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

[retiredHSmom]

48 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. 

my thought.  In the video, Dr. Dines makes comments several times that the age when kids are first exposed is 11. She also mentions the brain's desire at that age for adventure, new information etc. There was at least an implication that the longer you can put off exposure and full access the better.

On the "conservative about teen cell phones" thread these is a group people (me included) who have adult children that now say that their children will have no cell phone access until they are adults (my daughters didn't have cell phones until 15 and 18 abut had iPod touches at 11 and they are opposed to any personal devices that access the internet).  Obviously we all admit that the can and will still have access to unsavory things though friends devices etc, but that is wholly different than carrying around and having access to unsavory things 24/7.

So what we can do is limit our childrens access. No TVs or computers in bedrooms, common room access only, no personal devices until they are much older and their brains are more developed. Yes, they can and will be exposed but Dr. Dines implies that there is a difference between single, limited exposure and full access.

 I know for a fact that all three of my adult children were exposed.  One of them was given unrestrained access and she is dealing with PTSD today from the culture that arose from that exposure.

[Barb_]

10 minutes ago, mom31257 said:

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

 

Implicitly assumed as part of the culture. My 24 and 21yo daughters attended a charter high school for a year that had a high evangelical population. All of the girls they stay in touch with are married with children. The willingness of young women to give up their ambitions and often their education is pretty central to the purity movement. It’s less likely someone will remain celibate into her late 20s or early 30s. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, mom31257 said:

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

I don’t think it is the fact that it’s taught, i.e., I don’t think many people instruct kids, “Get married as early as possible so you won’t fall into premarital sex.” But it definitely does seem to play out that way to a massive degree. My DD is 21. She has *several* friends of that stripe who are alredy married and some with a kid too. 

[nixpix5]

46 minutes ago, Quill said:

I don’t know though - Josh Duggar. 

 

Josh Duggar got a ton of media coverage because of who he is and where he came from but I will say it is really common...almost shockingly common for older siblings to molest younger siblings in this way. He was definitely not an anomaly and it wasn't due to his religious upbringing. This is a silent issue that society rarely brings to light but I get to see it alot. 

[Bluegoat]

4 minutes ago, Barb_ said:

 

Implicitly assumed as part of the culture. My daughter 24 and 21yo daughters attended a charter high school for a year that had a high evangelical population. All of the girls they stay in touch with are all married with children. The willingness of young women to give up their ambitions and often their education is pretty central to the purity movement. It’s less likely someone will remain celibate into her late 20s or early 30s. 

 

I don't think religious education about sexual expression has to be seen through the lens of the purity movement.  Plenty of Christians who don't come from traditions that are really associated with that have come away with really robust teachings on the body and sex without that element.

[nixpix5]

4 minutes ago, lllllll said:

Who is the author of the above book?  Thanks.

It is a highly controversial author but it is actually a really great and candid handling of porn. Mark Driscoll.

[Barb_]

2 minutes ago, Quill said:

I don’t think it is the fact that it’s taught, i.e., I don’t think many people instruct kids, “Get married as early as possible so you won’t fall into premarital sex.” But it definitely does seem to play out that way to a massive degree. My DD is 21. She has *several* friends of that stripe who are alredy married and some with a kid too. 

 

And hey, I just want to say that I recognize early marriages can work out. Some of those girls seem quite happy. But if we’re discussing early marriage as an antidote to a hypersexualized culture, I think that puts the burden of cultural expectation squarely back on the shoulders of young women, which is where porn culture is heaping it.

[Barb_]

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I don't think religious education about sexual expression has to be seen through the lens of the purity movement.  Plenty of Christians who don't come from traditions that are really associated with that have come away with really robust teachings on the body and sex without that element.

Right, but I’m responding to a point that specifically addressed the purity movement.

[Bluegoat]

4 minutes ago, Quill said:

I don’t think it is the fact that it’s taught, i.e., I don’t think many people instruct kids, “Get married as early as possible so you won’t fall into premarital sex.” But it definitely does seem to play out that way to a massive degree. My DD is 21. She has *several* friends of that stripe who are alredy married and some with a kid too. 

 

I'm not sure why that isn't a reasonable life choice though.  If people want to get married younger so they can have sex with a partner they intend to stay with, that's not unreasonable.  

Now, I do think it's interesting that in recent years, the vision of what sexuality looks like in a Christian marriage has really changed.  It's actually become far more open in many ways, whereas at one time, even within marriage there were some real limits to sex.  So it may be that previously, getting married young just didn't hold out the possibility of lots of sex without much need for restraint, so it didn't compare so favourably to waiting.

[Bluegoat]

2 minutes ago, Barb_ said:

Right, but I’m responding to a point that specifically addressed the purity movement.

 

Sure, maybe I should have quoted an earlier post - it seemed like people went right from "Christian teachings about sex" to "purity movement".  I just don't think people should think that teaching that there are religious views on sexuality needs to be done within that context.

[Bluegoat]

6 minutes ago, Barb_ said:

 

And hey, I just want to say that I recognize early marriages can work out. Some of those girls seem quite happy. But if we’re discussing early marriage as an antidote to a hypersexualized culture, I think that puts the burden of cultural expectation squarely back on the shoulders of young women, which is where porn culture is heaping it.

 

Why on girls, specifically?  

[nixpix5]

6 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I don't think religious education about sexual expression has to be seen through the lens of the purity movement.  Plenty of Christians who don't come from traditions that are really associated with that have come away with really robust teachings on the body and sex without that element.

I so agree with this. Actually what my sons found really cool was that the bible supports all of the research findings, that it supports a varied and interesting sexual life with your spouse and they just were clearly able to see how scientific research lined up with biblical best practices for a healthy sex life. As a Christian I think we shouldn't shy away from those conversions because it was those conversations that strengthened their faith and resolve. Purity teaching comes from a place of fear that boys have a run away penis that can't be controlled so they need to land it somewhere consistent. Ok...so that is probably an extreme way to look at it but to me it signifies that people aren't in control of their body and choices around sex.

[....]

14 hours 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?

 

Like another poster said, I wouldn't watch it in a public place, but my 16 year-old listened to it as I watched it.  I don't think she got anything out of it, though.  My kids aren't really allowed to have boyfriend/girlfriend-type relationships (until they're older).  They're just way too busy, anyway.  My teens are constantly doing sports or volunteer work.  I'm starting to realize that my kids are very sheltered compared to everyone else's.  Heck, dd13 still plays with Legos.

And I've noticed from dd16's ps friends that teen girls are pressured into having boyfriends or everyone thinks there's something wrong with them.  Other teens have asked dd16 if she's gay, because she doesn't cycle through a different boyfriend every week (and honestly, other ADULTS have also asked her teen friends this, which is just really boundary-crossing).  An older relative spent the week at our house recently and was telling dd16 that she needed to find a boyfriend, date different guys to see what she liked, hurry up and start dating before she gets too old, etc...  *^%*^. WTH?  I had to spend HOURS talking to dd16 to undo THAT damage.

Yes, it's ok not to have a boyfriend or get married.  No, there isn't something wrong with you if you're not interested in dating boys, etc.  Yes, it's perfectly fine to have career goals for yourself and you really can be happy on your own.  *rolling my eyes*

[Barb_]

2 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Why on girls, specifically?  

 

Because the girls do the heavy lifting in the young marriages I’ve seen. They quit school or give up a budding career. They deal with the moves and the upheaval of the military marriage.  Young marriages tend to break along traditional gender lines and the young women are called on more heavily to sacrifice in order to make the life work.

[Barb_]

11 minutes ago, nixpix5 said:

. Purity teaching comes from a place of fear that boys have a run away penis that can't be controlled so they need to land it somewhere consistent. 

 

Exactly this. Women are expected provide comfort, consistency, sexual availability to keep young men on the straight and narrow. That’s why the purity movement places sexual responsibility squarely on the shoulders of young women, to further answer your question, Bluegoat.

[Bluegoat]

4 minutes ago, Evanthe said:

 

Like another poster said, I wouldn't watch it in a public place, but my 16 year-old listened to it as I watched it.  I don't think she got anything out of it, though.  My kids aren't really allowed to have boyfriend/girlfriend-type relationships (until they're older).  They're just way too busy, anyway.  My teens are constantly doing sports or volunteer work.  I'm starting to realize that my kids are very sheltered compared to everyone else's.  Heck, dd13 still plays with Legos.

And I've noticed from dd16's ps friends that teen girls are pressured into having boyfriends or everyone thinks there's something wrong with them.  Other teens have asked dd16 if she's gay, because she doesn't cycle through a different boyfriend every week (and honestly, other ADULTS have also asked her teen friends this, which is just really boundary-crossing).  An older relative spent the week at our house recently and was telling dd16 that she needed to find a boyfriend, date different guys to see what she liked, hurry up and start dating before she gets too old, etc...  *^%*^. WTH?  I had to spend HOURS talking to dd16 to undo THAT damage.

Yes, it's ok not to have a boyfriend or get married.  No, there isn't something wrong with you if you're not interested in dating boys, etc.  Yes, it's perfectly fine to have career goals for yourself and you really can be happy on your own.  *rolling my eyes*

 

You know though, in a way this is not surprising, because  see this more and more said in relation to adults - that it is odd or even not that good if they are not sexually active.  The sense that people could, or would, or might find they need, to be sexually active is viewed as a non-starter.

Once you are looking at things in that light, of course it will also apply to teens who are also interested in sex.   And it will shape your whole view of sexuality too.  I've seen it used as a serious argument for both porn and prostitution (both done ethically of course) and even for providing prostitutes through public health to the disabled.  nd these weren't crazy people or nasty, they just really believed that all adults are "built" to be sexually active and it's necessary to be fulfilled.

As a Christian, I have to say I think where we undermine ourselves in this argument is requiring very little restraint within marriage.  So it seems that if you are married, anything goes as long as it's monogamous, while every other poor sod has to restrain themselves.

 

[Barb_]

2 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

As a Christian, I have to say I think where we undermine ourselves in this argument is requiring very little restraint within marriage.  So it seems that if you are married, anything goes as long as it's monogamous,

 

 

Meaning what exactly? Kinks and quirks? Or celibacy? Can you expand?

[Bluegoat]

10 minutes ago, Barb_ said:

 

Because the girls do the heavy lifting in the young marriages I’ve seen. They quit school or give up a budding career. They deal with the moves and the upheaval of the military marriage.  Young marriages tend to break along traditional gender lines and the young women are called on more heavily to sacrifice in order to make the life work.

 

4 minutes ago, Barb_ said:

 

Exactly this. Women are expected provide comfort, consistency, sexual availability to keep young men on the straight and narrow. That’s why the purity movement places sexual responsibility squarely on the shoulders of young women, to further answer your question, Bluegoat.

 

Yes, I can see that within that movement.  I don't know that I'd say it's generally true with young marriage.  I mean, I see younger marriages where it is more common for the woman to choose to stay with the kids, but I think that is a reasonable and valid life choice.  If it's different from the men, I think part of that is that being a mother isn't necessarily the same as being a father.

I tend to think that a lot of times, it makes more sense for women to have their kids younger, if they want them, and then prepare for a career afterwards once she feels she's ready for them to be more independent from her.  

[retiredHSmom]

3 minutes ago, Barb_ said:

 

Because the girls do the heavy lifting in the young marriages I’ve seen. They quit school or give up a budding career. They deal with the moves and the upheaval of the military marriage.  Young marriages tend to break along traditional gender lines and the young women are called on more heavily to sacrifice in order to make the life work.

I am pondering this and trying to decide if I agree.

I was the young girl you mentioned. I was in no way raised to early marriage or forced to it. I met my husband 3 months into my freshman year of college and I knew that he was my husband. We were engaged six weeks later, I was 19.  Married before I was 21. I had my first baby at 22. My husband was in the military. I went to college on a full scholarship for engineering, graduated from a 5 year program in 3.5 years with a 3.5 GPA. Than I stayed home and raised my kids for 18 years.  I sacrificed but so did he.  I didn't work so we didn't have the "stuff" and vacations that his co-workers did. The thing is that I didn't lose my intelligence or drive due to our early marriage.  I have run more groups that most people will ever contemplate, brought three organizations from paper systems online. Taught engineering to homeschoolers and have now parleyed all that experience into a full time teaching job next year.  I am having my career, just at the end of my family, not at the beginning.

My daughters are both now older than I was when I got married and one is the same age I was when I had my second child.  They do not have marriage prospects in the next year. They are having the careers first and both would, frankly, rather be married.

Meanwhile my 18 year old son has expressed a plan to be married within a few months of college graduation. He is rethinking his career goals because his previous goal isn't very family-friendly. If he truly does marry at 22 he will be sacrificing just as much as I did.  

I do not think that early marriage is a cure for the hyper-sexualization for our culture.  The problem begins long before age 18 or 20 and has nothing to do with purity, marriage, or religion. 

[teachermom2834]

49 minutes ago, 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. 

 

This is what I have seen. My then 15 yo ds dated a girl from this framework and it was all kinds of drama and it was hurtful. To everyone involved, honestly.

[Barb_]

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

 

Yes, I can see that within that movement.  I don't know that I'd say it's generally true with young marriage.  I mean, I see younger marriages where it is more common for the woman to choose to stay with the kids, but I think that is a reasonable and valid life choice.  If it's different from the men, I think part of that is that being a mother isn't necessarily the same as being a father.

I tend to think that a lot of times, it makes more sense for women to have their kids younger, if they want them, and then prepare for a career afterwards once she feels she's ready for them to be more independent from her.  

 

There is nothing wrong with an active choice to marry young and have children. One of my own kids is plowing through college as nothing but a fallback position because she can’t wait to start a family. On the contrary, I feel like I married young because it was expected of me. My parents and grandparents and great grandparents were all young parents. Even though I love my life, I have regrets. I don’t feel like early marriage was really my decision. I have problems with the movement for this reason. It’s the expectations I’m taking issue with, not the difference in choices. 

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, Barb_ said:

 

Meaning what exactly? Kinks and quirks? Or celibacy? Can you expand?

 

Well, certainly I've seen people argue, particularly from within the evangelical tradition, that kinks and quirks don't really require any thought about how they fit into a Christian sexual ethic.  Because in their view anything goes within marriage, there is no sense that married sexuality also operates within some kind of ethical framework.  So any of those things like choking she mentions, there really isn't a need to ask, does this really reflect what a Christin view of sex means?  Once it's in the spousal bedroom, it's all private choice of individuals, nothing to do with God.

But if we think back a bit, up until the 20th century, people largely took restraint within marriage as a given.  If you wanted to avoid kids, that was the only way.  If people were sick, if your wife had a serious physical issue from childbirth, or some other health issue, that was the only way.  People were also supposed to abstain during fasting (which could be fairly extensive) periods and before receiving the Eucharist.  And a lot of sexual activities that don't lead to pregnancy were not really allowed.

Now, people of course failed at these things, and there were provisions within marriage to accommodate both spouses, so for example while you were supposed to fast from sex at certain times, it had to be a mutual thing as well.  But the ideal was clearly on moderation and restraint, and that people could do this, and it didn't mean they weren't fully human or were domed to be unfulfilled as a human being.  

[Barb_]

6 minutes ago, retiredHSmom said:

I am pondering this and trying to decide if I agree.

I was the young girl you mentioned. I was in no way raised to early marriage or forced to it. I met my husband 3 months into my freshman year of college and I knew that he was my husband. We were engaged six weeks later, I was 19.  Married before I was 21. I had my first baby at 22. My husband was in the military. I went to college on a full scholarship for engineering, graduated from a 5 year program in 3.5 years with a 3.5 GPA. Than I stayed home and raised my kids for 18 years.  I sacrificed but so did he.  I didn't work so we didn't have the "stuff" and vacations that his co-workers did. The thing is that I didn't lose my intelligence or drive due to our early marriage.  I have run more groups that most people will ever contemplate, brought three organizations from paper systems online. Taught engineering to homeschoolers and have now parleyed all that experience into a full time teaching job next year.  I am having my career, just at the end of my family, not at the beginning.

My daughters are both now older than I was when I got married and one is the same age I was when I had my second child.  They do not have marriage prospects in the next year. They are having the careers first and both would, frankly, rather be married.

Meanwhile my 18 year old son has expressed a plan to be married within a few months of college graduation. He is rethinking his career goals because his previous goal isn't very family-friendly. If he truly does marry at 22 he will be sacrificing just as much as I did.  

I do not think that early marriage is a cure for the hyper-sexualization for our culture.  The problem begins long before age 18 or 20 and has nothing to do with purity, marriage, or religion. 

 

I hope I’m not giving anyone the impression that I have a blanket disregard for young marriages. I clarified below. I think I got caught up responding to bluegoat regarding the purity movement, which often results in early marriage that may not have happened otherwise. Does that make sense?

i admire what you’ve done with your life. My 24yo is friends with a young married couple who where homeschooled in evangelical circles. I’m assuming early marriage was encouraged because they married at 21 or 22. They are also the exception. They have vibrant careers idependent of each other, have a thriving social life and aren’t in a big hurry to start a family. They are a healthy and happy example of what is possible. 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I'm not sure why that isn't a reasonable life choice though.  If people want to get married younger so they can have sex with a partner they intend to stay with, that's not unreasonable.  

Now, I do think it's interesting that in recent years, the vision of what sexuality looks like in a Christian marriage has really changed.  It's actually become far more open in many ways, whereas at one time, even within marriage there were some real limits to sex.  So it may be that previously, getting married young just didn't hold out the possibility of lots of sex without much need for restraint, so it didn't compare so favourably to waiting.

It’s not that I think it is necessarily an unreasonable life choice to marry early, and, as Barb said, I don’t think it necessarily means some awful, unsatisfying life for those young women. My view , though, is that young women who have this belief - that they must be married to have sex - are much more likely to choose the path of least resistence; that is, get married and start having kids. The likelihood of completing a degree and having her own ability to provide for herself decreases, often drastically. The likelihood that they will choose the guy who is already in the picture rather than more carefully choosing from a place of true choice is much greater. Even the probability of an unplanned pregnancy drastically *increases* among those who have been taught abstinence. This is probably because they often lie to themselves about what they are going to actually do, or, as one friend of mine put it, “But if you use birth control, then you’re really having sex.” Yeah, but you really are if you really are. Better to be realistic about it. 

[Bluegoat]

9 minutes ago, Barb_ said:

 

There is nothing wrong with an active choice to marry young and have children. One of my own kids is plowing through college as nothing but a fallback position because she can’t wait to start a family. On the contrary, I feel like I married young because it was expected of me. My parents and grandparents and great grandparents were all young parents. Even though I love my life, I have regrets. I don’t feel like early marriage was really my decision. I have problems with the movement for this reason. It’s the expectations I’m taking issue with, not the difference in choices. 

 

I think the opposite happens as well though.  Some women do all the career stuff first because of family expectations, and regret it.  I think there will always be people who find their choices are shaped by expectations.

[Barb_]

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I think the opposite happens as well though.  Some women do all the career stuff first because of family expectations, and regret it.  I think there will always be people who find their choices are shaped by expectations.

 

I suppose that’s true. 

In that vein, I’ve always told my kids, “Don’t waste your 20’s” I told them I don’t care what they do as long as it is a productive way to spend their time. Go to school, get a full time job, start a family, find a way to see the world on the cheap...do something. Work toward a future. Just don’t fart around working 20 hours a week at a restaurant and blow your money on alcohol and I’m happy.

[frogger]

17 minutes ago, Barb_ said:

 

I hope I’m not giving anyone the impression that I have a blanket disregard for young marriages. I clarified below. I think I got caught up responding to bluegoat regarding the purity movement, which often results in early marriage that may not have happened otherwise. Does that make sense?

i admire what you’ve done with your life. My 24yo is friends with a young married couple who where homeschooled in evangelical circles. I’m assuming early marriage was encouraged because they married at 21 or 22. They are also the exception. They have vibrant careers idependent of each other, have a thriving social life and aren’t in a big hurry to start a family. They are a healthy and happy example of what is possible. 

 

 

I think humans in general tend to assume everyone is like them. I married at 18 and my family wasn't thrilled but supportive. After all they knew if they fought me, it would just encourage me because I was pretty rebellious. I just knew I found a good partner, a team player, and hard worker.  Please, don't make assumptions about others.

 

I also see my adult son giving up things he always wanted to do because he knows they won't be family friendly and he doesn't even have a serious girlfriend. His entire mind set is different on the idea of balance because as he ages he realizes family will be important to him.

 We have discussions on building the life that you want. That many choices are valid but every choice has a consequence and you just have to accept that. That's reality for both men and women. 

Sorry to encourage the derailing. 

 

 

Thank you for posting the video. That video was shocking. I know kids are exposed to more stuff now days but the extremity seems to grow exponentially every time I hear about the culture at large again. And I'm tempted to go get a Discover Card and close all Visa and Mastercard accounts. Of course, it would make more of a statement if done in mass. 

 

[retiredHSmom]

1 hour ago, Barb_ said:

 

I hope I’m not giving anyone the impression that I have a blanket disregard for young marriages. I clarified below. I think I got caught up responding to bluegoat regarding the purity movement, which often results in early marriage that may not have happened otherwise. Does that make sense?

i admire what you’ve done with your life. My 24yo is friends with a young married couple who where homeschooled in evangelical circles. I’m assuming early marriage was encouraged because they married at 21 or 22. They are also the exception. They have vibrant careers idependent of each other, have a thriving social life and aren’t in a big hurry to start a family. They are a healthy and happy example of what is possible. 

I understand and have no hard feelings at all.

[Liz CA]

2 hours ago, 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. 

 

2 hours ago, Barb_ said:

 

Exactly this. Women are expected provide comfort, consistency, sexual availability to keep young men on the straight and narrow. That’s why the purity movement places sexual responsibility squarely on the shoulders of young women, to further answer your question, Bluegoat.

 

Unfortunately, I have seen this played out with a former pastor's two daughters. One was barely 18 (literally within days of her birthday) when she got married. Her slightly older sister married at 20. One marriage is still intact as far as I know, the other is not. 

It was all about the girls' parents fearing that their daughters could have sex outside of marriage and this was not consistent with being a pastor's daughter. Rather sad I always thought. All about the parent and reputation.

By today's standards, I got married young as well. We were 21 and 22 and nobody pushed us nor was I pregnant. Fortunately, we kind of matured together and weathered some growth years together. I had one degree when I married and have since gotten another degree. I think what Quill is saying does happen occasionally. If marriage and motherhood is presented as the only goal worth having for a girl, she is likely less inclined to invest her time in college or even think what profession she would like to choose. It will always be a delicate balance for women to juggle education, profession and family.

[Murphy101]

15 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

Yes, gay teens are just as vulnerable to porn's pernicious influences as straight teens, agreed. Not more vulnerable, certainly not less. 

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.

 

It’s freaking nuts that not being okay with sexually exploitive and sexually abusive brainwashing is considered not sex positive.

[Murphy101]

I’m glad she didn’t show pictures. I cried without them.

I’m glad about her statement that she knows our boys are not as advertised. So often that part of the message gets lost. Because that’s how pervasive and effective the industry has been at brainwashing an entire generation. It’s like some sick sex version of Stockholm syndrome.

I’m going to go to her site later and discuss this with my husband and older kids. 

Because while I’m really strict about electronic use before age 16, this is likely stuff they are dealing with among peers outside our house. 

[Garga]

The video is so depressing.  

Last night, we put more locks on our internet, so that porn pages can't be accessed. We had some light locks, but we installed more.

One boy has told me that he's seen still pictures online and says he hasn't seen videos--just still pictures.  The other insists he hasn't seen anything at all.  Are they telling me the truth?  This topic is so embarrassing to them that I don't know if they'll ever tell me the truth.

But even if they've seen horrible things, I don't know what to do about it.  Even if they admitted, "Yes, we've been to some awful pages," what would I do?  And since they're saying they haven't seen anything, is there anything to do?  There's another thread about this and there were lots of book suggestions on it.  Do we just read the books?  

Are any of you guys in this boat with me: wondering now what your kids may or may not have seen, but they're not telling you because they're embarrassed and ashamed?  Or you've got a kid who says he's seen still pictures, and now you don't know what that means?

[Liz CA]

3 minutes ago, Garga said:

The video is so depressing.  

Last night, I finally got DH to put more locks on our internet, so that porn pages can't be accessed. We had some light locks, but he installed more.

One boy has told me that he's seen still pictures online and says he hasn't seen videos--just still pictures.  The other insists he hasn't seen anything at all.  Are they telling me the truth?  This topic is so embarrassing to them that I don't know if they'll ever tell me the truth.

But even if they've seen horrible things, I don't know what to do about it.  Even if they admitted, "Yes, we've been to some awful pages," what would I do?  And since they're saying they haven't seen anything, is there anything to do?  There's another thread about this and there were lots of book suggestions on it.  Do we just read the books?  

Are any of you guys in this boat with me: wondering now what your kids may or may not have seen, but they're not telling you because they're embarrassed and ashamed?  Or you've got a kid who says he's seen still pictures, and now you don't know what that means?

 

Yes, it's embarrassing for them to talk about this kind of stuff with their mother or father. I found the more "clinical" and forthright I was about it the easier it was for ds to talk. Also, the more you bring it up (but not in a shaming way) the easier the conversation seems to become.

ETA: Regarding book suggestions: I have heard good things about "Every Man's Battle" and they have workshops as well. Starting with the book would at least be a start.

[Katy]

3 hours ago, Barb_ said:

 

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. 

 

I'm not an expert.  My knowledge about this is pretty much limited to what has been relayed to me from a friend whose experience I described up thread. She found her husband looking at gay porn when their marriage was already quite rocky.  This is a liberal Christian family. The husband had been raised conservative Christian but had become more liberal as he was educated (he has a graduate degree). My friend, thinking that you were born with a sexual orientation that did not change was quite concerned her husband was gay and simply had been in denial because of the way he was raised. It led to marriage therapy and ultimately the disclosure that her husband had been molested by a man when he was a child.  Because his romantic fantasies were exclusively about women, specifically his wife, and not about men...  after several months of therapy the therapist said he wasn't gay.  He was a straight man who was using the porn to try to work through his molestation experience. She claimed some men with that background have sex with other men but they are straight, they are using the experience as a tool to work through their emotions, not because they are oriented towards men or towards both genders.  I have a sibling who's a therapist but I've never discussed this with anyone except this specific friend.  So I have no idea if this belief is limited to this one sort of therapy, or even which school of therapy this person was trained in.  Friend did claim she'd googled pretty extensively and at least some therapists agreed that sexuality was not only a function of sexual attraction, but one of romantic attraction too.  I know that is probably very subjective and controversial.  After all, there have been some pretty public blog posts about people who do have a homosexual orientation but chose to ignore it because their faith denied it.  I know we talked about one of those people here several years ago.  I don't recall the details, but it was a Mormon man who believes the church and wanted to raise a family in it.

3 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

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.

 

But to some people it is discriminating, because if it can be changed for anyone it must be able to be changed for everyone and isn't innate for anyone.  Which isn't fair, honest, or logical, but it is definitely the way many people think.

[BeachGal]

Has anyone here read The Porn Myth by Matt Fradd or Your Brain on Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction by Gary Wilson? Thoughts? Opinions?

[Carol in Cal.]

1.  I don't see how girls can be blamed for dressing in a way that is so completely normalized.  I don't know that they are necessarily intending to send the messages that everyone is talking about--I think some are and some are just being as stylish as they can without really getting the full impact of what they are wearing. 

What alternative really exists for them at all?  We have 'f-ability' and 'Omar the tent maker'.  

I remember someone here made dresses that were supposed to be attractive but also modest.  They were really beautiful, with full twirly skirts and embroidered decorations.  They were reasonably stylish as well.  12 years ago I bought one for DD (then 10 or 11) and she loved it.  It made her feel absolutely treasured and special.  She wore it to church proudly one day.  Her best friend said, "That dress looks dumb," to her, and she never would wear it again, even at home.  Options?  Not really.

2.  Hannah Montana was the squeaky clean BUT STILL ATTRACTIVE character who said in her theme song that she was 'just like YOU!' and who girls absolutely loved.  That is why it hit people so hard when Miley Cyrus switched to pornish--because she was the wholesome but still acceptable model for many little girls, and so her changes led them in the same direction.  It was, honestly, a betrayal BY A ROLE MODEL.  She wasn't resented by moms because she was the female.  She was resented because she had already captured the kids' respect and admiration and emulation, and then betrayed it.  I could ignore all male and female p*rn carp other than her, but she already had my DD's love before she went south.

I didn't particularly blame HER specifically, compared to her handlers or her parents, but the phenomenon of sweet to absolutely disgusting was a grooming process that betrayed our kids, and was completely unnecessary.

3.  Norming of p*rn and its relationship with neuroplasticity but also with setting expectations has been my main concern for years.  It's nice to see it being called out, but I don't know what's to be done about it.  Guys don't know what they don't know about women.  

4.  After 50 Shades of BS became popular, there was a guy in Chicago who tortured a woman on a date.  He honestly thought that that was what women really wanted.  This is not surprising.  And it's going to lead to a lot worse.

5.  Feminism was always associated with p*rn positivity or at least silence in the face it in the second wave, starting with (to my knowledge) Simone de Beauvoir.  The only vocal exception that I know, the only major second wave feminist who took the position that p*rm was bad for women, was Andrea Dworkin--and good for her!  Other than that, it was the conservative, family focussed Christian voices who made that argument; exclusively.  I am so glad that Dines is taking that position, and in a feminist and mainstream way.

6.  I AM EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE EXTENT TO WHICH I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO DO ABOUT THIS.  It's a disaster for everyone, it endangers women in ways that I hate to even imagine, it is also absolutely horrible for men, and I feel quite uncharacteristically helpless.  

[fairfarmhand]

One thing that is hard to detangle from the "purity movement" (for this movement I mean strict parental involvement in relationships, purity rings, purity balls, etc.) is the strict roles that women are expected to follow.  When a young girl is only presented with SAHM, teacher, or nursing maybe for their possible career paths, and motherhood is exalted as the BEST POSSIBLE THING only life goal for a Christian young lady, things can be a little skewed.

Also, young men are taught that their bodies are not theirs to control. Women are seductresses. They hear both from their male role models and society that SEX IS THE BEST THING EVER.....but don't think about it. Wait. Wait. Wait. Don't think about it. It's the best thing ever but don't think about it. 

 

On the other hand, there are those of us who teach our young people that sex is good and fun, but its for married people. And you need to have a plan in place for the future before you go there. But you know what? There's plenty of time for that. And the wait will be worth it and you'll be just fine while you're waiting. And there's no reason to get too serious about boyfriends/girlfriends in high school. Just have fun with lots of people of both genders. And we give our young people lots of opportunities to socialize in mixed gender groups, and sometimes they go to prom together, but nobody gets too worked up about it because you can go on a date with someone without having sex or committing to marry them. And take your time growing up. 

And the future? Have a plan for that. Girls and guys...nothing wrong with being a SAHM but there's other cool things out there too, and there's lots of ways to be a mom that works.

So while we encourage our kids to wait till marriage, I don't want to be lumped into the purity movement. 

[Katy]

3 hours ago, mom31257 said:

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. 

 

 

My main concern with my daughters waiting until marriage is that 30%+ of young men DO have sexual dysfunction as a result of porn. I've seen conservative Christian marriages where both "waited" until marriage for sex only to find out years later that before marriage the husband already had a 10+ year porn addiction, and sooner or later it led to the marriage falling apart, or infidelity and then the marriage falling apart.  In my experience this is probably MORE than 30% of Christian men because the need for sex isn't squashed by the demand for celibacy, and that need is so easily satisfied using a phone in a bathroom these days.

3 hours ago, 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. 

 

Yes, rushing to marry the wrong person simply because you want to have sex with them isn't a great idea either.

3 hours ago, mom31257 said:

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

 

Really?  You've never seen, "It's better to marry than to burn" used as a reason for a lusting kid to get married ASAP?

3 hours ago, Barb_ said:

 

And hey, I just want to say that I recognize early marriages can work out. Some of those girls seem quite happy. But if we’re discussing early marriage as an antidote to a hypersexualized culture, I think that puts the burden of cultural expectation squarely back on the shoulders of young women, which is where porn culture is heaping it.

 

And honestly, I don't think that's fair either.  Many young women seem more inclined to commitment at a young age than men do.  I would have LOVED to be one of those people to marry my college sweetheart at 23. But in an age of adulthood being pushed further and further back, finding a man who is ready (willing or not) for that sort of commitment and responsibility is rare.  My boyfriend in my late teens and early 20's would have been a HORRIBLE starter husband.  And that is what it would have been, because he wasn't mentally healthy enough to get married and I wasn't mature enough to realize I was putting up with poor treatment because he shared the worst qualities of my mother.

[Garga]

11 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

Yes, it's embarrassing for them to talk about this kind of stuff with their mother or father. I found the more "clinical" and forthright I was about it the easier it was for ds to talk. Also, the more you bring it up (but not in a shaming way) the easier the conversation seems to become.

ETA: Regarding book suggestions: I have heard good things about "Every Man's Battle" and they have workshops as well. Starting with the book would at least be a start.

 

Yes, I'm very clinical about it. I've been reading on adolescent brain development and have been talking to them about that in layman's-technical terms for the past few weeks already.  And I've brought porn up in the past. They're always embarrassed by the topic, but I just plug ahead without shaming or acting aghast or showing emotion.  I have a "just the facts" kind of attitude when we talk.  

Frankly, I wasn't too worried until now. I knew the one had seen still pictures because he brought it up and told me, and he was happy to leave his phone out of his room after telling me.  We already had some locks for porn sites (and now we have more).  I've asked the other if he's ever stumbled onto sites he shouldn't have, or seen anything that he probably shouldn't have, either on purpose or by accident.  He insists he hasn't.  But...who knows?

After looking at the video, now I'm worried.  I wonder if they're telling me the truth or not and how damaged they are or not and what I'm supposed to do about it.  I will look into the book and start from there and the other books on the other thread.  

Thanks for pointing out that the more we talk about it, the easier it is to talk about it.

[Carol in Cal.]

PS  I took a lot of heat here on these boards when the Miley Cyrus image hit the tubes and I voiced how objectionable I found it.  But now I have the benefit of hindsight to call that what it was.  My DD was groomed by the Hannah Montana thing, flat out.  That's what it was.  Super sweet and appealing to super gross, in just a couple of years.  Think about it.

[Murphy101]

15 hours 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 ?

 

 

It’s not that simple. For starters. Define sex? If two guys are sharing one girl, but not “crossing swords” so to speak - are they gay or bi or just two guys into one hot chick? There actually a famous beer ad that suggests 3 men sharing a beer while having sex with one woman.  Is it a gay ad or a bi ad? Or?

And what if some guy has been seeing porn since 11yr olds telling him this (this can be anything) is what all men really want and now at 17 or 21 he is one hot mess and doesn’t understand what he as an individual is? Or thinks just being not as advertised in porn makes him deviant or not man enough sexually?

[Liz CA]

8 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

1.  I don't see how girls can be blamed for dressing in a way that is so completely normalized.  I don't know that they are necessarily intending to send the messages that everyone is talking about--I think some are and some are just being as stylish as they can without really getting the full impact of what they are wearing. 

What alternative really exists for them at all?  We have 'f-ability' and 'Omar the tent maker'.  

I remember someone here made dresses that were supposed to be attractive but also modest.  They were really beautiful, with full twirly skirts and embroidered decorations.  They were reasonably stylish as well.  12 years ago I bought one for DD (then 10 or 11) and she loved it.  It made her feel absolutely treasured and special.  She wore it to church proudly one day.  Her best friend said, "That dress looks dumb," to her, and she never would wear it again, even at home.  Options?  Not really.

2.  Hannah Montana was the squeaky clean BUT STILL ATTRACTIVE character who said in her theme song that she was 'just like YOU!' and who girls absolutely loved.  That is why it hit people so hard when Miley Cyrus switched to pornish--because she was the wholesome but still acceptable model for many little girls, and so her changes led them in the same direction.  It was, honestly, a betrayal BY A ROLE MODEL.  She wasn't resented by moms because she was the female.  She was resented because she had already captured the kids' respect and admiration and emulation, and then betrayed it.  I could ignore all male and female p*rn carp other than her, but she already had my DD's love before she went south.

I didn't particularly blame HER specifically, compared to her handlers or her parents, but the phenomenon of sweet to absolutely disgusting was a grooming process that betrayed our kids, and was completely unnecessary.

3.  Norming of p*rn and its relationship with neuroplasticity but also with setting expectations has been my main concern for years.  It's nice to see it being called out, but I don't know what's to be done about it.  Guys don't know what they don't know about women.  

4.  After 50 Shades of BS became popular, there was a guy in Chicago who tortured a woman on a date.  He honestly thought that that was what women really wanted.  This is not surprising.  And it's going to lead to a lot worse.

5.  Feminism was always associated with p*rn positivity or at least silence in the face it in the second wave, starting with (to my knowledge) Simone de Beauvoir.  The only vocal exception that I know, the only major second wave feminist who took the position that p*rm was bad for women, was Andrea Dworkin--and good for her!  Other than that, it was the conservative, family focussed Christian voices who made that argument; exclusively.  I am so glad that Dines is taking that position, and in a feminist and mainstream way.

6.  I AM EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE EXTENT TO WHICH I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO DO ABOUT THIS.  It's a disaster for everyone, it endangers women in ways that I hate to even imagine, it is also absolutely horrible for men, and I feel quite uncharacteristically helpless.  

 

This is the best part emerging from this thread - that those of us who knew about it but are sometimes overwhelmed with its implications AND those of us for whom this was new information are now looking at with (re)new (ed) urgency. I have watched these devastating trends for years now, been involved in organization trying to work against trafficking on a legal and personal level but it is so overwhelming and "dark" that you sometimes have to come up for air. Being reminded of this means for me I need to start working on this more actively again. Dr. Dines has given me that proverbial kick in the butt. 

Carol. if you check around in your area, I am thinking you will find some organization(s) that are battling this, educating people, etc. and you can perhaps contribute in some way or get more information. It's not easy reading or easy listening but we cannot afford to ignore it.

[Garga]

14 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

6.  I AM EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE EXTENT TO WHICH I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO DO ABOUT THIS.  It's a disaster for everyone, it endangers women in ways that I hate to even imagine, it is also absolutely horrible for men, and I feel quite uncharacteristically helpless.  

 

I feel the same way. I'm very upset about this today inside my soul.  I'm disquieted.  Mostly because there's just nothing to do about it.  And I think of all the people who are already so far down the hole, that they'd just jeer at my concerns and that makes me furious and depressed.  The part where she said they're making hate, not making love, was almost too much to bear, because it was so, so true.

[Liz CA]

Just now, Garga said:

 

I feel the same way. I'm very upset about this today inside my soul.  I'm disquieted.  Mostly because there's just nothing to do about it.  And I think of all the people who are already so far down the hole, that they'd just jeer at my concerns and that makes me furious and depressed.  The part where she said they're making hate, not making love, was almost too much to bear, because it was so, so true.

 

You asked upthread about what to do. On Gail Dine's website: https://www.culturereframed.org/compose-yourself/

there is this section for parents. I just quickly read through it. It seems a good way to start.

[Carol in Cal.]

8 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

This is the best part emerging from this thread - that those of us who knew about it but are sometimes overwhelmed with its implications AND those of us for whom this was new information are now looking at with (re)new (ed) urgency. I have watched these devastating trends for years now, been involved in organization trying to work against trafficking on a legal and personal level but it is so overwhelming and "dark" that you sometimes have to come up for air. Being reminded of this means for me I need to start working on this more actively again. Dr. Dines has given me that proverbial kick in the butt. 

Carol. if you check around in your area, I am thinking you will find some organization(s) that are battling this, educating people, etc. and you can perhaps contribute in some way or get more information. It's not easy reading or easy listening but we cannot afford to ignore it.

 

It's relatively easy to be against trafficking and work against it.  There are quite a few organizations involved in that around here.

But working against p*rn, calling it out as evil/harmful/dangerous, that is less common.  More than anything I would like to know what to be FOR, legislatively, in that regard.  What to do in our own households and churches is pretty obvious.  But what to do for society, which is infecting probably the majority of the next generation, is not so clear to me.

[Murphy101]

3 hours ago, nixpix5 said:

Purity teaching comes from a place of fear that boys have a run away penis that can't be controlled so they need to land it somewhere consistent. Ok...so that is probably an extreme way to look at it but to me it signifies that people aren't in control of their body and choices around sex.

 

I agree.  Strongly.

[Liz CA]

5 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

 

It's relatively easy to be against trafficking and work against it.  There are quite a few organizations involved in that around here.

But working against p*rn, calling it out as evil/harmful/dangerous, that is less common.  More than anything I would like to know what to be FOR, legislatively, in that regard.

 

You could start with the Meese Report done at one point and see if this work has continued to the present. As I recall, Dr. Dobson was heavily involved in it because he had done the Bundy interviews at the time. I have not had time to dive into this. If you decide to look into it and find anything, would you PM me?

[Bluegoat]

24 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

1.  I don't see how girls can be blamed for dressing in a way that is so completely normalized.  I don't know that they are necessarily intending to send the messages that everyone is talking about--I think some are and some are just being as stylish as they can without really getting the full impact of what they are wearing. 

What alternative really exists for them at all?  We have 'f-ability' and 'Omar the tent maker'.  

I remember someone here made dresses that were supposed to be attractive but also modest.  They were really beautiful, with full twirly skirts and embroidered decorations.  They were reasonably stylish as well.  12 years ago I bought one for DD (then 10 or 11) and she loved it.  It made her feel absolutely treasured and special.  She wore it to church proudly one day.  Her best friend said, "That dress looks dumb," to her, and she never would wear it again, even at home.  Options?  Not really.

 

 

Oh, I don't think blame is part of the equation at all.  It's very much cultural.  For many teen girls, I think they have a strong sense of wanting to be sexually attractive, but as you say, that's been totally normalized.  And the alternative, as Dines says, is invisibility.  And for some girls, especially the younger teens, I don't think they totally get the sexual element.  It's just fashion.

But to me that is why we have to tell them, to point out how the fashion industry works, how capitalism has turned female sexuality into a commodity, and how that fits into the teen culture.  Because they don't know and can't resist it or make informed choices unless they are taught.  And it's also I think why it is totally appropriate for a place like an educational institution that is responsible for the well-being of children and teens to not allow that kind of thing to be normalized within the school.  I thought it was interesting that Dines said that in her childhood, there were multiple models of what it looks like to be a women, but now they have narrowed.  A school should be a place where we see the other models, and where teens have a chance to inhabit those other models, and look around themselves at something different.

[Rachel]

I so appreciate those of you with expertise and experience in these areas sharing. My oldest is 10 and so far (as far as I know) has not yet seen objectionable content online. I feel this concept has been coming up in my life a lot recently and because of it I may be better prepared for when the time comes that my children are exposed to objectionable content. It is a bit overwhelming but it is bringing up conversations in my home and my husband and I can be more intentional because of these conversations. 

Last night I learned that my husband has briefly talked about p*rn with our son and why it can be harmful. I have no idea how or why it came up, but I am glad that it did.

For those of you who are Christians, God Centered Mom and Greta Eskridge of Ma & Pa Modern have both recently addressed this subject. 

http://godcenteredmom.com/2018/05/21/parenting-in-the-digital-age-ashley-januszewski-ep-207/

http://www.gretaeskridge.com/blog/2018/5/23/protecting-our-kids-from-pornography-radical-parenting

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, I have to say I feel at a bit of a loss about what to say to my dd13 at times.  She's pretty open about her life and asking questions and such - far more than I ever was - but I know she tends to see what is around her at school as normal, and my concerns as old mom stuff.  And sometimes I feel like the school itself is working against the kinds of values I'd like to teach about things like sexuality and marriage, because it is so focused on things like the consent model, and "feeling ready" and stuff like that.  I talk to her about topics like, what is marriage, what is it for, from a theological perspective, but it's really just so alien to our culture.