Latest Stats and Facts on Punography

[marsupial]

I like your honest response, even if your last paragraph is not consistent with the anecdote about your friend. From everything I've learned about you, though, it seems there's no reason porn should interest Danimal.

True. I primarily included that anecdote to give at least one example of a non-Mormon who was bothered by her husband's porn use. She was not only non-Mormon but a born and raised atheist. She was also wild, formerly a lesbian and had probably already done much of what he was watching. Yet, still she was bothered. I don't think he started using porn because of her low libido. He just started using it more frequently.

I don't think you're the only one like this and that itself is an interesting commentary. Why the different reactions? Soup seems like one of the cooler (and maybe "liberated"?) women out there and she says she'd be insecure. What gives? Is it cultural? Biological?

I think it is a difference in how it is being interpreted. When a man is using porn, his wife will likely think, "He is using that because I am not sexy enough, I am too fat, I am not pretty, he doesn't find me attractive any more..." We live in a society that is so focused on female beauty, so I can hardly blame myself or other women for feeling like we could never be as hot as some 20-something porn star with enormous breasts.

My guess is that a man may see his wife's porn habit as "wow, she just can't enough." I don't know if men feel insecure about how they look compared to porn stars but our society is not as focused on male beauty so I just don't think that is much of an issue.

[wuapinmon]

Mr. Academia, do you have a case study? Articles? Science? I'm sure I could find you a lot of scientific stuff on alcoholism. It's funny you responed with exactly the unsubstantiated anecdotal stuff--from ex-girfriends and ex-wives--that I'm talking about.

I'll admit that I was bested here; however, if you want articles and science go to Lexis-Nexis and do your own damned research---I'm sure you can find some abstracts somewhere that will match your conclusions.

[DU Ute]

Biologically speaking, men have no drive toward exclusivity. Their drive revolves around the sexual act. If the woman's interested, who cares how she got there, let's get it on.

Women, otoh, have a powerful need for security as a context for true sexual freedom and intimacy. She needs to believe she's the only object of her husband's affection, to believe she's the only one he desires. She needs to believe that all his needs are being met in her.

Flash's and my intimacy has a freedom and joy that's afforded by the fact that he's successfully convinced me that I'm the most beautiful creature in the world and the only one he wants to be with. If I found him looking at other women -- whether in porn or anywhere else -- that belief would be shattered. I would know that there's a need or desire remaining unmet. I would know that he hadn't been honest with me about it. I would doubt myself, and I would pull back to protect myself.

It's not the porn, exactly. It's what the decision to seek out porn represents. I don't know that what I describe above is representative of women in general, but I imagine that it's probably pretty close.

I wonder if the fact that Mormon relationships come with high expectation of trust and fidelity makes pornography a bigger deal than it does in some other relationships. Realistic or not, I think expectations get built up to a point that something like using pornography, while not as big a deal in some relationships, creates the kind of disconnect Babs is talking about.

I think there is an incentive to put up a facade in relationships, and certainly more so when you're trying to bag a temple worthy spouse. Does a young man need to confess to problems that have been repented of and are not currently being engaged in? I think it is a good idea, but there is always the fear that doing so will cause you to lose out on a potentially marriage. However, if and when problems crop up later on, it is good for the spouse to know that the fault doesn't lie with some flaw they have that is now bringing this behavior up.

I would be surprised if any more than a fraction of a percent of LDS men who get wrapped up in pornography during a marriage had no previous exposure. What is everyone's take on discussing these kinds of things with your bride to be before taking the plunge?

[RobinFinderson]

Biologically speaking, men have no drive toward exclusivity. Their drive revolves around the sexual act. If the woman's interested, who cares how she got there, let's get it on.

Women, otoh, have a powerful need for security as a context for true sexual freedom and intimacy. She needs to believe she's the only object of her husband's affection, to believe she's the only one he desires. She needs to believe that all his needs are being met in her.

Flash's and my intimacy has a freedom and joy that's afforded by the fact that he's successfully convinced me that I'm the most beautiful creature in the world and the only one he wants to be with. If I found him looking at other women -- whether in porn or anywhere else -- that belief would be shattered. I would know that there's a need or desire remaining unmet. I would know that he hadn't been honest with me about it. I would doubt myself, and I would pull back to protect myself.

It's not the porn, exactly. It's what the decision to seek out porn represents. I don't know that what I describe above is representative of women in general, but I imagine that it's probably pretty close.

I think your view can be too easily interpreted as an oversimplification of male sexuality. I think most men want true sexual intimacy as well as intimacy in general. Exclusivity and intimacy are not mutually exclusive, though if anyone has too much going on in their lives, whether job related or having too many lovers, it will probably put a damper on intimacy (which is a product of time spent together).

Security in a relationship as a notion that a woman needs to "believe that all his needs are being met in her" is an extremely tenuous condition, and not one I would recommend to anyone who hopes to make a relationship last a lifetime. But I'm glad it works for you and Flash, and I hope you two always remain an exception to what I would consider a pretty basic rule of thumb -- reality dictates that none of us will ever be (nor should we try to be) our partner's everything.

I think, for a vast majority of people, a life-partner will not meet all of his/her needs. Security shouldn't be built on such an unrealistic expectation (but again, I'm glad it works for you, and I recognize that there will be legitimate exceptions, such as yourself). I offer as a more realistic concept of security the idea that a couple is mutually invested in a lifetime of intimacy.

Intimacy is something that can never be replaced, and is therefore unassailable by porn, affairs, or anything else. Intimacy is what keeps European marriages sound in spite of 'cheating.' I've been married now to Faith for more than thirteen years. I am continually surprised to learn new things about Faith, and what makes her tick. The longer we know each other, the more I learn, and I expect to continue to learn about Faith well into our twilight years. Learning about each other, in the most profound ways, is intimacy. Sexual intimacy is just one offshoot of total intimacy, and probably one of the more shallow fields of intimate exploration. Intimacy means knowing each other deeply.

The threat to intimacy isn't porn or affairs. The real threat to intimacy is boredom, and boredom sets in when we fail to cultivate curiosity. It was probably last week when I complimented DDD by calling him a hedonist, and then went on to clarify that I thought it was pretty cool that he had developed 'taste.' Taste is the ability to appreciate nuance, and it is a form of intellectual curiosity. Likewise, cultivating the kind of intimacy that will continue to surprise for a lifetime is a similar kind of intellectual curiosity. It also requires the appreciation of increasingly refined levels of nuance that reveal themselves over time. As long as Faith and I continue to cultivate the kind of curiosity that leaves us wondering what the next year will hold in store for us in our life of adventure, I have little doubt that our intimacy will grow deeper, as will the roots of our relationship.

Porn is about orgasms, and orgasms have very little to do with real intimacy. I don't hide my interest in porn from Faith, because we know that it just doesn't mean anything. I would always prefer being with Faith, but some times she isn't interested. I respect that, which is why, when I'm interested and she isn't, I don't trouble her about that. I don't whine, "But honey, a man has neeeeds!" I give her a kiss and send her on her way to do whatever it is she would rather do at the moment besides being with me. No big deal.

[Babs]

I think your view can be too easily interpreted as an oversimplification of male sexuality. I think most men want true sexual intimacy as well as intimacy in general. Exclusivity and intimacy are not mutually exclusive, though if anyone has too much going on in their lives, whether job related or having too many lovers, it will probably put a damper on intimacy (which is a product of time spent together).

Security in a relationship as a notion that a woman needs to "believe that all his needs are being met in her" is an extremely tenuous condition, and not one I would recommend to anyone who hopes to make a relationship last a lifetime. But I'm glad it works for you and Flash, and I hope you two always remain an exception to what I would consider a pretty basic rule of thumb -- reality dictates that none of us will ever be (nor should we try to be) our partner's everything.

I think, for a vast majority of people, a life-partner will not meet all of his/her needs. Security shouldn't be built on such an unrealistic expectation (but again, I'm glad it works for you, and I recognize that there will be legitimate exceptions, such as yourself). I offer as a more realistic concept of security the idea that a couple is mutually invested in a lifetime of intimacy.

Intimacy is something that can never be replaced, and is therefore unassailable by porn, affairs, or anything else. Intimacy is what keeps European marriages sound in spite of 'cheating.' I've been married now to Faith for more than thirteen years. I am continually surprised to learn new things about Faith, and what makes her tick. The longer we know each other, the more I learn, and I expect to continue to learn about Faith well into our twilight years. Learning about each other, in the most profound ways, is intimacy. Sexual intimacy is just one offshoot of total intimacy, and probably one of the more shallow fields of intimate exploration. Intimacy means knowing each other deeply.

The threat to intimacy isn't porn or affairs. The real threat to intimacy is boredom, and boredom sets in when we fail to cultivate curiosity. It was probably last week when I complimented DDD by calling him a hedonist, and then went on to clarify that I thought it was pretty cool that he had developed 'taste.' Taste is the ability to appreciate nuance, and it is a form of intellectual curiosity. Likewise, cultivating the kind of intimacy that will continue to surprise for a lifetime is a similar kind of intellectual curiosity. It also requires the appreciation of increasingly refined levels of nuance that reveal themselves over time. As long as Faith and I continue to cultivate the kind of curiosity that leaves us wondering what the next year will hold in store for us in our life of adventure, I have little doubt that our intimacy will grow deeper, as will the roots of our relationship.

Porn is about orgasms, and orgasms have very little to do with real intimacy. I don't hide my interest in porn from Faith, because we know that it just doesn't mean anything. I would always prefer being with Faith, but some times she isn't interested. I respect that, which is why, when I'm interested and she isn't, I don't trouble her about that. I don't whine, "But honey, a man has neeeeds!" I give her a kiss and send her on her way to do whatever it is she would rather do at the moment besides being with me. No big deal.

While I appreciate your need to justify your use of porn within the context of marriage, I think you completely missed the point of my post.

[marsupial]

Biologically speaking, men have no drive toward exclusivity. Their drive revolves around the sexual act. If the woman's interested, who cares how she got there, let's get it on.

Women, otoh, have a powerful need for security as a context for true sexual freedom and intimacy. She needs to believe she's the only object of her husband's affection, to believe she's the only one he desires. She needs to believe that all his needs are being met in her.

Flash's and my intimacy has a freedom and joy that's afforded by the fact that he's successfully convinced me that I'm the most beautiful creature in the world and the only one he wants to be with. If I found him looking at other women -- whether in porn or anywhere else -- that belief would be shattered. I would know that there's a need or desire remaining unmet. I would know that he hadn't been honest with me about it. I would doubt myself, and I would pull back to protect myself.

It's not the porn, exactly. It's what the decision to seek out porn represents. I don't know that what I describe above is representative of women in general, but I imagine that it's probably pretty close.

Well said. I agree with this.

[Babs]

Well said. I agree with this.

Clearly you have a banal sex life founded on delusion. If you and danimal were truly intimate, you'd be having affairs and celebrating one another's sexual conquests together. I can't imagine how a marriage like yours -- rooted in bedroom boredom -- could survive in the long run, but I wish you the best.

[RobinFinderson]

While I appreciate your need to justify your use of porn within the context of marriage, I think you completely missed the point of my post.

Wasn't your point that women (and not men?) have a need for security in a relationship, and that security is undermined by pornography?

I thought I addressed that pretty well. Security should be based in intimacy, and not 'being convinced' that someone thinks you are prettier than Lara Logan and smarter than Lara Logan and more adventurous than Lara Logan, and more creative than Frieda Khalo. What woman wants to compete with Lara Logan and Frieda Khalo?

But maybe I'm still missing your point.

[Babs]

Wasn't your point that women (and not men?) have a need for security in a relationship?

no.

But maybe I'm still missing your point.

entirely.

[RobinFinderson]

Clearly you have a banal sex life founded on delusion. If you and danimal were truly intimate, you'd be having affairs and celebrating one another's sexual conquests together. I can't imagine how a marriage like yours -- rooted in bedroom boredom -- could survive in the long run, but I wish you the best.

Clearly you missed my point... entirely.

[TripletDaddy]

I generally enjoy logging on at the end of a day to discover that people have been talking about me in my absence

welcome to my world.

[ERCougar]

welcome to my world.

Lol..."absence" would require logging off at some point.

[RobinFinderson]

no.



entirely.

Your point isn't that pornography (or what seeking porn represents) undermines relationship security?

FYI, that is what your words meant.

[OhioBlue]

Not being familiar with your background, I wonder how often you find situations in which the woman is incapable of orgasm from intercourse but is unwilling to seek other means of achieving orgasm with her partner due to societal/religious pressures or embarrassment. I recently saw where a very large percentage of women just never orgasm, and I wonder if it isn't because of an unwillingness to explore their options rather than a physiological incapability.

If I can say this appropriately....i've got no empirical data on this, but it seems many women in more sexually conservative cultures (like the LDS one) expect that foreplay (consisting of snuggling and a back rub) and ensuing missionary position sex should be all it takes to achieve orgasm. Of course, data shows that a majority of women cannot and will never reach orgasm that way, at least not consistently. A majority of women are unable to achieve that peak without direct clitoral stimulation. So, it would follow that yes, that could reasonably be due to an unwillingness to explore options.

[Babs]

FYI, that is what your words meant.

You changed your question. These increasingly condescending and illogical posts are not becoming.

Based on your original quite telling and rather defensive rant, it's clear to me that your reading comprehension isn't near what your powers of presumption and condescension are. I did not post to address marital intimacy. I posted to address why men and women respond to their partner's interest in porn differently. You're mistaking a part for a whole.

Now, unlike you, I feel the need to defend neither my marriage nor my posts. Therefore I bid you goodnight.