Growing up on porn is terrible

[myboynoah]

The cost of growing up on porn

Of the many stories I've heard revealing the ways in which young men struggle with porn, I offer here just one, distilled, from a self-described "25 year old recovering porn-addict" who wrote to me in October. "Marc" began looking at his father's magazines at age 11, but soon, he wrote, he "turned to the Internet to see what else I could find." This "started off as simply looking at pictures of naked women. From there, it turned into pictures of couples having sex and lesbian couples. When I got into watching videos on the Internet, my use of porn skyrocketed." At 23, he began dating a woman he called "Ashley." "However, since Ashley's last boyfriend had been a sex/porn addict, I was quick to lie about my use of porn. I told her that I never looked at it. But after 5-6 months, Ashley discovered a hidden folder on my computer containing almost a hundred porn clips. She was devastated."

Marc and Ashley broke up, got back together and spent several months traveling in India. He continued to look at porn behind her back, and on a trip to Las Vegas, he got lap dances despite promising not to. Ashley broke up with him again. "I had never thought about the adverse effects of my use of porn. . . . I want to change. I want to be a respectful human being towards all human beings, male and female. I want to be a committed and loving boyfriend to Ashley."

[woot]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this article just a person with a vested interest in porn being bad (having written a book about it), being disappointed after a scientific study found otherwise? It's like if she believes even harder that her anecdotes have meaning that the actual evidence will go away.

[myboynoah]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this article just a person with a vested interest in porn being bad (having written a book about it), being disappointed after a scientific study found otherwise? It's like if she believes even harder that her anecdotes have meaning that the actual evidence will go away.

Perhaps, but what is the actual evidence that she believes will go away?

[il Padrino Ute]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this article just a person with a vested interest in porn being bad (having written a book about it), being disappointed after a scientific study found otherwise? It's like if she believes even harder that her anecdotes have meaning that the actual evidence will go away.

A Canadian study?!? Isn't that akin to the BCS saying that it's championship is legitimate?

[woot]

Perhaps, but what is the actual evidence that she believes will go away?

Well, she links to this, which is based on a study I remember hearing about several weeks ago. It's sociological/interview-based evidence as far as I know, and it's not the first study to find no evidence of any link between porn and whatever ills people want to blame it for.

Sure, some get addicted to it, but a great many people are also addicted to internet forums. Using the outliers to argue a point is exactly what hacks do, so this article strikes me as worthless.

[SeattleUte]

Well, she links to this, which is based on a study I remember hearing about several weeks ago. It's sociological/interview-based evidence as far as I know, and it's not the first study to find no evidence of any link between porn and whatever ills people want to blame it for.

Sure, some get addicted to it, but a great many people are also addicted to internet forums. Using the outliers to argue a point is exactly what hacks do, so this article strikes me as worthless.

Ironically, she castigates a study for using shoddy methods and being skimpy on reportage, then tries to support her case with a "distilled" anecdote which she admits proves nothing. The anecdote isn't even interesting. It's like the usual preisthood session tripe, clear down to the introduction being looking at dad's mags (how many times have we read that here). I guess I can see why a woman would be upset if a guy she's considering marrying has a hundred porn clips on his computer. I guess I do, though I've never felt jealous of something on film.

Honestly, I have no dog in this fight. I just don't understand the concept of being distracted from a real woman's affections by porn. Just don't get it. How is porn/masterbation not an empty experience compared to intimacy wiht a woman you love (or any woman to whom you're attracted for that matter)? Nor do I get a woman feeling threatened by films, unless there are deeper problems.

As usual, I only ask for a reasoned, unemotional, non-religion-tainted approach. This woman's writings don't seem to do it. Like Woot said, she winds up making conclusory assertions defending her book.

[RobinFinderson]

My usual response: Porn certainly can be addicting and destructive, but I think that you have to believe that it is harmful in order for it to actually be harmful.

My new caveat (tip of the hat to Rosebud): I have heard that there are many abusive business practices in the porn industry. Whether you are consuming porn or Nike shoes, I think that it is ethically incumbent upon the consumer to understand the provenance of that which s/he consumes. We shouldn't patronize companies that abuse workers.

[SeattleUte]

My usual response: Porn certainly can be addicting and destructive, but I think that you have to believe that it is harmful in order for it to actually be harmful.

My new caveat (tip of the hat to Rosebud): I have heard that there are many abusive business practices in the porn industry. Whether you are consuming porn or Nike shoes, I think that it is ethically incumbent upon the consumer to understand the provenance of that which s/he consumes. We shouldn't patronize companies that abuse workers.

I believe this is certainly true.

[wuapinmon]

I found my dad's hard-core porn collection when I was 13. I've written elsewhere about my struggles to overcome the attraction to porn that access to the collection awakened in me.

I am a firm believer in Jean Baudrillard's condemnation of the porn industry as a "culture of irredeemable monstrosity."

Porn is nothing more than a over-accumulation of signs.

[RC Vikings]

Honestly, I have no dog in this fight. I just don't understand the concept of being distracted from a real woman's affections by porn. Just don't get it. How is porn/masterbation not an empty experience compared to intimacy wiht a woman you love (or any woman to whom you're attracted for that matter)? Nor do I get a woman feeling threatened by films, unless there are deeper problems.

I believe the problem lies in that their are not three other women and a donkey in that room with the woman you love. I think the danger of porn is the unreal expectations it creates.

[woot]

I believe the problem lies in that their are not three other women and a donkey in that room with the woman you love. I think the danger of porn is the unreal expectations it creates.

Because people who watch porn begin to expect three women and a donkey to be involved?

Assuming that was facetious, the "unreal expectations" argument has already been hammered to a pulp on this forum.

[myboynoah]

Well, she links to this, which is based on a study I remember hearing about several weeks ago. It's sociological/interview-based evidence as far as I know, and it's not the first study to find no evidence of any link between porn and whatever ills people want to blame it for.

Sure, some get addicted to it, but a great many people are also addicted to internet forums. Using the outliers to argue a point is exactly what hacks do, so this article strikes me as worthless.

Any more worthless than basing conclusions on a sample of 20 Montreal male undergraduates? Do you think we'll ever see that study published?

For her book Paul interviewed at least 100 men. How do you divine the outliers?

Not relying on her own methods (which she acknowledges had flaws), Paul cites a 1979 University of Alabama study:

To be fair, researching the relationship between men and pornography isn't easy. My methods had flaws, too. The most methodologically sound study would involve gathering a sample of men, scheduling regular sessions to view online porn, and comparing their subsequent sexual attitudes and behaviors with those of a control group that did not use pornography. Through a series of measures -- interviews, questionnaires, observations -- the data would be collected and analyzed by a team of objective academics.

That's not going to happen now, though it once did. Back in 1979, Jennings Bryant, a professor of communications at the University of Alabama, conducted one of the most powerful peer-reviewed lab studies of the effects of porn viewing on men. Summary of results: not good. Men who consumed large amounts of pornography were less likely to want daughters, less likely to support women's equality and more forgiving of criminal rape. They also grossly overestimated Americans' likelihood to engage in group sex and bestiality.

Why not update this research? Ethics boards won't approve new research that would knowingly subject human test subjects to the proven negative effects of pornography.

[myboynoah]

Ironically, she castigates a study for using shoddy methods and being skimpy on reportage, then tries to support her case with a "distilled" anecdote which she admits proves nothing. The anecdote isn't even interesting. It's like the usual preisthood session tripe, clear down to the introduction being looking at dad's mags (how many times have we read that here). I guess I can see why a woman would be upset if a guy she's considering marrying has a hundred porn clips on his computer. I guess I do, though I've never felt jealous of something on film.

Honestly, I have no dog in this fight. I just don't understand the concept of being distracted from a real woman's affections by porn. Just don't get it. How is porn/masterbation not an empty experience compared to intimacy wiht a woman you love (or any woman to whom you're attracted for that matter)? Nor do I get a woman feeling threatened by films, unless there are deeper problems.

As usual, I only ask for a reasoned, unemotional, non-religion-tainted approach. This woman's writings don't seem to do it. Like Woot said, she winds up making conclusory assertions defending her book.

[woot]

Any more worthless than basing conclusions on a sample of 20 Montreal male undergraduates? Do you think we'll ever see that study published?

For her book Paul interviewed at least 100 men. How do you divine the outliers?

Not relying on her own methods (which she acknowledges had flaws), Paul cites a 1979 University of Alabama study:



Why not update this research? Ethics boards won't approve new research that would knowingly subject human test subjects to the proven negative effects of pornography.

I assume that the study has been published, as it made all the usual rounds several weeks ago. I'll see if I can find it later today.

What's confusing about SU's statement? I find it spot-on, and would think that even many of the devout on here would agree.

[landpoke]

My new caveat (tip of the hat to Rosebud): I have heard that there are many abusive business practices in the porn industry. Whether you are consuming porn or Nike shoes, I think that it is ethically incumbent upon the consumer to understand the provenance of that which s/he consumes. We shouldn't patronize companies that abuse workers.

Hmm, "Fair Trade" porn. I sense a business opportunity.