# Is pornography driving men crazy?



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

Mr.Xl Vii said:


> well I wouldn't say women as a whole because I know women who particularly enjoy porn. You women was directed at those on this site. But I suppose you can be part of the list too since you have this unnatural distaste for porn as well it seems.


Not everyone on this site hates porn, lols


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

Eerie said:


> Interesting, I wasn't aware that all women hated porn, or that they all blamed their failing relationships on pornography.


As you saw in my clarification it was directed at those on this site that hate porn and not all women.



Eerie said:


> Not everyone on this site hates porn, lols


Obviously it was directed at the ones who do. 

Since those were the two worsts rebuttals in the history of rebuttals I won't waste any more of my time responding to you. I was obviously speaking with large amounts of rhetoric to illustrate a point. Can we stop being so nitpicky?


----------



## cuppacoffee (Oct 2, 2010)

i hate mean dislike
----------------


----------



## Rocket Girl (Jul 1, 2011)

The only issue I have with porn is that the conditions in which porn actors work are not generally brilliant, which is completely irrelevant to this thread. So I won't go into that.

And for those who are the type of people Mr.Xl Vii doesn't like, AntiPorn_Resource_Center should be a breath of fresh air for you. It's worth a read, even if you disagree with the anti-porn stance.


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

Rocket Girl said:


> The only issue I have with porn is that the conditions in which porn actors work are not generally brilliant, which is completely irrelevant to this thread. So I won't go into that.
> 
> And for those who are the type of people Mr.Xl Vii doesn't like, AntiPorn_Resource_Center should be a breath of fresh air for you. It's worth a read, even if you disagree with the anti-porn stance.


It's not that I dislike feminists or people that dislike porn. It's the lack of responsibility that goes along with. It's the same issue I have with people that blindly argue against the use of drugs or any other vice. The action in itself just is, any negative or positive consequences that occur are completely subjective and depend on the individual. It's stupid to condemn something because of the possibility of a negative consequence. 

This is how I feel about most thing that people say are "bad". He explicitly mentions marijuana, but porn can be swapped for this purpose.





Pornography has done nothing. It's inanimate (you know what I mean), it cannot do anything. People allow things to happen to themselves.


----------



## Rocket Girl (Jul 1, 2011)

I wasn't being completely serious. >.>

Sorry to be all tangent-y and stuff, but what did you mean by your last sentence?


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

Rocket Girl said:


> I wasn't being completely serious. >.>
> 
> Sorry to be all tangent-y and stuff, but what did you mean by your last sentence?


That it's not a being with any actual thoughts or intentions. It can't be good or bad. It just is. Just like a chair just is, or candy just is. The decision you make as a sentient being is what makes it bad or good. I can sit in the chair or bash it against your head. Porn just is. It's not bad or good. It's just people engaging in sexual intercourse. They show other animals having sex on Animal Planet. It's the same thing. If you want to abuse it and become addicted to it that's your prerogative.


----------



## Rocket Girl (Jul 1, 2011)

^Fair enough. Thanks.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

I seriously laughed at the statement that porn was supposed to raise my mood.

Just no. It doesn't happen, never has, and probably never will.

Quite the opposite if anything, as I occasionally wind up with a headache


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

I have participated in quite a lot of discussions regarding this subject on PerC already, primarily because I think this is an important debate fuelled by a a lot of misandric prejudices and radical feminist values. I know that my views on this matter are anything but politically correct or socially accepted to most of the PerC members (or at least to most American members I know of), but I still think it is important that I speak my mind on this matter.

I find it shocking that there seem to be so many radical feminists and/or women who use pornography as a sort of totem for all kind of personal frustrations regarding their relationship problems with men and/or their problems with traditional male behaviour in general. You can even see it in this very thread and in the article that the OP posted. For example: coupling the porn addiction of _certain_ men to the general behaviour of males. Noami Wolf tries to do this too by telling males to "_ seek counseling and medication if the addiction starts to affect one’s spouse, family, professional life, or judgment_" and she very clearly suggests that this is primarily the male's responsibility, because it is a male problem. So, let's summarize again: CERTAIN men are addicted to porn, which leads to a staggeringly fast increase of sexual desensitization in the GENERAL male population (_how is that possible? this seems to be an impossible causal relation_) and this somehow makes the individual man responsible for fixing himself through counselling and the use of medication if he suspects his consumption of pornography has gotten out of control. This seems more like a way to talk men into feeling guilty and ashamed about consuming pornography through the use of questionable (pseudo-)scientific reasoning than a serious article about an actual scientific discovery. Furthermore, the author of the article seems to be aware of this on some level since she cunningly states that it is merely a hypothesis, although she then continues to write about it as though there is lots of evidence (she almost gives the impression that it is already proven). I also think she is aware of her own misandry to some extend, since she later carefully adds that this problem can also apply to women, probably in an attempt to sound more objective than she actually is. To provide you with some more proof of her misandry, simply take a look at how she specifically states that these MEN are the ones who need to look for help if they find themselves confronted with the problem of addiction (apparently women don't need to get help if they're addicted, they don't have this responsibility) or notice how she mostly addresses this problem as a male problem and how she _literally_ puts the women in brackets at key points.

Besides the (in my mind quite obvious) insinuation that men who watch pornography (_read: most men_) are sickly and therefore responsible for both their neurotic existence *and their desensitization to both their own and the woman's sexual needs*, this article mostly seems to be a sort of encouragement for disappointed women to use pornography as a totem of guilt and shame towards their men. It's as though this article is telling these women: "_Here, use this pseudo-scientific hypothesis to make your men realise that he needs fixing._", or in other words: "_Now you can prove that it's all his fault!_". This is as misandric as you can possibly get, and the saddest part is that it works. For instance: certain women who start seeing connections between their boyfriend's consumption of pornography and their boyfriend's failing careers or between this consumption and their boyfriend's poor performance in the bedroom. Or men who indeed think they are corrupted by pornography and are using psychological terms to describe their current or past consumption of pornography, among the lines of: "_I stopped cold turkey when I found out._" or "_I try to keep it to a well dosed minimum these days._". Thus the man is successfully being transformed into a neurotic who needs to be fixed in order to have a healthy relationship and to meet his female counterpart's needs. 

Another funny thing is that this discussion doesn't seem to be even remotely as intense in the gay community, I have never heard of a gay man who thought he had a unhealthy relationship because of his consumption of pornography (with the inevitable exception of one or two gays who *REALLY* were addicted to pornography). So, this once again seems to indicate that it is only a problem for the heterosexual men who can't live up to the impossible standards of his disappointed partner.

Now, I DO NOT mean to say that porn addiction isn't a real problem, because it clearly is for those few people who actually are addicted to pornography. What I do mean to say is that it is nonsensical to start seeing this as a social problem; it's not like society is overflowing with neurotic men who are all being desensitized by their addiction to pornography. It's also not true that people need to be "fixed" if they watch porn, because they'd otherwise not function properly. That's an absolute falsehood, unless we're talking about a SERIOUS addiction, of course. What you should also avoid is identifying with this problem simply because it appears that there might be scientific proof for this hypothesis. Do not forget that *a hypothesis hasn't been proved yet*, I could make up some weird hypothesis right now and try to back it up with strange generalizations and near impossible causal relations too, that doesn't mean I'm right. So, don't start seeing things in your own relationship because you think this is already scientifically proven and might very possibly be a problem for you too. If you do that, you are making huge and irresponsible leaps in your reasoning by assuming too much.

In conclusion, I will summarize my concerns and some of the main points I've tried to address:

-This hypothesis is not yet considered a truth (it's merely an idea that is meant to be proved or disproved in the future), that's why it's only a hypothesis and not a scientific theory.
-The author of this article is probably trying to use this hypothesis to turn pornography into a totem of guilt and shame, it might look like the answer to all your problems, but believing in this could seriously damage both the integrity of your own lines of thought as well as the integrity of your romantic relationships.
-Watching pornography doesn't make you addicted, there are but a very few people who are actually addicted to pornography.
-Because addictions to porn are so rare, it cannot possibly be a huge social problem (even if this hypothesis turns out to be true). So, society isn't being invaded by neurotic porn addicted males who are desensitized to 'natural' sexual arousal. To think so is irrational and misandric, especially if you start thinking your partner is one of these addicts simply because he watches more porn than you'd like him to.
-Oh, and don't forget that you could get addicted to anything and that this is absolutely not a new problem, nor is there any reason to believe it is now a bigger problem than in the past. Pornography and addiction to pornography are as old as the earliest human civilizations and this type addiction can be both a problem for males as for females.

*EDIT NOTE: I have changed some sentences that weren't complete, please look them up if you are an early bird and have already quoted them, so that I won't have to explain myself all over again.*


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Elwood, it seems you start with this conclusion already set in your mind:



> I find it shocking that there seem to be so many radical feminists and/or women who use pornography as a sort of totem for all kind of personal frustrations regarding their relationship problems with men and/or their problems with traditional male behaviour in general.


And then work backwards to find evidence to support it. A big part of your argument here rests on your position that it is "only a hypothesis" with "very little evidence" and therefore, not only a notion not to be taken seriously, but a notion that could only be born out of some personal problem on the part of the person espousing it. In fact you seem to imbue Wolf with all kinds of sinister motives (note your use of the word "cunning") for writing what she is writing: You seem to discount out of hand that she believes sincerely in what she is writing here. It's hard to take your protestations seriously when they largely rest on spurious attacks on the sincerity of the author and constantly accusing her of engaging in some kind of sinister misandrist plot. I'm not convinced that she's misandrist because the article focuses on men's relationship with porn over women's: Men are by far the dominant consumers of pornography, and the vast majority of pornography is made by and for men. So it makes sense that if there was a problem with pornography it would be a problem that predominantly affects men, just like rape is a problem that predominantly affects women and racism is a problem that predominantly affects minorities. It doesn't _only_ affect those populations, no, but it mostly does.

Your other big tent pole seems to be that what she argues is "merely a hypothesis" and thus is not to be taken seriously. No, it's not completely proven that pornography has x effect on men (and it would be almost impossible to prove such a thing completely in the same way we prove that, say, gravity exists), but there is strong evidence outside the realm of pseudoscience. Numerous studies can be found here (and I'm aware not every single word in this article backs me up, I'm not making a case that what I'm saying is irrefutable, I'm making a case that it is very much substantiated), and there's another pretty thorough article that refers to past studies and the opinions of health professionals here. There's a lot more stuff out there, this is just what I got from a quick search. Sooo...it's not like this is just something made up by some wacky RADICAL FEMINISTS or anything, the literature is out there if you wish to investigate the issue. You don't have to agree with it 100%, but it's simply not true to act as if these ideas are completely unsubstantiated by scientific study. 

Honestly I tried to find more substance in what you wrote but I can't, most of it seems to revolve around these two main ideas: That there's no credible evidence for the position put forward by Wolf (not true), and that Wolf and others who disseminate these ideas do so out of ulterior motives, namely to blame problems in their relationships with men on pornography. Not only is this completely unsubstantiated, it's also an ad hominem, and a huge portion of your post seems to be concerned with legitimizing this ad hominem. At the end of the day though it's still just a personal attack. You seem like a thoughtful type who's put some thought into this topic but I think you're letting certain biases color your reasoning, and though I don't want to call you a misogynist, it really, _really_ comes off badly when you write this big post accusing every feminist who holds certain beliefs on pornography as misandrists and that they just wish to blame porn for their own problems. You may not realize it, but this kind of thing is flirting very seriously with the old bigoted "feminists are man-hating ***** who fail at being a normal woman" trope, and while it makes me sort of uncomfortable, it's probably making a lot of women reading your post _very uncomfortable._ I respect the fact that you've put a little more thought into your position here than people like that guy who kept talking about "you women," but at the end of the day you're leaning on a lot of the same stereotypes and misogynist paradigms.


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

Shahada said:


> Elwood, it seems you start with this conclusion already set in your mind:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're sort of blowing his argument out of proportion. That article was extremely bias and wasn't even written by an expert. It was written by a female social critic. And the only scientific data that any one has come up with is, that pornography has the possibility for addiction, some men are addicted, and it's fucking with their relationships. At no point, with any research has it ever said that pornography affects most or all of people's relationships, nor does it condemn pornography as a whole. Those articles are equivalent to an article stating that alcohol is addictive, some men are addicted to alcohol, and as a result some men beat their wives. This pornography condemnation is akin to the condemnation of alcohol by the Temperance movement groups. OMG some men are beating their wives because of alcohol, let's ban alcohol. We saw how well that worked, and women were STILL getting beat by their husbands. This again returns to my personal responsibility argument. 

It's not misogyny it's just recognizing that sometimes the politically correct liberal point of view isn't always correct. This by the way, is coming from a very left wing person.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

Erbse said:


> I seriously laughed at the statement that porn was supposed to raise my mood.
> 
> Just no. It doesn't happen, never has, and probably never will.
> 
> Quite the opposite if anything, as *I occasionally wind up with a headache*


----------



## Palaver (Jan 5, 2010)

Time spent looking at porn is time spent not killing things. Men will always demonstrate seeking behavior: Can I eat it? Can I have sex with it? Will it kill me?

A previous generation said, "Make love, not war." Should the digital generation say, "Make porn, not violent video games?"


----------



## freeagen (Apr 29, 2011)

:shockedon't you dare bring violent videogames into a porn related matter! lol


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

Mr.Xl Vii said:


> No. Everyone is always looking for an outside cause for the things that go wrong in society. Some people just fucking suck. It's not porn's fault.
> 
> Also, she's a social critic, not a research or sexual psychologist. Her opinion means nothing to me.
> 
> ...



Let's unpack what you are saying. 

1. Porn is not to blame for the things that go wrong in society

The contention is that porn can interact with the individuals reward system and lead to dysfunction for the individual- nothing more. Not that porn is to blame for social problems. Cigarettes are another addictive substance people use, that can interact with an individuals reward system and cause physical and psychological dysfunction, but don't cause excessive dysfunction in all people. Unless you can argue against Wolf's core postulation that porn can interfere with the reward system thereby leading to addiction in some individuals, your point doesn't hold much weight. 

2. She is a social critic and not a sexual psychologist, therefore her opinion is worthless

Can you address specific points that make her opinion worthless? 

3. Porn is not the cause of problems, the sexually slow society is the issue

The specific problems that Wolf refers to are, desensitisation (needing higher levels of stimulation to reach arousal). Is a "sexually slow society" the cause of this problem to you? and if so, how does that work? or do you refute the notion that desensitisation exists? if so, by all means back it up. 

by the way, I have read many articles and warnings against women excessively relying on sex toys because it encourages desensitisation. 

4. If porn didn't exist, people would become addicted to something else

I don't believe I read anywhere in the article an argument that porn is the only thing a person can become excessively reliant on. Let's swap porn with 'cigarettes'. I'll rephrase your statement, if cigarettes didn't exist, people would become addicted to something else. If fossil fuels didn't exist, we'd excessively rely on something else. So what? Addiction relies on reliance on some form of substance, activity despite the negative consequences. This article is concerned with the negative consequences potentially associated with porn usage; it is about how the specific mechanisms of pornography interfere with the neurological and psychological mechanisms relative to addiction and overuse. It does not matter that people would become addicted to something else, because other addictions are not the focus of this particular article (the relationship between pornography and desensitisation). If people become addicted and over reliant on something, there are factors within it that lend it to being over utilised, don't you think? 

5. People shouldn't blame dysfunction on porn, instead they should take responsibility for their lives

The article states that it is about: "Understanding how pornography affects the brain and wreaks havoc on male virility permits people to make better-informed choices – rather than engage in pointless self-loathing or reactive collective judgments – in a world that has become more and more addictively hardcore". Being educated as to the effects of porn on ones own self is taking responsibility for their lives, no? 

6. If people took time to fix their relationships, they wouldn't become addicted 

Sure, but this doesn't stop the addictive or detrimental capacity of certain things (i'm not explicitly referring to pornography here).


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

Shahada said:


> A big part of your argument here rests on your position that it is "only a hypothesis" with "very little evidence" and therefore, not only a notion not to be taken seriously, but a notion that could only be born out of some personal problem on the part of the person espousing it.


The first part is true to some extend, I am indeed very sceptical of this kind of broad causal relations based on controversial hypotheses. So, both the premise of her reasoning (the hypothesis) as her methods of reasoning (the switching from the relatively small group of male porn addicts to all men who watch porn and then back to a moral judgement regarding the individual 'porn addicted' man) are highly questionable in my mind. The second part is not true, you can't say that I have tried to argue that the notion is born out of her ideas about gender roles, gender equality, etc., I am actually saying that this is a possibly valid, though controversial hypothesis that still needs to be proved or disproved by science. So, you can't say that of me, because I'm saying the exact opposite, namely that she is misrepresenting the already existing hypothesis as being more factual and closer to being a scientific truth than it actually is. She even goes on to talk about how men need to be fixed through medicine and psychotherapy and she also makes the absurd suggestion that this is a social problem now. I am really doubtful of all this and I think that, given the lack of evidence for both the hypothesis as well as the lack of evidence for her suggestions regarding the prevalence of the problem, she is going way too far in (almost) treating this as an incontestable fact in her reasoning. This, plus the fact that she makes moral judgements (stating that "these men should be fixed"; implying that "relationships are going down the tubes because of this") on the basis of this shaky reasoning, is a major indicator for her bias and also for attempts at scapegoating on her part (or at least in my eyes). 



Shahada said:


> In fact you seem to imbue Wolf with all kinds of sinister motives (note your use of the word "cunning") for writing what she is writing: You seem to discount out of hand that she believes sincerely in what she is writing here. It's hard to take your protestations seriously when they largely rest on spurious attacks on the sincerity of the author and constantly accusing her of engaging in some kind of sinister misandrist plot. I'm not convinced that she's misandrist because the article focuses on men's relationship with porn over women's: Men are by far the dominant consumers of pornography, and the vast majority of pornography is made by and for men. So it makes sense that it would be a problem that predominantly affects men, just like rape is a problem that predominantly affects women and racism is a problem that predominantly affects minorities.


Then your argument that pornography is primarily phallocentric and therefore causes more problems for the intended demographic, I don't completely believe this. It is true that there is more pornography for males, especially professional pornography, but it's another huge assumption that this also causes the perceived problem to be primarily a men's problem and then also to such an extend that men are destabilizing relationships due to this and need to be fixed. Thus, by making that assumption she only makes her already shaky argument shakier. So, it's not that her reasoning is _completely_ flawed here, there's just another huge assumption put in with a bunch of other assumptions and educated guesses, which makes me all the more sceptical of her method, her premises and her motives. The simple fact that she tries to connect this hypothesis that is still very much a matter of debate and research (research that is in itself very much a matter of debate, because of the difficulty with defining and testing of "addiction to pornography") to the recent occurrences of people who were probably just too open about their sexual lives on the internet or too careless about their privacy. Why would you just pick that _specific_ explanation for the perceived problem? There are tons of other explanations that don't involve this controversial hypothesis: maybe this has always happened, but we just hear a lot of it these days (sheer coincidence), maybe the social media make it more difficult for these big shots to hide, maybe they were just not that informed about the risks they took while doing that, maybe this is not even neurotic behaviour and is the American society just too uptight about these kind of things, maybe women are getting more sensitive and pushy instead of men less sensitive and more careless... these are all equally (if not better) explanations for what has happened. Now, why would Naomi Wolf choose this hypothesis out of the possible explanations? Maybe because it fits in with her ideas about pornography and men that might be misandric? Seems like a perfectly logical answer to me, especially if we take the language of her article and the call for psychological and medical diagnosis of men into account. Of course I'm not 100% sure of this (how could I?), but it seems the most logical answer to me and I have provided arguments for my claims regarding her motives in my first post and this post. It's up to the reader to decide if I made a good case or not.



Shahada said:


> You don't have to agree with it 100%, but it's simply not true to act as if these ideas are completely unsubstantiated by scientific study.


And I never did, this is a classic straw man. You are telling it as though I have said that there is not a shred of evidence for it, while I have actually even said that the hypothesis could be true. It's just very controversial and a possibly not falsifiable hypothesis. By the way, where did you get the impression that I thought all feminists were bad or that you were a feminist who can't be taken seriously? I merely addressed radical feminists and the text of Naomi Wolf...that's also another straw man, btw. I never tried to discredit you or feminism as a whole.



Shahada said:


> Honestly I tried to find more substance in what you wrote but I can't, most of it seems to revolve around these two main ideas: That there's no credible evidence for the position put forward by Wolf (not true), and that Wolf and others who disseminate these ideas do so out of ulterior motives, namely to blame problems in their relationships with men on pornography.


Once again the same straw man regarding my stance on the scientific status of the hypothesis and a repetition of one of your earlier criticisms regarding my thoughts on possible ulterior motives of Wolf (which I have given arguments for). So, this has pretty much been covered in the fragments above and in my previous post.



Shahada said:


> Not only is this completely unsubstantiated, it's also an ad hominem, and a huge portion of your post seems to be concerned with legitimizing this ad hominem.


No, an ad hominem would be: "Wolf is a known feminist and therefore she has ulterior motives."
My argument went like: "Wolf writes in a certain way, chooses a certain untrustworthy hypothesis, makes moral judgements based on shaky arguments regarding the hypothesis, does not further support them, and seems to appeal to the emotions of guilt and shame in men and frustration and disappointment in women. Which leads me to believe she has the following ulterior motives."
That is not an ad hominem, because it is not based on one of the characteristics of the author, but still on the text. I actually didn't know whether or not Wolf really called herself a feminist or not when I wrote that first post, and you could have known that I didn't know this if you were more careful in reading my posts. I never actually said she WAS a feminist. I merely implied that her views could be seen as misandric and that I think radical feminism is guilty of this too. Look it up if you want to.



Shahada said:


> You seem like a thoughtful type who's put some thought into this topic but I think you're letting certain biases color your reasoning, and though I don't want to call you a misogynist, it really, _really_ comes off badly when you write this big post accusing every feminist who holds certain beliefs on pornography as misandrists and that they just wish to blame porn for their own problems. You may not realize it, but this kind of thing is flirting very seriously with the old bigoted "feminists are man-hating ***** who fail at being a normal woman" trope, and while it makes me sort of uncomfortable, it's probably making a lot of women reading your post _very uncomfortable._ I respect the fact that you've put a little more thought into your position here than people like that guy who kept talking about "you women," but at the end of the day you're leaning on a lot of the same stereotypes and misogynist paradigms.


Wow, I really don't even want to seriously respond to this part. It's full of straw men and other fallacies... some of the straw men are repetitions of the one's that I have explained earlier and some are so obvious that you can probably figure them out by yourself after reading my clarifications. The above truly is a misrepresentation of me and my ideas.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Elwood92 said:


> No, an ad hominem would be: "Wolf is a known feminist and therefore she has ulterior motives."
> My argument went like: "Wolf writes in a certain way, chooses a certain untrustworthy hypothesis, makes moral judgements based on shaky arguments regarding the hypothesis, does not further support them, and seems to appeal to the emotions of guilt and shame in men and frustration and disappointment in women. Which leads me to believe she has the following ulterior motives."
> That is not an ad hominem, because it is not based on one of the characteristics of the author, but still on the text. I actually didn't know whether or not Wolf really called herself a feminist or not when I wrote that first post, and you could have known that I didn't know this if you were more careful in reading my posts. I never actually said she WAS a feminist. I merely implied that her views could be seen as misandric and that I think radical feminism is guilty of this too. Look it up if you want to.


Thank you! I hate it when people don't use the word "ad hominem" correctly. Listen to this man! He is a smart debater.

Ad hominem does not mean "personal attack". Some ad hominem arguments can be personal attacks, but as a whole, they are not. Also, an ad hominem argument can be completely valid. "Bill Clinton was in a position of power, so he would deny having sexual relations with this woman." is a perfect example of a valid argument ad hominem.

That is all I have to say because I don't have the energy to debate with people.


----------



## undead (Nov 28, 2010)

Sexual drive is only minimally influenced by porn. If you expose homosexuals to the visualization of the opposite sex in the form of porn, would that change them very much?

However, porn does help those with a high sexual drive to satisfy their "curiosity". Those with a high sexual drive will always find anything to satisfy or fulfill their urges, or to resolve them by doing something else that could redirect this urge. 

Examples are risky professions, risky activities, promiscuous behavior. For these individuals, porn is like a learning experience, that they probably want to implement in real life if possible. What about the people who are in the porn industry? They are probably the same types of people as well. 

But for the average consumers of porn, it's not always the case that porn has a high influence to change their behaviors. 

The people who have a low sex drive will remain to have a low sex drive, if they're not self-motivated to change it. The people who enjoy to watch instead of taking action will remain so if there's no motivation to act. The people who hate it or afraid of it, will remain that way as well.


----------



## ficsci (May 4, 2011)

You know, I'm not a guy, but pr0n is driving me crazy too D:< I WANTZ REAL SAX NAUU!

Joking aside, I propose an alternate/additional perspective to this.

First of all, I'd like to establish that I'm biologically female and a virgin. So no, I've never had real sexual experience. Also, because most porn available in the internet are for men (even gay & lesbian porn), I have an obviously different way of relating to porn than men do.

But this is exactly how I noticed: in straight porn, most of the sexual & nude images are that of the women. It's the women who tends to be good-looking (or hopefully, not so porn-star vulgar that she's just ugly & repulsive), depicted in full-body, have nice body (or hopefully, don't have breasts so fake that they're just ugly & repulsive), etc. You might think, "well duh! that's porn for you." But what I mean with this is, in porn, I am aroused by the image seen from the male perspective; if I were to relate myself with the porn, I would be "seeing myself" getting scr3w3d by guys who aren't even necessarily attractive D:< . But in real life, of course if I have sex, most of the time it's the guy whom I am going to watch, not myself in a mirror or something. And of course if I have sex, ideally I want to do it with a good-looking guy, who is not exactly represented by an average straight male porn star (who is often not really showed on screen anyway) D:< . There's definitely something wrong about the subject-object relationship.

And how is this idea supposed to relate to the male and general audience? That it puts you in third party position. You are outside of the sexual situation that arouses you. You're a "Peeping Tom", not a "subject" even to yourself. *You have lost yourself; when you watch porn, you almost forget your own existence*, because the focus is on other people, whom you are watching, who also aren't really in front of you, so you can't interact with them. You are passive and helpless, except for your own masturbatory activity that is. And if you get too used to relying on porn to be sexually aroused, it is likely that you will have difficulties getting aroused by touch and visual/audio/smell/taste perception of real life sex. Basically, I think of it as being sexually "lagging", "not sharp". Maybe kind of like not being able to do arithmetic in your head because you've been relying too much on calculators (I realize that the analogy isn't that accurate, but hope you know what I mean).


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Regardless of whether pornography leads to sexual desensitization, or whether a man chooses it because he is already sexually insensitive, I believe the main issue here isn't being addressed. When a man is in an exclusive relationship with a partner who disapproves of it, using pornography is a form of infidelity. If it causes him to consider his partner comparatively unworthy, he is disrespecting that partner by using it. If a man gets sexually aroused by a stranger's body without concerning himself with spiritual intimacy, then he is committing an act of objectification that leads him down the path of materialism. In any of these cases, it would be his fault if his relationship were destabilized by it. 

Yes, I am a radical feminist, and I will not apologize for it. I have no reason to be ashamed, because I don't hate men. 

I hate the actions of some men (admittedly,* most* men) when they do things that are harmful to relationships, but when I am angry with them, please understand that it is not for being men. It is for doing destructive things against women, such as using pornography to cheat on us, comparing us unfavorably to it, and treating us as though our value as sexual commodities were what defined us as human beings and determined our status. I don't consider my negative judgment unreasonable against a man who commits any of these acts.


----------



## undead (Nov 28, 2010)

snail said:


> I hate the actions of some men (admittedly,* most* men) when they do things that are harmful to relationships, but when I am angry with them, please understand that it is not for being men. It is for doing destructive things against women, such as using pornography to cheat on us, comparing us unfavorably to it, and treating us as though our value as sexual commodities were what defined us as human beings and determined our status. I don't consider my negative judgment unreasonable against a man who commits any of these acts.


Porn could be used as a fantasy or as a way to run away from real life, similar to how people mindlessly indulge themselves with alcohol, drugs, TV, games, or any kind of entertainment. Without porn, this kind of treatment to women won't change a lot. Because we also have other media or places to demonstrate how a woman should be (the same case for how a man should be): movies, commercials, modeling, strip shows, even religious organizations, it never ends, and it won't disappear. 

Porn could be banned, but these other things will never cease to exist. Imagine the reactions if every visualization of pretty women is banned? It would be like a homogeneous society (such as one described in the movie equilibrium, the island, etc.). 

People who cheat will cheat regardless of the existence of porn. As long as there is someone who could attract them, and they have the opportunity to do it.

The solution to relationship problems is not by eliminating porn. That's too simple of an assumption to a complex problem.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

snail said:


> Regardless of whether pornography leads to sexual desensitization, or whether a man chooses it because he is already sexually insensitive, I believe the main issue here isn't being addressed. When a man is in an exclusive relationship with a partner who disapproves of it, using pornography is a form of infidelity. If it causes him to consider his partner comparatively unworthy, he is disrespecting that partner by using it. If a man gets sexually aroused by a stranger's body without concerning himself with spiritual intimacy, then he is committing an act of objectification that leads him down the path of materialism. In any of these cases, it would be his fault if his relationship were destabilized by it.
> 
> Yes, I am a radical feminist, and I will not apologize for it. I have no reason to be ashamed, because I don't hate men.
> 
> I hate the actions of some men (admittedly,* most* men) when they do things that are harmful to relationships, but when I am angry with them, please understand that it is not for being men. It is for doing destructive things against women, such as using pornography to cheat on us, comparing us unfavorably to it, and treating us as though our value as sexual commodities were what defined us as human beings and determined our status. I don't consider my negative judgment unreasonable against a man who commits any of these acts.


I agree with much of this on principle. I however, am not a feminist. I've worked tirelessly in women's rights both domestically and internationally, and continue to manage a _pro bono_ workload of purely domestic violence litigation whenever I can. However, equality is my shining principle. I take umbrage at the notion that *most* men undertake destructive acts in a relationship. Especially given the empirical evidence which suggests that women are more likely to indulge in infidelity as opposed to men. I don't think that means that *most* women cheat though. I don't doubt, there are plenty of complaints that women can lay at men's doorstep: 

1. UNIFEM is not legally binding. 
2. Marital rape is still not a crime in many countries
3. Equal pay is a legal nicety. Women continue to earn 75p to every £1 a man earns (on average)
4. Women still do not make for visible heads of multinationals
Etc etc etc. 

However, I really don't think it's fair to label men these gourmless objectifying slobs. Equality is equality. In a relationship women are just as capable (not more, not less) of undertaking damaging acts, I don't hate those women who do. I merely disapprove of their acts and choose not to interact with such folk. I apply that same yardstick to men. By "arousal from a stranger" I assume you mean active arousal? I mean when I'm in a relationship I don't become blind, I can still recognise that I find someone attractive, or even have the occasional lustful thought; but once again, I know from experience that women do this too. Not to mention, even the criminal law demands you have the guilty mind (_mens rea_) and actual commission of the act (_actus reus_). I've never cheated (physically or emotionally) and yet have been cheated on. I don't ever assume that cheating is the province of most women, or that most women are callous or out to get me. 

The rest of your post, especially regarding ignoring your partner's wishes brazenly and continuing to indulge in something you know will cause the other pain is indeed a callous way to behave. Although, once again, the sword cuts both ways. It's about mutual respect; and it is incumbent on *both* parties to maintain that respect...


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

snail said:


> When a man is in an exclusive relationship with a partner who disapproves of it, using pornography is a form of infidelity. If it causes him to consider his partner comparatively unworthy, he is disrespecting that partner by using it.


Uh... I know we've had this discussion before and came to somewhat of an impasse back then, but I do want to highlight some things about your thoughts that I think are positively matriarchal and perhaps even all out misandric (although I personally see matriarchy as a form of misandry anyway, but that's a matter of debate). You say that the porn consumption of the man is always an infidelity if the partner (most likely a woman) disapproves of this consumption. However, this is not completely fair, it only is an infidelity *in her mind*, it's not as though her thoughts alone dictate the rules of a relationship. Now, don't get me wrong, I can definitely see how the different values regarding pornography of the man and the woman in the relationship can cause clashes and even destroy an otherwise healthy relationship, BUT this is not per definition the fault of the man for watching pornography. To say that it always is the man's fault in such a case and to imply that his partner (and only his partner) decides what can be called an infidelity is a fairly obvious attempt at ascribing a unjustified superior position to the woman. Now, maybe you think women are the only ones capable of this kind of moral judgement or maybe you have some other reason for thinking that only the woman can tell what's right or wrong in the relationship, but you don't provide arguments for this underlying idea. Perhaps you just weren't aware of this implication though. As to your idea that it is also disrespectful of the man to watch pornography against his owner's will... uh, I'm sorry... I mean his partner's will, that is really just a matter of perspectives as well, the man is still an individual and can do what he wants to. Now, if the man _literally_ promised not to watch pornography and did it anyway, then it is positively disrespectful.



snail said:


> If a man gets sexually aroused by a stranger's body without concerning himself with spiritual intimacy, then he is committing an act of objectification that leads him down the path of materialism. In any of these cases, it would be his fault if his relationship were destabilized by it.


This is just totally absurd from my point of view. No, it is not per definition his fault! Why do you appear to be so incredibly matriarchal about this? Please provide arguments for your seeming female superiority ideal. Why is it always his fault? And what is this "spiritual intimacy"? Seems just a vague idealistic concept to justify your otherwise unjustifiable ideals of a master-slave relationship between women and men. No wonder you are so blindly against materialism and egalitarianism, in a materialistic world view in which all people are treated equally your romantic ideals would be seen for what they really are: unjustified and needlessly exploiting of the male's emotions of affection. You are basically saying "_Oh, but if men look at other women in sexual ways, they don't love us enough. If they do that, they don't have enough discipline to nourish our spiritual connections._" or to translate into even more materialist terms by getting rid of all the romantic language: "_Oh, but if men look at other women in natural ways, they aren't obsessed enough with our image. If they do that, they aren't slavish enough. (I'll just make up some intangible spiritual needs to justify this)_". Materialism doesn't seem to be your enemy because materialism is flawed, but because it opens up roads to true egalitarianism and undermines your appeals to the spiritual and your matriarchal ideals, for which I think I have offered enough evidence. The fact that you merely present materialism as unwanted and wrong without giving any arguments seems to be an indicator of this too... this is just radical feminist rhetoric on your part. Give arguments. 

Why is materialism so bad? Why are only partners of men who watch porn entitled to the moral judgements regarding infidelity (and not also these men themselves, since they are a participant in the relationship too)? Define these "spiritual" needs and explain why they somehow are so very important for most women that their partners should start to nourish these intangible spiritual bonds to ridiculous extends and become less free in the process. Do you still believe that people should always act according to Kantian ethics? If so, how exactly does this factor into your romantic ideals. In other words: how do you justify these attitudes and ideas?



snail said:


> Yes, I am a radical feminist, and I will not apologize for it. I have no reason to be ashamed, because I don't hate men.


Are you sure? You are at the very least matriarchal, the step from there towards misandry is not too big. Now, you might say that you aren't matriarchal because your rules apply to women too, but if that's the case, you are not explaining yourself very well because you only speak of how men need to be changed and how men are the one's ruining relationships by looking at others and watching pornography. You also clearly implied that it is the partner of the man (which is most likely a woman and it is obvious that you indeed meant women) who decides what's moral in a relationship and that you are angry with most men because they have different values regarding their natural tendencies. This all sounds kind of negative towards the male population.



snail said:


> I hate the actions of some men (admittedly,* most* men) when they do things that are harmful to relationships, but when I am angry with them, please understand that it is not for being men. It is for doing destructive things against women, such as using pornography to cheat on us, comparing us* unfavorably* to it, and treating us as though our value as sexual commodities were what defined us as human beings and determined our status. I don't consider my negative judgment unreasonable against a man who commits any of these acts.


Using pornography is only cheating if the rules of the relationship indicate that it is cheating, these rules are formed by the mutual agreements of the participants of the relationship and not by the expectations of only one of the participants. Comparing people with other people is only natural and in most cases rational men are healthy enough to see when they have unjustifiably compared their partners to picture perfect women in the media and on the internet. Also, notice that I use the word unjustifiably as opposed to the bolded "unfavorably" in your text. I did this because it is not a crime to unfavorably compare your partner to others, that might even be a completely legitimate comparison. We are not somehow obliged to ALWAYS choose the side of our partners, just because they are our partners.


----------



## TheSeer91 (Nov 2, 2010)

Elwood92 said:


> Uh... I know we've had this discussion before and came to somewhat of an impasse back then, but I do want to highlight some things about your thoughts that I think are positively matriarchal and perhaps even all out misandric (although I personally see matriarchy as a form of misandry anyway, but that's a matter of debate). You say that the porn consumption of the man is always an infidelity if the partner (most likely a woman) disapproves of this consumption. However, this is not completely fair, it only is an infidelity *in her mind*, it's not as though her thoughts alone dictate the rules of a relationship. Now, don't get me wrong, I can definitely see how the different values regarding pornography of the man and the woman in the relationship can cause clashes and even destroy an otherwise healthy relationship, BUT this is not per definition the fault of the man for watching pornography. To say that it always is the man's fault in such a case and to imply that his partner (and only his partner) decides what can be called an infidelity is a fairly obvious attempt at ascribing a unjustified superior position to the woman. Now, maybe you think women are the only ones capable of this kind of moral judgement or maybe you have some other reason for thinking that only the woman can tell what's right or wrong in the relationship, but you don't provide arguments for this underlying idea. Perhaps you just weren't aware of this implication though. As to your idea that it is also disrespectful of the man to watch pornography against his owner's will... uh, I'm sorry... I mean his partner's will, that is really just a matter of perspectives as well, the man is still an individual and can do what he wants to. Now, if the man _literally_ promised not to watch pornography and did it anyway, then it is positively disrespectful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeahh what he said !


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Paradox1987 said:


> I agree with much of this on principle. I however, am not a feminist. I've worked tirelessly in women's rights both domestically and internationally, and continue to manage a _pro bono_ workload of purely domestic violence litigation whenever I can. However, equality is my shining principle. I take umbrage at the notion that *most* men undertake destructive acts in a relationship. Especially given the empirical evidence which suggests that women are more likely to indulge in infidelity as opposed to men. I don't think that means that *most* women cheat though. I don't doubt, there are plenty of complaints that women can lay at men's doorstep:
> 
> 1. UNIFEM is not legally binding.
> 2. Marital rape is still not a crime in many countries
> ...


Perhaps you are confused about how I am using the word "feminist." By my definition, you are also a feminist. I do not think the fight is one-sided, and in threads about females objectifying men, treating them disrespectfully, or limiting them unfairly, I am just as outspoken as I am here. Feminism is about equality. I do not think men are solely responsible for destroying relationships. I definitely feel that if a man cares so little about his partner that he uses pornography knowing that it will hurt her, he is the one at fault when the relationship falls apart because of his mistreatment of his partner, but if the roles were reversed, where the female was the one using pornography against her partner's wishes, she would be the one to blame. I thought this was obvious enough that I wouldn't have to explain it, but apparently more than one person was confused by how I stated my position. A woman who cheats is just as bad as a man who cheats. 

I just feel that the problems we have tend to be different. It is not untrue that most men think it is okay to be attracted to women's bodies in an objectifying way, so when I use the word "most," that is all I mean by it. I also think most women unfairly objectify men by placing too much importance on their ability to provide financial security. Fortunately, feminism has done some good in this area by making women more financially independent, but feminism hasn't gone far enough. I feel that it has failed to address a lot of issues men are dealing with, such as how they are currently discouraged from being emotionally open, how they must face social obstacles when seeking non-sexual intimacy, and how they have been denied equal reproductive rights when it comes to protecting their unborn children. I think the next wave of feminism needs to focus on the problems that have previously been considered male issues in order to create the balance we have always sought, because feminism isn't really about women. The whole point of it has always been about the relationships between men and women, and ensuring that we are treated fairly by each other. 



Elwood92 said:


> Uh... I know we've had this discussion before and came to somewhat of an impasse back then, but I do want to highlight some things about your thoughts that I think are positively matriarchal and perhaps even all out misandric (although I personally see matriarchy as a form of misandry anyway, but that's a matter of debate). You say that the porn consumption of the man is always an infidelity if the partner (most likely a woman) disapproves of this consumption. However, this is not completely fair, it only is an infidelity *in her mind*, it's not as though her thoughts alone dictate the rules of a relationship. Now, don't get me wrong, I can definitely see how the different values regarding pornography of the man and the woman in the relationship can cause clashes and even destroy an otherwise healthy relationship, BUT this is not per definition the fault of the man for watching pornography. To say that it always is the man's fault in such a case and to imply that his partner (and only his partner) decides what can be called an infidelity is a fairly obvious attempt at ascribing a unjustified superior position to the woman. Now, maybe you think women are the only ones capable of this kind of moral judgement or maybe you have some other reason for thinking that only the woman can tell what's right or wrong in the relationship, but you don't provide arguments for this underlying idea. Perhaps you just weren't aware of this implication though. As to your idea that it is also disrespectful of the man to watch pornography against his owner's will... uh, I'm sorry... I mean his partner's will, that is really just a matter of perspectives as well, the man is still an individual and can do what he wants to. Now, if the man _literally_ promised not to watch pornography and did it anyway, then it is positively disrespectful.


I do not have matriarchal ideas, nor am I misandric. I believe that regardless of which partner is cheating, cheating is wrong. I believe that the use of pornography is always cheating, but that if a person is okay with being cheated on that way, s/he can decide to tolerate it. This doesn't mean that his/her choice not to allow it is what makes it cheating. It is cheating either way. If it is not tolerated, and if the partner, of either gender, uses it anyhow, then that partner is being disrespectful and is at fault when the relationship fails. 





Elwood92 said:


> This is just totally absurd from my point of view. No, it is not per definition his fault! Why do you appear to be so incredibly matriarchal about this? Please provide arguments for your seeming female superiority ideal. Why is it always his fault? And what is this "spiritual intimacy"? Seems just a vague idealistic concept to justify your otherwise unjustifiable ideals of a master-slave relationship between women and men. No wonder you are so blindly against materialism and egalitarianism, in a materialistic world view in which all people are treated equally your romantic ideals would be seen for what they really are: unjustified and needlessly exploiting of the male's emotions of affection. You are basically saying "_Oh, but if men look at other women in sexual ways, they don't love us enough. If they do that, they don't have enough discipline to nourish our spiritual connections._" or to translate into even more materialist terms by getting rid of all the romantic language: "_Oh, but if men look at other women in natural ways, they aren't obsessed enough with our image. If they do that, they aren't slavish enough. (I'll just make up some intangible spiritual needs to justify this)_". Materialism doesn't seem to be your enemy because materialism is flawed, but because it opens up roads to true egalitarianism and undermines your appeals to the spiritual and your matriarchal ideals, for which I think I have offered enough evidence. The fact that you merely present materialism as unwanted and wrong without giving any arguments seems to be an indicator of this too... this is just radical feminist rhetoric on your part. Give arguments.


I do not consider female superiority ideal. I consider respectful relationships ideal, and value equality. It is not always the male's fault, because females are also capable of these behaviors. I mentioned men because this thread is specifically about men.

I do believe that if men (or women) look at people other than their partners in an objectifying way, they do not love their partners enough and don't have the self-discipline to nourish spiritual connections. That much is true. 

I feel that if men (or women) lust after strangers for their bodies instead of appreciating the minds and hearts of the partners they have, they are doing their partners a horrible disservice and don't deserve to have partners. 



Elwood92 said:


> Why is materialism so bad? Why are only partners of men who watch porn entitled to the moral judgements regarding infidelity (and not also these men themselves, since they are a participant in the relationship too)? Define these "spiritual" needs and explain why they somehow are so very important for most women that their partners should start to nourish these intangible spiritual bonds to ridiculous extends and become less free in the process. Do you still believe that people should always act according to Kantian ethics? If so, how exactly does this factor into your romantic ideals. In other words: how do you justify these attitudes and ideas?


Materialism is bad because we are not our bodies, and treating us as though we were reduces us to the value of things instead of allowing us to be seen as people. We are more important than things. We are subjects rather than objects, and should be treated accordingly. 

Anyone who is with a partner who participates in the objectification of strangers is entitled to judge that partner as unfaithful. About Kantian ethics, yes, I do believe that we should act in ways that could be made into universal principles. It factors into my romantic ideals by causing me to treat my partners in a way that doesn't objectify them. If I expect to be treated fairly, to be treated as a human being, and to be with someone who doesn't cheat on me by lusting after other women's bodies, then I must also be willing to treat my partner fairly, treat him as a human being, and choose not to cheat on him by lusting after other men's bodies. It has to be mutual.



Elwood92 said:


> Are you sure? You are at the very least matriarchal, the step from there towards misandry is not too big. Now, you might say that you aren't matriarchal because your rules apply to women too, but if that's the case, you are not explaining yourself very well because you only speak of how men need to be changed and how men are the one's ruining relationships by looking at others and watching pornography. You also clearly implied that it is the partner of the man (which is most likely a woman and it is obvious that you indeed meant women) who decides what's moral in a relationship and that you are angry with most men because they have different values regarding their natural tendencies. This all sounds kind of negative towards the male population.


I only mentioned men because this thread is about men. I figured it would be clear that these rules apply to everyone equally, especially since I frequently post in other threads about the importance of men's rights, and about how wrong it is for women to select men based on what they own or how successful they are at their jobs. I never said that the woman was the one who decided what was moral in a relationship. Morality is not something subjective to be decided by either partner. It is something that exists apart from the relationship. A woman has a right to demand her fair treatment as much as a man has a right to demand his fair treatment. If any man has a natural tendency to objectify women, then I will not choose him as my mate anyhow. I have learned my lesson and know that trying to change a misogynist is futile, so you don't have to worry that I will be "oppressing" anyone by demanding equality.





Elwood92 said:


> Using pornography is only cheating if the rules of the relationship indicate that it is cheating, these rules are formed by the mutual agreements of the participants of the relationship and not by the expectations of only one of the participants. Comparing people with other people is only natural and in most cases rational men are healthy enough to see when they have unjustifiably compared their partners to picture perfect women in the media and on the internet. Also, notice that I use the word unjustifiably as opposed to the bolded "unfavorably" in your text. I did this because it is not a crime to unfavorably compare your partner to others, that might even be a completely legitimate comparison. We are not somehow obliged to ALWAYS choose the side of our partners, just because they are our partners.


Using pornography is always cheating, but if a partner is okay with being cheated on, that is his/her choice. The agreements within the relationship determine whether or not various forms of cheating are considered tolerable within the context of that relationship. 

If a partner prefers the image of an idealized object over his/her relationship with a real person, and if the partner considers the idealized image superior to his/her partner, then s/he is in the wrong for doing so. Yes, we should always choose our partners, forsaking all others, or else there is no active commitment present.


----------



## cricket (Jan 10, 2011)

I realize that I have shared too much of my own opinion, and therefore, I retract my post. Carry on.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

@snail; you aren't the first person to have labelled me a feminist . That said, I respectfully decline the term. I understand that the feminist movement was for equality; however, I prefer the term "human rights lawyer/activist" to "feminist". Thank you though . I agree with what you say; especially regarding the social pressures on men, in fact, there are plenty of threads regarding this very issue littered throughout the ENFP sub forum, and I think the NF fora in general. 

I wholeheartedly agree that one should respect one's partner for their mind, body and core. Indeed, I am very much so the type of person who *must* feel intellectual attraction; otherwise, lustful thoughts aside, you ain't going home with me tonight :tongue: lol. I further agree that you don't strike me as a misandrist; I did not feel the "I hate men" vibe, just maybe a tad jaded with what you've seen on display so far . I apologise for my riposte forcing you to clarify, however, perhaps you will appreciate how jading it is for me to hear from countless females how awful, shallow and disrespectful men are. After a while, as a man, you get rather bored of being told you're responsible for the world's ills; especially when you've spent (like me) years of your life trying to remedy the injustices faced by many. That said, I am ranting now, so I apologise lol. See, men _can_ admit their flaws lol :wink:.

@cricket, don't fear expressing your personal opinions; without open airing of opinions, we can't have true zeitgeist; and thus we cannot evolve morally. I personally love to hear other opinions, for then I can truly assess the merits of my own opinion. If Socrates hadn't aired his opinions, mankind would be the poorer for it :happy:.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

@snail:

Okay, so we have established that you believe that these rules are for both men as well as women. That wasn't at all what it sounded like when I read your first post, but it's good to know that you're not simply trying to blame men as you seemed to do. I will summarize and address your ideas, arguments and predispositions as I understand them to get a bit more structure in my post. So, don't feel offended that I don't directly respond to your quotes as I normally do, it's not that I don't want to keep this organic structure in the debate, but I must structure this for myself.

So, you actually do say that these rules apply to both men and women. You believe that men and women can't focus their attention in any sexual or socially unacceptable way to others than their partners when they are in a committed relationship. They can't look at others; perhaps not even think of others. But why? Isn't this merely based on your own feelings? Isn't it that you wouldn't want this kind of relationship yourself? Because that would be perfectly valid, of course. Your feelings are your feelings. However, you are telling us that it is always positively wrong for anybody to do so because it's cheating and cheating is wrong (according to your feelings). Very circular reasoning there, you have given me no real arguments. Also, you do realize that you are calling many people who simply have different values than you just 'wrong' and 'immoral' in telling us this, right? That kind of moral absolutism is pretty much the end of reasoned morality and freedom in my eyes. So, it's primarily a matter of us having different world views.

Then onto objectification and materialism. That's our big impasse (as it probably was before). Now, I will not attempt to disprove your world view, because I can't. Just like you can't disprove my world view. However, I will attempt to explain my own world view so that you have an idea of where I'm coming from. 

I notice that we have such very different modes of thinking that it's practically impossible to even say whether we are speaking of the same things. For instance: by 'objectification' you probably mean something completely different than I do, although there is some overlap. You seem to think that objectification is a matter of choice; you seem to think that people can choose not to objectify others. Whereas I think that objectification is inevitable; we really all are but objects to each other in my world view. I usually ascribe subjective properties that I find in my own thinking to other humans, but in my experience and in my perception they will always remain objects to some degree. This, to me, is an inevitable and fundamental fact of life. We cannot know the other, because they are but objects in our experience; we perceive them as objects (regardless of their actual status as an object or subject). So, any value that we ascribe to them is given to them by us, it's not somehow inherent in them. So, for me it works like this: "We subjectify the ones we love, but we don't objectify the ones we don't love.". My parents are more real for me than you are, for example. And you are in turn more real to me than somebody I have never spoken to. Nonetheless, everybody and everything was an object to me when I first encountered them. I merely ascribe meaning and value to them as I go along.

Actually, it's because I think we ascribe meaning and value to the things and organisms we encounter that I think it's good that we are free in being aroused by strangers and feeling deeper feelings for different people. To me, everybody is different and everybody should be seen as different. Our appreciation for one person, doesn't decrease our appreciation for the other. However, our actions define us just as much as the actions of the others define them. So, if I get aroused by someone besides my partner, then there is a certain responsibility that I have for that arousal. However, this is a responsibility that can be interpreted any way, depending on the rules of my relationship with my partner, his/her assessment of my behaviour and my own sense of responsibility. Very much a moral relativist and existential approach to this problem, in contrast to your moral absolutist and idealistic approach. 

It always seems very strange to me that you can decide for anybody at any time what they ought to do. What gives you the right to just tell others that they think wrong thoughts or live wrong lives? Being aroused by others IS not cheating unless you DEFINE it as cheating... I can't see how it is a self-evident and absolute fact that it is cheating. To say this seems circular and tautological to me, and therefore irrational. However, it is a completely different world view to begin with.

*EDIT NOTE: I once again changed a few sentences to clarify. The meaning of my words is still the same though, just better formulated for this discussion.*


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Paradox1987 said:


> @snail; you aren't the first person to have labelled me a feminist . That said, I respectfully decline the term. I understand that the feminist movement was for equality; however, I prefer the term "human rights lawyer/activist" to "feminist". Thank you though . I agree with what you say; especially regarding the social pressures on men, in fact, there are plenty of threads regarding this very issue littered throughout the ENFP sub forum, and I think the NF fora in general.
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree that one should respect one's partner for their mind, body and core. Indeed, I am very much so the type of person who *must* feel intellectual attraction; otherwise, lustful thoughts aside, you ain't going home with me tonight :tongue: lol. I further agree that you don't strike me as a misandrist; I did not feel the "I hate men" vibe, just maybe a tad jaded with what you've seen on display so far . I apologise for my riposte forcing you to clarify, however, perhaps you will appreciate how jading it is for me to hear from countless females how awful, shallow and disrespectful men are. After a while, as a man, you get rather bored of being told you're responsible for the world's ills; especially when you've spent (like me) years of your life trying to remedy the injustices faced by many. That said, I am ranting now, so I apologise lol. See, men _can_ admit their flaws lol :wink:.
> 
> @cricket, don't fear expressing your personal opinions; without open airing of opinions, we can't have true zeitgeist; and thus we cannot evolve morally. I personally love to hear other opinions, for then I can truly assess the merits of my own opinion. If Socrates hadn't aired his opinions, mankind would be the poorer for it :happy:.


Indeed, I understand how unfair it is for you to fight for us, only to get lumped in with the kinds of men you are defending us against. I understand that because, even as a woman, I have experienced something like that. 

I have been hated for being female and have been lumped in with the prideful materialists among us who behave in the ways I oppose, who have a sense of entitlement, who use, mistreat and manipulate men, and who select them as mates for reasons I consider completely invalid. I have had to deal with certain embittered men telling me "you women are all a bunch of aloof, arrogant, conceited gold-diggers. You think you can get whatever you want just by being sexual teases. You complain that we see you as sex objects, but you treat yourselves that way. You attack us by controlling our emotions with your bodies. It isn't something we do against you. You're all a bunch of whores who trade the implied promise of sex for money, and if a man isn't rich enough, you have no interest." Clearly the person who said this to me wasn't talking about me, because I do not flaunt my sexuality as a means of control, nor do I think any empowered man would be controlled by such juvenile tactics. I do not seek out men for their wealth. I devote my efforts to _fighting_ those things. ....but we get caught in the crossfire.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Just like any addiction, you can't fight it all you can do is replace it with something better.

If people's lives don't live up to what they feel their potential is, then they will distract themselves in addiction.

When one rides the high of success and momentum, addiction is much easier to replace.

Then its just a matter of habit.

But yes you're right about the dopamine thing, and like any addictions that cause heavy neurotransmittor release, they can take years to completely recover from. Heroine or cocaine for example.

I might venture to say that, when someone does replace a drug, it will have to be something "very good" where as if they had never done the drug in the first place, they wouldn't need such "thrill seeking fulfillment."

That being said, if someone finds a good cause to fulfill this need in, it can actually be harnessed and used to better the world in a way that no one else could.

It is a strength and a weakness. A desire for a certain kind of connection in life.

Replacements for drugs might be a very fun relationship with a lot of dancing and sex, or a new career with a lot of momentum. In this respect, someone with a lot of stress in a relationship or a career possibly not working out, might become easily prone to new drugs as well if something breaks their normal routine and habit. For example they might go through a week of going to amusement parks after a breakup until they settle back down. When they settle down, they are likely to seek what they have lost, but the question one must always ask themselves is, what is rationally best for me and my growth. What can I replace what has held me back with, etc..

Working out release endorphines which IMO does what marijuana does, though I don't smoke it, and makes someone feel okay with their situation.

Its good in a way but bad also. We must always try to dig deep and find our true purpose. I think when we can honestly speak freely about our goal in life, our deepest purpose, which for example might be helping people overcome what we've been through by showing them what we've learned while we went through it, is when we are capable of breaking free of these addictions.

I think we should worry less about the actual addictions we are diong sometimes, and reflect more on what we really really want deep down, but I'm sure its a bit of both.

I know I sidetracked a bit, please disregard all irrelevant information. Good post.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Mr.Xl Vii said:


> well I wouldn't say women as a whole because I know women who particularly enjoy porn. You women was directed at those on this site. But I suppose you can be part of the list too since you have this unnatural distaste for porn as well it seems.


Unnatural? I don't like porn either. I'm not against it though; if someone likes it, as most men understandably do, I say go nuts (no pun intended), I just don't enjoy it myself.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

cricket said:


> I realize that I have shared too much of my own opinion, and therefore, I retract my post. Carry on.


Oh, I can't remember exactly what you wrote, but I don't think it was wrong of you to share those thoughts. Some of them were a bit strange to me, but some of them seemed like genuine and truthful impressions. Maybe you should have given me the chance to respond, you might have understood me better by now. However, I don't think that you should discard an idea because of your impression of the one who utters the idea, as you seemed to do with my ideas. You might be suspicious of me and my motives, but that is by no means a rational argument to not take my ideas seriously. You miss out on a lot of cool ideas if you discard them so easily and in that manner... but maybe I'm too thinking too much in an NT-way right now. Please do read my previous post (in reaction to snail), I am sure you will find that I have quite valid philosophical and intellectual concerns regarding the issue we're discussing. I take my world view seriously.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

redmanINTP said:


>


After profound analysis of the actions in question I can wholeheartedly answer, I do not. Unfortunately.

Well, see it positively though, maybe my head will burst some day when rubbing one out, can't think of any more pleasurable ways to die.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Pornography isn't the end all source of neuroses and seemingly erratic behavior. The proliferation of Porn via the internet is still relatively new, so I think the hard information is still a bit of time away.



Erbse said:


> After profound analysis of the actions in question I can wholeheartedly answer, I do not. Unfortunately.
> 
> Well, see it positively though, maybe my head will burst some day when rubbing one out, can't think of any more pleasurable ways to die.


Well, there is, you know having actual sex as a way of dying. But whatever get's you there happy I suppose.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

Erbse said:


> Well, see it positively though, maybe my head will burst some day when rubbing one out, can't think of any more pleasurable ways to die.


I'd hate to have you come and go . . .


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

snail said:


> Perhaps you are confused about how I am using the word "feminist." By my definition, you are also a feminist. I do not think the fight is one-sided, and in threads about females objectifying men, treating them disrespectfully, or limiting them unfairly, I am just as outspoken as I am here. Feminism is about equality. I do not think men are solely responsible for destroying relationships. I definitely feel that if a man cares so little about his partner that he uses pornography knowing that it will hurt her, he is the one at fault when the relationship falls apart because of his mistreatment of his partner, but if the roles were reversed, where the female was the one using pornography against her partner's wishes, she would be the one to blame. I thought this was obvious enough that I wouldn't have to explain it, but apparently more than one person was confused by how I stated my position. A woman who cheats is just as bad as a man who cheats.


True, but considering the point of feminism being the fight for equal rights, why does equality have a gender? I'm not saying this to just feminists, I'm saying this to masculists as well. Who decides this stuff? If we go in with the bias that one gender should be represented in the fight for equality, then we're creating problems because we neglect some very important things about the other gender. What kind of man actually knows how it feels to be a woman? For that matter, what woman actually knows how it feels to be a man, except Norah Vincent? Can we really judge before we look into every little matter? 

We should not label ourselves as fighting for one gender, we should label ourselves as fighting for both to make an equal system if that is our goal. Snail, you've said it before, you fight for men's rights as well as women's rights. The question is, do you consider yourself a masculist as well? Doesn't fighting for both sides make you more concerned with equality rather than just the advancement of women? Feminism, by its cold, hard definition, is the latter. While it does have a goal for equality, the scope of this definition does not necessarily encompass the other gender's involvement. I believe that a certain manner of going about feminism can bring equality to both genders, but I do not believe feminism is equality in itself.

A bunch of people with different stances could label themselves feminists. Some feminists really do have a misandric streak that they don't acknowledge. But as long as they believe that their fight has a goal for equality and it involves the advancement of women, they still are, by definition, feminists.

In summary, do you consider yourself a masculist and a feminist, just a feminist, or just a person who roots for gender egalitarianism? Just giving you some food for thought.


----------



## undead (Nov 28, 2010)

Souled In said:


> If people's lives don't live up to what they feel their potential is, then they will distract themselves in addiction.
> 
> When one rides the high of success and momentum, addiction is much easier to replace.


The only conclusion on this thread, which is the hardest to be resolved. That's why this kind of discussion never ends.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Torai said:


> True, but considering the point of feminism being the fight for equal rights, why does equality have a gender? I'm not saying this to just feminists, I'm saying this to masculists as well. Who decides this stuff? If we go in with the bias that one gender should be represented in the fight for equality, then we're creating problems because we neglect some very important things about the other gender. What kind of man actually knows how it feels to be a woman? For that matter, what woman actually knows how it feels to be a man, except Norah Vincent? Can we really judge before we look into every little matter?
> 
> We should not label ourselves as fighting for one gender, we should label ourselves as fighting for both to make an equal system if that is our goal. Snail, you've said it before, you fight for men's rights as well as women's rights. The question is, do you consider yourself a masculist as well? Doesn't fighting for both sides make you more concerned with equality rather than just the advancement of women? Feminism, by its cold, hard definition, is the latter. While it does have a goal for equality, the scope of this definition does not necessarily encompass the other gender's involvement. I believe that a certain manner of going about feminism can bring equality to both genders, but I do not believe feminism is equality in itself.
> 
> ...


I consider myself a person who seeks equality. I do this from a female perspective, with the best interest of women in mind, but I don't care any less about men than I care about women. What is good for women will also be good for men. Equality will benefit everyone. I identify with the feminine side of the fight because of how much worse our situation has been, but I also believe that it would be impossible for equality to occur while either gender remained unrepresented. 

I feel that the next natural step within the feminist movement would be for women to fight harder for men's rights, because men are currently in a position where doing so is much more socially risky for them than it is for us. I feel that one of the biggest things limiting men is that they have been denied the right to be emotionally open without being shunned or shamed for it, and unfortunately for them, in order to fight being silenced, they would need to already have a voice. Whenever a man tries to fight it, he is usually treated as though feeling oppressed makes him inferior because "real men" don't complain. They are tough, and they take it. If a man feels hurt by emotional invalidation, there is this idea that his hurt must be crushed out of him through further invalidation rather than being taken seriously as a legitimate cause for social change. This, of course, is completely unacceptable. That is why it is women's responsibility to help pull men out of the trap they have made for themselves, which we have reinforced with our demands that they be macho and strong for us. I believe it would be nearly impossible for men to liberate themselves in their current state, because the oppression they face is a self-reinforcing annihilative implosion.

I don't think the world will ever be a safe place for women until men are freed from the gender-based expectations that limit them. They are trapped into a situation where they have little choice but to behave harmfully toward us, for the sake of their own status, and this problem has more to do with cultural attitudes than with isolated behaviors. Right now, the brave individuals who are bold enough to stand up against the ways they are expected to behave do so at a great cost. They offer themselves as a sacrifice. They are courageous idealists who value their freedom more than they value maintaining the respect of others. They are willing to face ostracization and all of the disadvantages that come with it. They are in the minority, because most people are not strong enough to be authentic in a world that crushes our open, fragile hearts the moment we expose them. It does this to all of us, but especially to men. 

Fighting for men does not make me any less of a feminist, because male liberation is necessary in order for women to escape the oppressive situations we are in, most of which depend on the expectation that men must oppress us in order to be respected by each other, or to be respected by us. We are the ones who can change this by raising awareness and making it very clear to men that it is okay to be vulnerable, that we will not reject them from it, and that our judgment will fall harshly upon the kinds of men who would reject them for it.


----------



## Beefpatrol (Feb 12, 2010)

Promethea said:


> well then you are an exception


Do you have any evidence that this, specifically, is true? I don't know if it is true or not, but I would be interested in seeing studies that shed light on the matter. Personally, I don't think it is true; I can, however, understand why women might look at the situation and conclude that it is true.


----------



## dalsgaard (Aug 14, 2010)

The term 'Masculinist' is a fairly new one. It didn't exist when I first got involved with questions of gender equality. I think it originated because people who represented the male side of the equality movement felt that 'Feminism' didn't represent their ideas. 'Feminism' is an odd term for something that should be about both genders, granted. And I know that a lot of people say they define feminism differently, but a lot of dictionaries and encyclopedia's equate it with women's struggles exclusively. That's why I don't call myself 'masculinist' either. I believe that any problem you can think of as it relates to one gender, directly influences the other gender. EVERYTHING that women have fought for, is also something men should fight for, because the problems men face are exactly the same. Men and women live together. They work together. They need each other. The whole notion that this is somehow a 'fight' is enormously detrimental. When you say something is problematic for one gender, and try to exclude the other from that same problem, you're attempting to do the impossible. Men and women are so intimately connected, that it's like trying to force the heads away from the tails on a coin. This cannot be done.

So when people say that porn is mostly affecting men, then I'm hugely skeptical. This is directly related to the sexual liberation of women.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

@snail; I fully understand what you mean. I've seen the "but I'm a nice guy misogyny" before. I have met men who pander to the belief that women are "evil". One of my friends once said he could never work for a woman because they're "calculating". Needless to say, I gave his idea short shrift by pointing out men tend to be in prison for crimes of dishonesty more so than women; and that deceit and calculation are simian characteristics. It's not a gender unique phenomenon. 

I remember, a long time ago I was given the advice that if you want a woman in your life, you must be rich, successful and a good provider. Or, conversely, you must be in fantastic shape with movie star looks. I obviously know that neither position is universally tenable, not to mention; anyone familiar with Led Zeppelin will know of "Black Dog" and the lyrics therein:

"All I ask, all I pray;
Pretty, loaded woman gonna come my way". 

So much for the notion only women are golddiggers eh? Yes there are shallow, vacuuous halfwits on both sides of the gender divide. Their behaviour is not governed by their gender, but rather their experiences and issues. Neither are good enough reasons to hate or perpetuate injustice in my opinion. Like I said, I've been cheated on before, and I found out in a horrific manner to boot. I wouldn't dream of blaming _women_. I blame the ex in question individually.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

android654 said:


> Well, there is, you know having actual sex as a way of dying. But whatever get's you there happy I suppose.


Nah, intercourse itself doesn't rank particularly high on my pleasure list, certainly not if competing with masturbation. The effort - gain ratio is just so lame.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Erbse said:


> Nah, intercourse itself doesn't rank particularly high on my pleasure list, certainly not if competing with masturbation. The effort - gain ratio is just so lame.


Hahahaha! I guess it depends on your goal. Masturbation is amazing for quick, easy orgasms that don't require any work, but I tend to find it unsatisfying because what I really want is to bond intimately with another person who loves and accepts me, who desires closeness with me and appreciates my feelings for him. Masturbation, no matter how physically effective, can never provide that.

It does give me more control over the physical pleasure, though. I can make it last as long as I want, and I can vary the intensity. If that were the point of sex for me, I would probably agree with you.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

Torai said:


> True, but considering the point of feminism being the fight for equal rights, why does equality have a gender? I'm not saying this to just feminists, I'm saying this to masculists as well. Who decides this stuff? If we go in with the bias that one gender should be represented in the fight for equality, then we're creating problems because we neglect some very important things about the other gender. What kind of man actually knows how it feels to be a woman? For that matter, what woman actually knows how it feels to be a man, except Norah Vincent? Can we really judge before we look into every little matter?
> 
> We should not label ourselves as fighting for one gender, we should label ourselves as fighting for both to make an equal system if that is our goal. Snail, you've said it before, you fight for men's rights as well as women's rights. The question is, do you consider yourself a masculist as well? Doesn't fighting for both sides make you more concerned with equality rather than just the advancement of women? Feminism, by its cold, hard definition, is the latter. While it does have a goal for equality, the scope of this definition does not necessarily encompass the other gender's involvement. I believe that a certain manner of going about feminism can bring equality to both genders, but I do not believe feminism is equality in itself.
> 
> A bunch of people with different stances could label themselves feminists. Some feminists really do have a misandric streak that they don't acknowledge. But as long as they believe that their fight has a goal for equality and it involves the advancement of women, they still are, by definition, feminists.


I think this is a very important point you made here Torai, this is also the reason why I stopped identifying with feminism and masculism. I think the idea of equality is more important than fighting for the rights of one gender only, or both genders simultaneously. I don't think that improving the rights and possibilities of women will automatically improve those of men or vice versa. Every law or social change that's made to improve the position of women, should also encompass an improvement for men and that won't happen automatically at all (as is shown by the recent development in the European educational systems, which are becoming more and more 'women-centric'). So, we should be aware that the improvement of the position of one gender does not necessarily constitute an improvement for the other, it can even threaten equal chances. 

Also, what you said about feminists who are unaware of their misandry or who are aware of it, but fail to acknowledge it is a problem that I have been trying very hard to address. Now, I'm not saying that certain other so-called egalitarian movements aren't guilty of secretly being not so egalitarian, but this problem is also very much a problem of the feminists (and especially the radical feminists). These feminists have a lot of ideals and values that they think are egalitarian, but only would be egalitarian if everyone was a woman. Now, this blind spot to the needs of men is probably born out of this idea that we are being made into men and women through the social constructs of the societies we live in. However, there are certain natural (for instance: biological or psychological) differences between men and women which I think should be taken into account. For example: the different types of libidos in men and women. Men have a more constant libido than women, which is not so much affected by the physiological cycles as the woman's libido. I think this is also the reason for the prevalence of the idea that '_people should control their sexual desires to ridiculous extends_' among women. It's because women experience their sexuality in different ways than men due to obvious biological (and in particular physiological) differences. Therefore, some feminists might expect sexual behaviours of men that might seem egalitarian to them, but are in fact too women-centric. It's all due to this blind spot for simple biological facts and the focus on the social constructs of what constitutes a 'man' and a 'woman'. And in the particular instance of Naomi Wolf, there's probably also her cultural background, since America is not the most sexually open-minded of nations (although I am aware that there are huge regional differences, I do want to emphasize this, because Wolf clearly has traditional ideas about sexual displays in public and pornography that fit in with the American 'puritanism' I am describing here). That's perhaps also where a lot of the friction between me and my fellow egalitarianists from America comes from: my European cultural background, which is much more liberal regarding sexual issues. In most west-European countries, the actions of these politicians and other big shots wouldn't really be seen as a huge problem, it might hurt their chances with regard to the next election, but most of us won't really condemn it like so many Americans do. Most sex scandals in Dutch politics won't easily lead to politicians resigning, for example. Unless they are a member of a Christian party, or something like that.

Anyway, I am rambling again. To get back to my immediate response to your post: I think you are right in pointing out the hidden misandry and the disguised anti-egalitarianism that is often found in many (radical) feminists and (patriarchal) masculists, and I personally think that this is due to the skewed world views of these people. Also, as I've shortly explained, cultural differences might factor into this as well.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Elwood92 said:


> Every law or social change that's made to improve the position of women, should also encompass an improvement for men and that won't happen automatically at all (as is shown by the recent development in the European educational systems, which are becoming more and more 'women-centric').


How so? (I don't disagree at all by the way, at least not yet as I am completely ignorant about this, but I always thought the greater preponderance of women in universities represented their - in general - greater powers of self-discipline, which I am guessing has some sort of biological origin). I am assuming that is not what you are talking about?[/quote]

Anyway, school aged boys certainly get short shrift, which is a tragedy because if you fail them now you'll set them on a path, I am just curious about how the university system does this.


----------



## undead (Nov 28, 2010)

From the discussion of porn and how it affects men into the typical gender equality debate which typically never resolved to anything significant.

Here's what I can analyze (I'm sorry if my view is rather biased or "unequal"):

The masculine character (regardless of your genital) is typically the one who desires freedom, breakthrough, innovation, competition, mobility, and to the dark side of it which is domination, destruction, war, death, etc. 

The feminine character (regardless of your genital) is typically the one who desires connection, intimacy, relationship, life, nurture, and spiritual "oneness" or union. The dark side of this is seduction, manipulation, energy-drain, etc.

Now if feminism follows this meaning, then it should cultivate the feminine character in women (probably in men as well), and it should honor what it does. 

If feminism is about "equality", then just call it "equilibrium" or some other related terms, that will have a consistent meaning. 

Some females are just utilizing their potential to the max. If they're causing some men to conduct destructive actions (implicitly or explicitly), it's because most masculine characters are not bothered by such issues.

Most of them don't really desire intimacy or union, but more about challenge, thrill, sensation, etc.

If we really want to make everyone perfectly equal, there would be no strong sexual attraction anymore. I've felt this before. Even the most vicious female, they would need either a stronger character or a more feminine character, 

While it's really a "big" relief if men are no longer responsible for their "manliness". Most women would still prefer a stronger man, not the one who is as feminine as them. If they are, why do they need men?

Then, why not make every gender as neutral? No such thing as boys should live here and girls live over there separately. Boys and girls showering in the same public area? 

Some countries (like Sweden) are trying to do this, I guess (they have unisex toilets as one example).

Do you think this will work?


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

nevermore said:


> How so? (I don't disagree at all by the way, at least not yet as I am completely ignorant about this, but I always thought the greater preponderance of women in universities represented their - in general - greater powers of self-discipline, which I am guessing has some sort of biological origin). I am assuming that is not what you are talking about?
> 
> Anyway, school aged boys certainly get short shrift, which is a tragedy because if you fail them now you'll set them on a path, I am just curious about how the university system does this.


Well, it's related to the self-discipline of the generally more 'well-behaved' girls. The school system here rewards that kind of studying and thinking (as I am sure it does in most places). It's basically the whole "don't think too much and do what you're told", "follow the definitions of the book" and "make your homework exactly as we prescribed it"-culture that appears to be working for these girls. You call it their "greater powers" of self-disciple, but I'm not so sure whether or not that kind of self-disciple is always a good thing. I think that the system merely rewards that kind of socially acceptable self-discipline, because it rather deals with group oriented and "hard working" girls than with the more competitive and sceptical boys. This is not to say that self-discipline isn't a good characteristic at all, but the overemphasis on self-discipline and the ability of students to "do as they're told" does work in favour of women. We can of course see this in the preponderance of women in the higher levels of education that you mentioned or in the fact that boys are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, and also in many more subtle imbalances regarding teaching methods and the social norms of schools. There are more and more female teachers and there are also more female university graduates than male university graduates. 

So, this is clearly an improvement in the position of women, but not so much a more equal situation. That's why I think that fighting for women's rights or men's rights is not enough, fighting for _human_ rights and equality is the key. That's why I think feminism and masculism are not the solution to the problem. That's what I meant to say by that... but it's really a lot like what you already thought I meant by it. However, I think we're kind of derailing the thread here. xD

EDIT: Or actually, it's a lot like what you thought I didn't mean by it, but of which you thought anyway. lol


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

snail said:


> Hahahaha! I guess it depends on your goal. *Masturbation is amazing for quick, easy orgasms that don't require any work, but I tend to find it unsatisfying because what I really want is to bond intimately with another person who loves and accepts me, who desires closeness with me and appreciates my feelings for him.* Masturbation, no matter how physically effective, can never provide that.
> 
> It does give me more control over the physical pleasure, though. I can make it last as long as I want, and I can vary the intensity. If that were the point of sex for me, I would probably agree with you.


Ha, I can vouch for this as well. If anything, masturbation only serves to increase these desires for intimacy with another person, which is one reason it irks me when my friends assume I'm searching for a girlfriend for sex alone. If I wanted casual sex, I could have it regularly, but that's not what I'm looking for. I'm in the same boat as you: For me it's unsatisfying overall, and only serves to release sexual tensions.


----------



## Runvardh (May 17, 2011)

Outside of some audio/visual stimulation to go with some physical, I find the stuff rather ridiculous. Hell, if it wasn't for the fact that I can't detach enough for casual sex, I'd never watch it. Then again, that might be one of the few things going for me: the porn, I want to turn off once I'm done; the girl, I don't want to turn off once _we're _done.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Elwood92 said:


> Well, it's related to the self-discipline of the generally more 'well-behaved' girls. The school system here rewards that kind of studying and thinking (as I am sure it does in most places). It's basically the whole "don't think too much and do what you're told", "follow the definitions of the book" and "make your homework exactly as we prescribed it"-culture that appears to be working for these girls. You call it their "greater powers" of self-disciple, but I'm not so sure whether or not that kind of self-disciple is always a good thing. I think that the system merely rewards that kind of socially acceptable self-discipline, because it rather deals with group oriented and "hard working" girls than with the more competitive and sceptical boys. This is not to say that self-discipline isn't a good characteristic at all, but the overemphasis on self-discipline and the ability of students to "do as they're told" does work in favour of women. We can of course see this in the preponderance of women in the higher levels of education that you mentioned or in the fact that boys are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, and also in many more subtle imbalances regarding teaching methods and the social norms of schools. There are more and more female teachers and there are also more female university graduates than male university graduates.
> 
> So, this is clearly an improvement in the position of women, but not so much a more equal situation. That's why I think that fighting for women's rights or men's rights is not enough, fighting for _human_ rights and equality is the key. That's why I think feminism and masculism are not the solution to the problem. That's what I meant to say by that... but it's really a lot like what you already thought I meant by it. However, I think we're kind of derailing the thread here. xD
> 
> EDIT: Or actually, it's a lot like what you thought I didn't mean by it, but of which you thought anyway. lol


Oooh boy, waiting for the female response to this one.:crazy:







:wink:

No seriously, I disagree with this picture of women as stereotypical Si-doms who "do what they are told" and "don't think too much" (though many men seem to think it, as my little brother who is still in high school has given me this very speech); I think they just have the maturity to realize it's stupid not to play by the rules when there is future self-actualizing potential and financial security at stake. And yeah, in my opinion more of them tend to have the self-discipline and power to delay gratification I only wish I had (combined with my INTP lack of drive and male desire to make my mark on the world this really hasn't worked out well for me:wink. But I very much agree with you on what needs to be done and that attitudes need to be changed.

Boys by their nature just don't fit into this system well and that focusing on feminism alone is going to make people interpret "70% of people in x are women" as progress instead of "only 30% in x are men...we _need_ progress. Of course, when traits that correlate with gender influence choice, we do not necessarily need to worry (so women more often like working with people...then don't take issue when not too many of them want to be physicists, just make sure that those who have the desire and talent can). And since people go to very great lengths to make women more comfortable studying science (though I am amused that there is no equivalent for men and more feminine-typical subjects), I don't see why changing education in _general_ so it allows boys to reach greater heights is unacceptable (so long as this is not done artificially like you apparently see in universities, which now give a kind of affirmative action to men in that they'll take a male student over a female student if they have grades in the same range). Perhaps segregated education would do this, though I fear this would encourage stereotyping genders' thinking styles at the expense of girls and boys who might take approaches generally closer to that of the opposite gender (not that this would _need_ to happen).

I consider myself a bit of a waste, perhaps due to my own male nature. In high school I won several academic awards (which women tend to win more of), outscoring all women and men in the school alike at least in terms of reputation and marks in activities science has shown women tend to be superior at, like verbal fluency. But that was because the premier of the province I lived in passed this stupid law saying students could hand in their papers as late as they wanted and not get marks off. Without the need to abide by a schedule (and also jaded by that premier's very unwise move), I rose to the top of the pack. When the discipline of university hit me, I fell apart, though I was still seen as the "intellectual" among my peers even in that context. If I had the self-discipline most women had, I could have done very great things for myself (and there's my male competitive nature coming in :wink. Victim of my own biology, I guess (oh, what lengths I'll go to not to take responsibility for my own laziness :crazy


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

nevermore said:


> No seriously, I disagree with this picture of women as stereotypical Si-doms who "do what they are told" and "don't think too much" (though many men seem to think it, as my little brother who is still in high school has given me this very speech); I think they just have the maturity to realize it's stupid not to play by the rules when there is future self-actualizing potential and financial security at stake.


I never said girls are naturally like that, I said that the educational culture was like that and that it appears to be working in favour of the women. That's an important nuance you missed there. Oh, and although you see this as a form of maturity, I see it as a form of indoctrination and as the suppression of creativity. I generally agree with the rest of what you've said though.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

nevermore said:


> (though I am amused that there is no equivalent for men and more feminine-typical subjects)


That was true in neither "feminine-type subject" I studied, fwiw. There_ were_ efforts to get more men in, and a fairly welcoming atmosphere (not just according to me). Yet my female cousins who studied science (biology & computer science) reported a greater sense of being unwanted, more hostility/exclusion. I am aware that this is anecdotal; I don't claim this to be completely convincing. I suspect that the low status associated with a lot of 'female-type' subjects is probably a much bigger factor in men not going for them than a hostile culture - a factor not really present in women wanting to be physicists since traditionally 'male' disciplines are, surprise surprise, usually higher status. At any rate, if the culture is there in some places, this status issue will be part of what is keeping men out, probably. That, and men are atm punished socially more severely than women stepping outside gender roles - a male nurse, f'rinstance, might get more contempt than a female doctor. The culture within the discipline might be appreciative - the culture at large, if the judgements and stereotypes remain the same, is going to be a barrier.

I have to say it's a little funny that this topic turned into male victimization rants so soon, though. It's pretty clear there is an effect of excessive pornography use; I doubt, however, that it is insurmountable when one has a good opportunity to overcome it - eg the context of a relationship, or enough access to sex that porn does not dominate ideas. I have been exposed to more 'nerd' cultures where porn was pretty much_ it,_ and it coincided with some pretty unhealthy attitudes, particularly towards women. It's pretty clear the desensitization can happen - however, just as not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic, I suspect in a lot of cases this increased tolerance doesn't have strong enough ill effects to be totally disruptive to relationships. Some people get around it by fantasizing about porn when, ahem, involved, rather than experiencing their partner - not something I would appreciate myself, but it likely slips under the radar all the time. It will depend not just on the effect of the pornography on the users, but the values of the people involved and how much they conflict. I can't say that I myself am threatened by porn, but others find it a big betrayal.

I'm going to ignore the stereotyping thinking styles thing because it is irritating.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

lirulin said:


> It's pretty clear there is an effect of excessive pornography use; I doubt, however, that it is insurmountable when one has a good opportunity to overcome it - eg the context of a relationship, or enough access to sex that porn does not dominate ideas. I have been exposed to more 'nerd' cultures where porn was pretty much_ it,_ and it coincided with some pretty unhealthy attitudes, particularly towards women. It's pretty clear the desensitization can happen - however, just as not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic, I suspect in a lot of cases this increased tolerance doesn't have strong enough ill effects to be totally disruptive to relationships.


hmm, I'm curious as to what these unhealthy attitudes in these "nerd cultures" are. You state that it's all pretty clear that this kind of desensitization can happen, but _what_ kind of desensitization do you actually mean to address here? Not that I necessarily disagree with your ideas on this issue, but I'd like to know more about what your definition of 'desensitization' is and about what you think these "unhealthy attitudes" are. This all seems kind of vague to me. Perhaps I just don't quite understand the context yet.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Elwood92 said:


> hmm, I'm curious as to what these unhealthy attitudes in these "nerd cultures" are. You state that it's all pretty clear that this kind of desensitization can happen, but _what_ kind of desensitization do you actually mean to address here? Not that I necessarily disagree with your ideas on this issue, but I'd like to know more about what your definition of 'desensitization' is and about what you think these "unhealthy attitudes" are. This all seems kind of vague to me. Perhaps I just don't quite understand the context yet.


Needing increasingly greater stimulus - as was already stated, as far as I can tell. Whatever you think of the article, there have been scientific studies on this. I think a few were linked earlier...
It`s pretty common with anything that works with the reward function - alcohol, caffeine, cocaine...
This part really isn`t questionable at all, not that it happens - scope and other things yeah need to be studied more - it is the social implications where it gets greyer, which was why I stated no causal relationship with that.

The unhealthy attitudes - I mean, yes, in puberty, some guys sexualise _everything_ you do if you are female. Sure puberty wreaks havoc on one`s brain, but the inability to interpret _any _gesture you make, word you say outside of a sexualised frame is a little unhealthy. You get the poor-me types who go on about how shallow women are for wanting attractive guys - who admit they only want blinde big tits anorexic heavily-made up women and see no hypocrisy in that and don`t recognise their behaviour that contributes to being unwanted. Those who play victim about women`s rights issues. A lot of the so-called "nice-guy" syndrome is heavily mysogynistic and in some of the nerd cultures I knew, was the flag-waving of the socially awkward. There are a lot of unhealthy attitudes and a lot of cultural reasons behind that, however. How much that relates to desensitization and porn - probably mainly you can see more direct relationships with unrealistic expectations and somewhat distorted ideas of what women actually look like, which I have heard expressed more than enough times - though it is not only pornography that disseminates those. You have to be rather out of touch for that - then again, men who interact with women on a daily basis still manage to have bullshit sexist ideas, so it`s not just social isolation at fault. I don`t think it is just porn of course - but certain attitudes in society are presented in a clearer light in porn and it is a part of cultural attitudes. Mostly where it really got toxic these were people who _only_ had porn since no girl in their right mind would date them - causal can go either way there and in no way do I think it would be a simple one-way arrow. I doubt it is _entirel_y coincidental, though I am certain there are a number of complex social factors and porn is interrelated. It`s part of a wider social environment and reflects some of the standard issues. Desentitization can contribute to wider exposure to, say, more extreme porn which is often heavily misogynistic, for instance, since one is seeking more intensity, and that`s not that healthy.

Certainly I know people who have attributed their issues to pornography - much as it is possible they could be mistaken as to what goes on in their mind, it is still something to add to the evidence. Much as no sane guy takes his social cues from porn, there are fucked up people in the world who could.

As for the other way around - more often I hear women feeling they lose touch with sexuality as it can be harder to find porn that isn`t a turn-off. So one turns to tamer erotica and other things and you get the idea that women are "less sexual." Things like that.

I speak, to a degree, in generalities, of course, given the topic.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

lirulin said:


> Needing increasingly greater stimulus - as was already stated, as far as I can tell. Whatever you think of the article, there have been scientific studies on this. I think a few were linked earlier...
> It`s pretty common with anything that works with the reward function - alcohol, caffeine, cocaine...
> This part really isn`t questionable at all, not that it happens - scope and other things yeah need to be studied more - it is the social implications where it gets greyer, which was why I stated no causal relationship with that.


Aha, I see. You are correct, this is undoubtedly true.



lirulin said:


> The unhealthy attitudes - I mean, yes, in puberty, some guys sexualise _everything_ you do if you are female. Sure puberty wreaks havoc on one`s brain, but the inability to interpret _any _gesture you make, word you say outside of a sexualised frame is a little unhealthy.


That is indeed unhealthy. However, I had no idea this kind of behaviour was that prevalent among teenage boys. Sure, I know of boys who went too far at times and I'm sure all people do this at times. I never really noticed that this kind of constant sexualization was common behaviour for teenage boys. Actually, I always thought that teenage girls were more prone to sexualization during puberty and that teenage boys were too busy with themselves and each other to really care about women in that way. Perhaps it also has to do with group dynamics though, I find that boys of this age can get awfully simple-minded and brutish when they are in a group (even though they themselves might never have acted that way if they were all by themselves).



lirulin said:


> You get the poor-me types who go on about how shallow women are for wanting attractive guys - who admit they only want blinde big tits anorexic heavily-made up women and see no hypocrisy in that and don`t recognise their behaviour that contributes to being unwanted.


lol xD
Yeah, I know one or two guys like that, but then again... I know a few girls who think in similar ways too.



lirulin said:


> Those who play victim about women`s rights issues.


I guess that even I would fall into the above-mentioned category in your mind. However, besides what you think of people like me who are critical of feminism, I do want to know why you think this relates to 'unhealthy attitudes' and especially how this relates to sexual desensitization. What has being critical of the women's rights movement (as it currently operates) have to do with sexual desensitization and unhealthy sexual attitudes? Or do you think this has nothing to do with that, but did you simply put it in there as an example of what you consider 'unhealthy attitudes' in general? If so, why do you think it is unhealthy to be critical regarding women's rights issues? 



lirulin said:


> A lot of the so-called "nice-guy" syndrome is heavily mysogynistic and in some of the nerd cultures I knew, was the flag-waving of the socially awkward.


I myself don't believe in the whole "nice guy" idea either. One of my friends tried to talk me into the whole idea and for a moment I really did consider it (perhaps I even believed it to some extend), but I eventually felt that it was just a way of manipulating the feelings of inadequacy and disappointment that a lot of men who have been single for a long time feel, much like I think Noami Wolf tried to do in her article (only then with men who feel guilt and disappointment within the context of a relationship). In both cases there's an emotional problem of the individual man that is being exploited through pseudo-scientific reasoning and in both cases the problem is explained as a problem in the behaviours and/or attitude of the individual man which needs to be "fixed". I think these are wicked things to attempt. To exploit other people's feelings of self-doubt is very immoral in my eyes and that's exactly what I think Naomi Wolf and these "nice guy" guys try to do (both for completely different reasons though).



lirulin said:


> There are a lot of unhealthy attitudes and a lot of cultural reasons behind that, however. How much that relates to desensitization and porn - probably mainly just unrealistic expectations and somewhat distorted ideas of what women actually look like, which I have heard expressed more than enough times - though it is not only pornography that disseminates those. You have to be rather out of touch for that - then again, men who interact with women on a daily basis still manage to have bullshit sexist ideas, so it`s not just social isolation at fault. I don`t think it is just porn of course - but certain attitudes in society are presented in a clearer light in porn. Mostly where it really got toxic these were people who only had porn since no girl in their right mind would date them. I doubt it is entirely coincidental, though I am certain there are a number of complex social factors and porn is interrelated.


I agree with most of this, although I have to add that I don't think this is a male problem. There are also a lot of women out there who have absolutely no realistic expectations of men or romantic relationships whatsoever. I think that it's more like an across-the-board disconnection between reality and people's expectations than a problem of genders (although gender roles do factor into this as well). So, you are probably right in saying that it is a complex sociocultural problem.


----------



## DustyDrill (May 20, 2011)

No, porn is fine. To me, porn is a way to get the visual requirements needed for release. It's not like I flip through online porn albums looking for the woman I hope to marry. I think worrying about this is female self conciousness at it's most wide-spread. Some "porn" is even created to honor the female form. Playboy, for instance, is quite artistic if you stop being a prude.

If I'm not attracted to a woman because she's unattractive to me, it doesn't mean porn is to blame. It would be like a guy getting butt-hurt because women think Brad Pitt is handsome. If he gets upset about that, he's a giant pussy with some self image issues.

Sure, there are exceptions... like extreme addicts. But that's a small amount. Most guys, once they find an attractive and sexually compatible girl, greatly lose interest in porn.

The arguements towards celebrities and powerful people becoming more perverted are simply perception. With the technology today, it's simply easier to catch them in the act. This crap has been happening since the upper class has existed. When you give someone enough power, they start to think rules don't apply. Human nature, not porn, causes this.


----------



## undead (Nov 28, 2010)

lirulin said:


> A lot of the so-called "nice-guy" syndrome is heavily mysogynistic and in some of the nerd cultures I knew, was the flag-waving of the socially awkward. There are a lot of unhealthy attitudes and a lot of cultural reasons behind that, however.


What is this "nice-guy" syndrome?

The unhealthy attitudes that I observed is not only happening within nerd cultures. Although it's more prevalent in that because nerds are doing stuff and obsessing about stuff that most females (or people in general) don't really understand why. 

This, coupled with the effect that most nerds avoid the effort to dumb down their perceptions for the average people, creates the illusion of arrogancy and elitist attitude. When this happens, the gap between them is getting larger, and the nerds are confused but some of them refuse to solve this by blaming the "average people" for being so not understanding or stupid. 

Replace these nerds with religious zealots that avoid sexual expression, you'll get a similar result. 

The needs of average people are simple: community, food, shelter, clothing, and a bit of art and craftsmanship. Nerds are looking for more "intellectual" stimulation, more of anything that they could observe in real life. The community has to be elite, the friendship has to be special, and the missing element is sex, which is more stimulating in porn.

Unfortunately, what you refer as nerd is more like "digital" nerd. Not a generic term for someone who has above average interest on something.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Elwood92 said:


> That is indeed unhealthy. However, I had no idea this kind of behaviour was that prevalent among teenage boys. Sure, I know of boys who went too far at times and I'm sure all people do this at times. I never really noticed that this kind of constant sexualization was common behaviour for teenage boys. Actually, I always thought that teenage girls were more prone to sexualization during puberty and that teenage boys were too busy with themselves and each other to really care about women in that way. Perhaps it also has to do with group dynamics though, I find that boys of this age can get awfully simple-minded and brutish when they are in a group (even though they themselves might never have acted that way if they were all by themselves).


You sure read a lot into "some." :tongue:
It was prevalent where I was, and none of the girls I knew well were like you described.
I, however, made no argument of prevalence, but simply described a behaviour.



Elwood92 said:


> I guess that even I would fall into the above-mentioned category in your mind. However, besides what you think of people like me who are critical of feminism, I do want to know why you think this relates to 'unhealthy attitudes' and especially how this relates to sexual desensitization. What has being critical of the women's rights movement (as it currently operates) have to do with sexual desensitization and unhealthy sexual attitudes? Or do you think this has nothing to do with that, but did you simply put it in there as an example of what you consider 'unhealthy attitudes' in general? If so, why do you think it is unhealthy to be critical regarding women's rights issues?


Well, you compared feminism to Nazism, so yeah, I wonder about your ideas.

It's related the same attitudes - there is a common thread of misogyny and playing the victim. Although one can intelligently critique some aspects of the women's rights movement, there is a lot more misogyny than there is intelligent critique, generally speaking. It is mostly related at that level - unhealthy sexual attitudes re women and misogyny re their rights tend to coincide - that was my main point and it isn't the central one.

In terms of how it relates to unhealthy sexual attitudes - some cases are much more related than others, but I admit it is often less direct. I don't particularly want to go into this re porn as it is rarely, if ever, a direct connection, but I will give an example of where there is some relevance. For instance, the defensiveness regarding sexual assault charges. It is estimated that one in six men have unwanted/abusive sexual contact before they are sixteen (Source). Logically, in fighting for men's rights one might want to look to _that_ to defend men from such assaults and the nasty vicious shaming of male victims. Instead one "defends" men from rape charges by "sluts" who were "asking for it." Instead there there is slut-shaming, victim-blaming, and the sexualisation of victims of assault (always assumed to be female), men painted as weak in the face of women's sexuality, women painted as conniving bitches who will turn around and accuse innocent men in a heartbeat, and, most of all, 'teases' who are 'asking for it.' You cannot deny that the idea of 'punishing' a woman for being overtly sexual is a common porn theme, and the idea that 'she wanted it.' Gender roles that feminism is fighting play into falsely victimizing men while ignoring the real male victims - and the usual misogynistic crap that goes along with any issue related to female sexuality, of course, victimizes women. This is all tied together into cultural ideas of sex and sexuality - though, again, I am not claiming a causal link here - this would be an example of how unhealthy ideas of sexuality, ones that are expressed in porn, are also expressed in arguments against women's rights. I claim a connection but not a simple causal one either way. This has, of course, legal consequences - the right to a fair trial being denied, as here.

As I did not claim that this relates to every criticism of every women's rights movement, I shall not get into that.



Elwood92 said:


> I myself don't believe in the whole "nice guy" idea either. One of my friends tried to talk me into the whole idea and for a moment I really did consider it (perhaps I even believed it to some extend), but I eventually felt that it was just a way of manipulating the feelings of inadequacy and disappointment that a lot of men who have been single for a long time feel, much like I think Noami Wolf tried to do in her article (only then with men who feel guilt and disappointment within the context of a relationship). In both cases there's an emotional problem of the individual man that is being exploited through pseudo-scientific reasoning and in both cases the problem is explained as a problem in the behaviours and/or attitude of the individual man which needs to be "fixed". I think these are wicked things to attempt. To exploit other people's feelings of self-doubt is very immoral in my eyes and that's exactly what I think Naomi Wolf and these "nice guy" guys try to do (both for completely different reasons though).


I see your point as to nice guys, but not as to Wolf. She doesn't really set it up as an excuse for relationship problems but rather - this may be less of a free choice than one thinks, and needs a new way of looking at it to deal with it effectively. She is talking about people whose careers were threatened by their carelessness in pursuit of sex, not just your average joe who jacks off. To get to that point is more than normal porn use - she is talking about situations where seemingly_ irrational_ risks are taken, as far as I can see. As much as I think she leaves out another social paradigm shift in terms of differing ideas of privacy and a changing comfort level in terms of what one keeps public, and difficulty adjusting to new technologies that are so public, and so she does not, accordingly, give a full picture of the issue, I disagree that she is attempting to explain away guilt and disappointment by finger-pointing. The title is the most problematic part -- and as I understand it, it is the editors who normally choose those, and tend to make them more inflammatory than the content of the article, so atm I do not put that at her door. There is in no way the amount of victimization there as there is in the "nice guys" complex - indeed, it is a stretch to see any, from my perspective. It certainly isn't equivalent.



Elwood92 said:


> I agree with most of this, although I have to add that I don't think this is a male problem. There are also a lot of women out there who have absolutely no realistic expectations of men or romantic relationships whatsoever. I think that it's more like an across-the-board disconnection between reality and people's expectations than a problem of genders (although gender roles do factor into this as well). So, you are probably right in saying that it is a complex sociocultural problem.


I don't think I said it was, ever, simply a male problem. I do, however, think that women tend towards getting their unrealistic expectations from elsewhere more often - this is a generality. Just that porn likely plays a smaller role, proportionally. I think you responded before I edited the last part. I don't have a scientific article for that - not sure if it is been studied yet - but extrapolating from more obvious social tendencies, I consider it plausible.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

undead said:


> What is this "nice-guy" syndrome?
> 
> The unhealthy attitudes that I observed is not only happening within nerd cultures. Although it's more prevalent in that because nerds are doing stuff and obsessing about stuff that most females (or people in general) don't really understand why.


I mostly know nerds, so that is where I saw it.

Nice guy syndrome is summed up in this:









Basically, men who hang around with unexpressed expectations, then get bitter and angry about being 'friendzoned' and decide that women only like 'jerks' since obviously they are objectively able to assess their competition, not realising that the reason they are not wanted as a bf is because _they _are manipulative jerks themselves. Basically, those that explain away their romantic failures according to a mental problem of the other gender. This isn't to say that some women don't date jerks, as do some guys, it is more the ones who get bitter and angry and obnoxious about assuming the only reason they can't get laid is because they are _not_ a jerk.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

snail said:


> Regardless of whether pornography leads to sexual desensitization, or whether a man chooses it because he is already sexually insensitive, I believe the main issue here isn't being addressed. *When a man is in an exclusive relationship with a partner who disapproves of it, using pornography is a form of infidelity. If it causes him to consider his partner comparatively unworthy, he is disrespecting that partner by using it. If a man gets sexually aroused by a stranger's body without concerning himself with spiritual intimacy, then he is committing an act of objectification that leads him down the path of materialism. In any of these cases, it would be his fault if his relationship were destabilized by it.*
> 
> Yes, I am a radical feminist, and I will not apologize for it. I have no reason to be ashamed, because I don't hate men.
> 
> I hate the actions of some men (admittedly,* most* men) when they do things that are harmful to relationships, but when I am angry with them, *please understand that it is not for being men. It is for doing destructive things against women, such as using pornography to cheat on us, comparing us unfavorably to it, and treating us as though our value as sexual commodities were what defined us as human beings and determined our status. * I don't consider my negative judgment unreasonable against a man who commits any of these acts.


Thanks for getting it. I bolded the parts that I really agree strongly with. I will never understand how people try to draw the line between fidelity and infidelity at actual physical encounters. The cheating starts in the mind way before that. 

Another thing that I would like to point out, thats been overlooked a lot in this thread, is that one of the positions of the OP, is that men who masturbate to the 'porn body' type will have unreasonable standards for how a real woman should look. When hes made the association between that body for arousal, and the reward of orgasm, its that body type that he sees as the pinnacle of perfection - not real women of diverse body shapes. This is another way in which sexuality in general is affected by this issue. 

And the proof is in the pudding in our society. The conventional standard for whats attractive in our culture is by no means some universally accepted truth on what -is- the most attractive, its just the type thats found its way to the top because of certain conditions in our society. 

Status is what determines a lot of it. Throughout time, and culture, different types of bodies have been regarded as perfection, much different from those of our time and culture. Ex. a tan being unattractive because it means you are a poor field worker, a more zaftig body was once considered more attractive because it once represented health and access to resource.. etc.. which you can still see in some poorer cultures. In our culture, the rich can afford to look what just appears very surreal to me. They smooth away all of the interesting shapes of their bodies, to reveal a general skeletal form, then make sure theres lots of fake shit on it. 

So basically theres no reason to just nod and agree that the conventional standards for attractiveness are "correct" - so then why is it permissible for everyone to agree on it, and keep on conditioning themselves to believe it, when its detrimental to -real- romantic relationships. An average healthy woman shouldn't be considered sub-par by her lover who has been conditioned wrongly, to think that the 'midriff' archetype (the female who invests the time and energy into looking like the current standard) is in some way superior.


----------

