegoat]

16 minutes ago, nixpix5 said:

Agreed. That is why I always picture a bunch of men sitting in an imaginary board room contemplating how to get women in society to do exactly what they want. "I've got it! If we can just convince them it is their right to be half naked all of the time and they want to have sex with a bunch of people in the name of being a feminist then we are no longer the bad guys" (insert evil laugh and twirling of mustache here). 

 

Ha ha, yes, they would have moustaches.

In all serious though, I am not sure this is something men do to women.  I think women get something out of it.  There is an appeal, and not just in terms of pleasing men.  I think women can have dark impulses that manifest themselves too in the sexual questions, though often the angle is a bit different.

[Liz CA]

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Ha ha, yes, they would have moustaches.

In all serious though, I am not sure this is something men do to women.  I think women get something out of it.  There is an appeal, and not just in terms of pleasing men.  I think women can have dark impulses that manifest themselves too in the sexual questions, though often the angle is a bit different.

 

Sure. I think some women see it as possessing power and  misusing the "power" that they have. A little bit like "we got the goods that you want. We are going to tease you a little (or a lot) with it."

[nixpix5]

13 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Ha ha, yes, they would have moustaches.

In all serious though, I am not sure this is something men do to women.  I think women get something out of it.  There is an appeal, and not just in terms of pleasing men.  I think women can have dark impulses that manifest themselves too in the sexual questions, though often the angle is a bit different.

Yes, I do agree with you. I do not believe in this "men are evil and women are victims" black and white thinking. It is indeed more complex. I just find irony in the way we play out things in our culture and that is one irony that makes me scratch my head. 

[Barb_]

Thanks for the conversation. I have some informed thoughts on the subject and there is a lot of food for thought here.

 

[Garga]

1 hour ago, Liz CA said:

 

This is a very good point. Why do girls feel like they need to dress in such a way that it looks like they are offering merchandise? This is the other side of the issue: How porn has influenced girls' thinking.

 

1 hour ago, Liz CA said:

 

Sure. I think some women see it as possessing power and  misusing the "power" that they have. A little bit like "we got the goods that you want. We are going to tease you a little (or a lot) with it."

 

I was going to say what Liz said.  When I’ve heard famous women talk about looking sexy, they talk about how it makes them feel powerful.  I disagree so vehemently with that sentiment that I can’t even talk reasonably about it. 

 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I find it so tricky though.  There are a lot of things that feed into it. I get really annoyed when the students at schools here, in the name of feminism, object to dress codes which they say target girls more than boys.  Well, yeah - I want to say - have you looked at the fashion industry?  For the most part boys are not coming to school in hyper-sexualized clothing.  But this is seems as a retrograde and oppressive idea, that maybe you do actually have to think beyond what "appeals" to you in terms of your freedom.  And if you suggest that the hyper-sexualization of women's and girls clothing might have a negative effect on the boys in the school, you will basically be sen as a pariah.  

 I think the principle is very closely tied to what we've been talking about here, but I don't see much support for that POV among parents or even many people who ought to know better.

 

1 hour ago, Liz CA said:

This is a very good point. Why do girls feel like they need to dress in such a way that it looks like they are offering merchandise? This is the other side of the issue: How porn has influenced girls' thinking.

 

How many girls are going to school dressed in black lace teddies and garter belts? How many are sitting in algebra class in pasties and thongs?

Girls wearing tank tops and shorts — i.e. the kind of clothes that school dress codes are actually policing —  are not "offering merchandise," they are wearing normal clothes. The idea that shorts and tank tops are "hyper-sexualized" and that girls should consider giving up their "freedom" to wear such things, to ensure that the sight of their shoulders or legs won't "have a negative effect on the boys in school" reinforces porn culture rather than repudiating it. It reinforces the idea that females are responsible for managing  the sexual responses of men, and it places the burden on women — including young girls — to protect males against their own base instincts.

Nope.

I'm all in favor of teaching girls that there is far more to their identity than how sexually attractive they are to random males, that real intimacy and sexuality looks nothing like porn, and that they do not need to look or act like a porn star in order to be perceived as sexually attractive. Telling them they need to cover their bodies because "men can't help themselves" does the opposite of empowering them to take control of their own bodies and their own sexuality.

[Liz CA]

5 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

 

 

How many girls are going to school dressed in black lace teddies and garter belts? How many are sitting in algebra class in pasties and thongs?

Girls wearing tank tops and shorts — i.e. the kind of clothes that school dress codes are actually policing —  are not "offering merchandise," they are wearing normal clothes. The idea that shorts and tank tops are "hyper-sexualized" and that girls should consider giving up their "freedom" to wear such things, to ensure that the sight of their shoulders or legs won't "have a negative effect on the boys in school" reinforces porn culture rather than repudiating it. It reinforces the idea that females are responsible for managing  the sexual responses of men, and it places the burden on women — including young girls — to protect males against their own base instincts.

Nope.

I'm all in favor of teaching girls that there is far more to their identity than how sexually attractive they are to random males, that real intimacy and sexuality looks nothing like porn, and that they do not need to look or act like a porn star in order to be perceived as sexually attractive. Telling them they need to cover their bodies because "men can't help themselves" does the opposite of empowering them to take control of their own bodies and their own sexuality.

 

I was not thinking of regular tank tops and shorts. Unless they are so tight that everything spills out, or see through without a bra. There is other clothing that is definitely geared toward displaying merchandise and the people who wear it know it. If you watch the video Umsami linked, you can see some examples.

[Bluegoat]

8 hours ago, Corraleno said:

 

 

How many girls are going to school dressed in black lace teddies and garter belts? How many are sitting in algebra class in pasties and thongs?

Girls wearing tank tops and shorts — i.e. the kind of clothes that school dress codes are actually policing —  are not "offering merchandise," they are wearing normal clothes. The idea that shorts and tank tops are "hyper-sexualized" and that girls should consider giving up their "freedom" to wear such things, to ensure that the sight of their shoulders or legs won't "have a negative effect on the boys in school" reinforces porn culture rather than repudiating it. It reinforces the idea that females are responsible for managing  the sexual responses of men, and it places the burden on women — including young girls — to protect males against their own base instincts.

Nope.

I'm all in favor of teaching girls that there is far more to their identity than how sexually attractive they are to random males, that real intimacy and sexuality looks nothing like porn, and that they do not need to look or act like a porn star in order to be perceived as sexually attractive. Telling them they need to cover their bodies because "men can't help themselves" does the opposite of empowering them to take control of their own bodies and their own sexuality.

 

Shorts and tank tops sounds on the tame side, although when you actually look at the kinds of shorts that are in at the moment, which are so short the pockets stick out beyond the leg, maybe not so much.  But I think this is exactly the kind of cultural doublespeak that creates this terrible sense that being sexually attractive and available is so big a deal - that sense of not being invisible that was mentioned at the beginning of the video.  

It's not random that the styles for young men usually cover so much more than the styles for young women.  The latter are, by designed, intended to highlight the sexual attractiveness of the body in a wa the former isn't - that is why the designers make them that way.  If you are flipping through a copy of any fashion magazine, those same styles are posed in ways that are meant to look be a sexual come on.  Just don't really understand how you can have an industry that is purposefully doing that and creating that scenario, but somehow one people put the clothes on it stops being a factor.  You can see the pornification of pop culture and clothing just by looking at the evolution of teen style since the late 90s.

I just don't understand how I could design and make an outfit that I fully intend to push sexual buttons, but somehow once it's put on, that isn't part of how it's perceived.

As for it somehow being about covering yourself because men can't help themselves - that's so reductive I don't know what to think.  Do you really think young men are not affected, in the sense of how their view of women is shaped - when their environment constantly says and shows them women should be dressing themselves in a way intended to highlight their sexual attractiveness at all times?  What does it say to them that as young men they wear things like ts or longer baggy shorts and baseball caps, or even sport tanks, while the girls wear hot pants, tight fitting almost strapless tank tops or backless dresses, full make-up and jewelry?  One of those things is not like the other.  And even if it isn't intentional on their part, and even if they are hearing some sort of empowerment message, and even if they take control of their own response, that's what is teaching young men and women in the most concrete way about sexual expression.

 I also don't understand why saying kids should be conscious and responsible of how the things they do affect the social fabric is disempowering.  We have zero problem telling kids their political actions or what kind of causes they support has larger implications.  I have zero problem telling them that they need to be responsible about what they buy or consume, including the social effects of pornography.  Saying other elements of the capitalization of sexuality are off limits seems pretty arbitrary.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Liz CA said:

 

I have brought this up in a treatment group setting (men only) and this seems to get their attention. It has far reaching implications. If I heard Dr. Dine correctly, she just mentioned in the presentation that over 30% of males between 17 -27 suffer from erectile dysfunction. 

I am very glad she has addressed this and provided many resources. I think we (health professionals, churches, parents, youth leaders / mentors) need to focus on this issue with renewed intensity. There is so much at stake. 

This topic is discussed in the book The Brain That Changes Itself, which is about neroplasticity. A porn user can “train” his (or her) brain to be aroused only by the kink. 

What I am wondering is, from a parenting perspective, what are we supposed to do? I mean, I definitely think it would get my DS18’s attention if I gave him this info, but...that’s a pretty tough topic to be this frank about. And if it is tough info to give to an 18yo, what about my 13yo? Reading about that in the book on neuroplasticity made me immediately think of DS13 and all his many peers who have SO MUCH access to the web. So, so, so much. My son does not have a smartphone (though he has an iPod), but the very large majority of non-homeschooled boys his age do. And they have snapchat and IG and who-knows-what. I’m mostly just hopety-hoping he doesn’t watch some snuff video or bestiality video or whatever other awful thing at this very vulnerable time in his life, when s@xual mapping is happening in his brain. But I don’t know HOW I would ever explain to him that this is one bad thing about p*rn. 

Its just sad and terrifying to me that these issues can make their way into kids lives so young. I really, really don’t want to explain arousal mapping to my sweet, dear, inocent, moppy-head boy. 

[mom31257]

I know that purity movements and religious teaching on sex outside of marriage are not well received these days; but, honestly, it could help a lot of young people avoid so many problems. Some would say it creates it's own problems, but if done properly, it really can set people on a good path to a healthy, enjoyable sex life with a loving partner for the rest of their lives. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, mom31257 said:

I know that purity movements and religious teaching on sex outside of marriage are not well received these days; but, honestly, it could help a lot of young people avoid so many problems. Some would say it creates it's own problems, but if done properly, it really can set people on a good path to a healthy, enjoyable sex life with a loving partner for the rest of their lives. 

I don’t know though - Josh Duggar. 

 

[Katy]

11 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Maybe this is the issue - maybe those things aren't really identities?  What the heck does that really mean, anyway?  It does seem to imply some kind of self-perception.

My sense is that most people think of a homosexual identity as someone who was born being sexually and romantically attracted to the same sex.  It's innate, in the same way as maleness or femaleness, or as they often think about maleness or femaleness. It's that that makes it essential to who they are.  Which is likely great as far as it goes, but it breaks down a little for them if suddenly there are some people who engage in homosexual behavior who don't see it that way, or perhaps come from a different situation.  Take societies where most men at times engage in homosexual behaviour, or places like prisons.  It's not that they are more likely to be innately gay in some way - it's a response to environment, or even learned deliberately sometimes.  

I don't think most people would call that a gay identity, and it muddies the issue for them - it doesn't seem to fit into the framework they accept very easily.

I know quite a few celibate gay men too, some of whom would never call themselves gay.  That also seems flummox people.

 

It's starting to feel like this should be a spin off topic, but it would likely be far more controversial on its own than hidden in this thread.

I think the difference is that you can be romantically ONLY attracted to one gender, but for whatever reason, including past abuse or gender isolation, be sexually attracted to either or both. And yes, admitting that for at least some segment of the population this can change or be shaped by neuroplasticity IS an issue because of religious beliefs. I've heard plenty of Christians argue that now admitting it IS a perception issue or a neuroplasticity issue means it is in fact a choice, so they feel free to discriminate. And I think it is quite typical for men in prisons to willingly have sex with other men out of a need for sex but who would never have sex with men when given the freedom to be with a woman.

I think it might help if the religious issue was removed entirely, but of course in real life it cannot be. It's too much a part of the choices people make. If obeying God is more important than attraction you're unlikely to identify as gay, even if you are open about homosexual attractions.

[mom31257]

26 minutes ago, Quill said:

I don’t know though - Josh Duggar. 

 

I did say if done properly. I don't think they taught it properly. The whole never looking, avert your eyes stuff is extreme, but they do everything to the extreme. And there will always be anecdotal stories to use against any argument. 

Let's face it. Waiting until marriage and having a wonderful sex life with someone you truly love has got to better than all of the mess talked about in the video. I've been married almost 27 years. We both made some mistakes along the way before we were married (me more than my husband), but it's been a great life. And I wouldn't trade our love and fidelity for anything. 

 

[Barb_]

4 minutes ago, mom31257 said:

 

Let's face it. Waiting until marriage and having a wonderful sex life with someone you truly love has got to better than all of the mess talked about in the video. I've been married almost 27 years. We both made some mistakes along the way before we were married (me more than my husband), but it's been a great life. And I wouldn't trade anything our love and fidelity for anything. 

 

 

I don’t know that encouraging early marriage is such a great thing either. The end result of purity teaching is often rushing off to get married asap. 

[mom31257]

Just now, Barb_ said:

 

I don’t know that encouraging early marriage is such a great thing either. The end result of purity teaching is often rushing off to get married asap. 

If that is the result, then that's not good teaching, either. I've never seen that taught.  

[Bluegoat]

1 minute ago, Katy said:

 

It's starting to feel like this should be a spin off topic, but it would likely be far more controversial on its own than hidden in this thread.

I think the difference is that you can be romantically ONLY attracted to one gender, but for whatever reason, including past abuse or gender isolation, be sexually attracted to either or both. And yes, admitting that for at least some segment of the population this can change or be shaped by neuroplasticity IS an issue because of religious beliefs. I've heard plenty of Christians argue that now admitting it IS a perception issue or a neuroplasticity issue means it is in fact a choice, so they feel free to discriminate. And I think it is quite typical for men in prisons to willingly have sex with other men out of a need for sex but who would never have sex with men when given the freedom to be with a woman.

I think it might help if the religious issue was removed entirely, but of course in real life it cannot be. It's too much a part of the choices people make. If obeying God is more important than attraction you're unlikely to identify as gay, even if you are open about homosexual attractions.

 

I think the thing is, ultimately the religious question isn't about discriminating.  It's about what constitutes a healthy type of sexuality, and how we as a culture can set up our society so the most people as possible will develop a healthy sexuality that they can manage in an effective way.  If things like exposure to certain sexual content or experiences in young adults will change sexual expression in some way, that becomes important.

What I find difficult to deal with round  a lot of these issues isn't so much the different ways people think about what a healthy sexuality would look like, it's that they seem to think one example defines the whole thing.  So if some people come to be sexualized to certain behaviours thorough culture, that somehow proves that it is always a choice.  Or if some people seem to be that way for some biological reason, than it is always innate.  That there might be a variety of situations seems too much.  Then beyond that, there are all kinds of weird assumptions people make about both situations or how they work culturally or individually. 

But the kind of examination you are talking about - how to have a culture that produces sexual health - isn't that what Gail Dines is really asking?  So I don't really see why it would be an illegitimate kind of question for Catholics, or any other group, to ask.  Both seem to get flack from people ho think we simply aren't supposed to ask questions like that.

[Barb_]

10 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

It's starting to feel like this should be a spin off topic, but it would likely be far more controversial on its own than hidden in this thread.

I think the difference is that you can be romantically ONLY attracted to one gender, but for whatever reason, including past abuse or gender isolation, be sexually attracted to either or both. 

 

First paragraph is an interesting observation, and I agree. 

Can you explain what you mean in the second paragraph? I’m a little lost there. 

[nixpix5]

57 minutes ago, Quill said:

This topic is discussed in the book The Brain That Changes Itself, which is about neroplasticity. A porn user can “train” his (or her) brain to be aroused only by the kink. 

What I am wondering is, from a parenting perspective, what are we supposed to do? I mean, I definitely think it would get my DS18’s attention if I gave him this info, but...that’s a pretty tough topic to be this frank about. And if it is tough info to give to an 18yo, what about my 13yo? Reading about that in the book on neuroplasticity made me immediately think of DS13 and all his many peers who have SO MUCH access to the web. So, so, so much. My son does not have a smartphone (though he has an iPod), but the very large majority of non-homeschooled boys his age do. And they have snapchat and IG and who-knows-what. I’m mostly just hopety-hoping he doesn’t watch some snuff video or bestiality video or whatever other awful thing at this very vulnerable time in his life, when s@xual mapping is happening in his brain. But I don’t know HOW I would ever explain to him that this is one bad thing about p*rn. 

Its just sad and terrifying to me that these issues can make their way into kids lives so young. I really, really don’t want to explain arousal mapping to my sweet, dear, inocent, moppy-head boy. 

I began having an incredibly frank porn discussion with my boys at 13. We continued through the teen years to have those discussions. We chatted candidly about what it does to the image of women, what it does to their sexual satisfaction (yep, I even talked about not thinking girls could truly have an orgasm the way it is portrayed in porn), I spoke at length how it will open the door for sexual issues later in life with a future spouse or partner. One of my sons wanted to understand it from a biblical perspective and read Porn Again Christian which completely altered his thoughts on porn. 

It probably seems weird or extreme to have these conversations but it wasn't in our house. I started being candid early with them and so nobody ever felt weird and it was very science based. By boys learned early how to read scientific lit. They actually made their porn addicted friends come talk to me on different occassions because their friends had questions and concerns and didn't want to tell their parents.