posted August 21, 2016 11:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Plut0nian2:
This is a huge subject though
I mean the whole thing, I just didn't want to quote it all. 
The rest that follows are my thoughts on it. (ED = Erectile Dysfunction)
First, I'm glad you pointed that out about how girls are raised on unhealthy junk as boys are. I really got worried that a 12-year-old was going to be imprinted by Twilight (and glad that such seems to have been averted), trash (based on the classic fairy tale models with a dose of Mormon morality, and too many romances and fairy tales make it unsurprising to me that many women will return to an abuser like 10x before leaving for good) that I think is as damaging to young girls as plenty of porn is to young boys (and then it's compounded as what one side wants isn't compatible with what the other side wants, and if I were prone to believing in conspiracy theories then I'd think this was intentional for various reasons). If it's treated as fantasy then that's fine, but when they IDENTIFY with the characters and build up this fantasy that they think they should have in real life, then it becomes a problem.
Naturally, books and porn aren't necessary for this to come about (nor are books and porn going to make certain that it will). There are all kinds of way to imprint. By imprint I mean how a person, usually very young, have their romantic and/or sexual desires implanted within them (it can be very mundane like looks or a uniform to strange and even bizarre fetishes that can be so strong that sex is almost impossible without the fetish). This is usually not done intentionally as many people aren't even aware of imprinting happening at all, and even those who study imprinting find it mysterious. Porn certainly isn't necessary to get a bizarre and self-destructive form of imprinting.
And everyone is going to feel criticized and judged...and to a point they're all correct, though not as much as they think they are. A woman can have 20 sex partners by age 20 or a virgin and there will be people who applaud or condemn them both. People tend to notice the criticism more, and those who approve may actually feel somehow jealous and thus not be as openly supportive of the said person. (On top of that, males and females have contradictory messages on what they're supposed to be like that could be summed up as, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't.") Sometimes it just takes one person (literally!) to criticize someone for that criticized person to think the entire world is coming down on him or her!
And the idea that marriage was about love is relatively new, and lovers or even sex toys could be had, even be expected, outside the marriage (sometimes for the women as well as the men, though as property a woman usually got less leeway than a man). And they sure weren't vanilla in the "good old days." Take a look at this menu for a brothel in 19th century London (and plenty of parents sold their prepubescent girls to them as virgins went for a high price, just as it was normal to send children to sweatshops and the like) which should start at 3:12 (explicit text, though from Victorian times) :
http://youtu.be/h1M_Hz4y4CM?t=3m12s
Men back then didn't go to the brothels looking for a wife (at least not most of them), nor did they stop going after getting married. (Btw, that vid also talked about wives pimped by husbands back then, too, though plenty of single women/mothers could find themselves in that position all too easily without a pimp.)
And there are some better changes. It used to be that a rapist who confessed could escape prosecution in Greece as long as the woman he confessed to raping was not married and he agreed to married her (even if she refused to marry him, he was still not prosecuted). It goes back to the days when women were property. People can mentally reject that concept, but at a gut level it's still there, shaping how they act, and how the laws are. It's why after medical doctors rejected religions nonsense about masturbation that they still considered it unhealthy (granted, it was a doctor who invented the vibrator, first as a medical tool, that was an instant hit, but that's another story).
That said...I'm not sure what to think of the porn thing.
On one hand, I'm not sure why they'd be complaining if they're getting all this "action" (and is it ED if you can't do it without porn, or is that more in the realm of paraphilia and fetishes ?) but find the real thing too alien and frustrating (if anything, I'd think OTHER people would be wanting to get them help), which raises my suspicions that some deceitful people are, once again, trying to manipulate rather than address an actual problem, though they probably did find some discontented souls to exploit (who in turn pulled in some friends of theirs). There's a long tradition of trying to scare "boys straight" by threatening their ability to have an erection if they did this drug or that. (Girls got hit with it, too, like when schools didn't want females in sports during the 1970s they lied about how they wouldn't be able to have babies later if they ran track and field and such. So I can't help but wondering if it's the same BS once again.)
Furthermore, plenty of psyche meds handed out like candy to kids and people in their 20s are also known to cause ED in of themselves. I bet paying for such meds (and perhaps not wanting to talk about them, worried about alcohol, etc) could get people glued to fantasy and the internet instead of paying to go to "da club."
I also find it suspicious that the links I checked out referenced themselves (that is, it looked circular to me rather than legite) and also begged the question. For example, how do they know that kids who have access to porn are having sex earlier? Contrary to popular belief, most kids are well aware of sex and curious, and it doesn't take beating them over the head with it to make it so (it's one reason chaperones and adult supervision have a long tradition).
Just how was this studied (and who did the study)? And if so, were the parents getting it for them or being overly permissive? Perhaps then their fathers who watched porn and let their sons do so felt they had permission (that is, it's not the porn but the parenting), and perhaps even pressured (not by porn but their father). Heck, I heard one outrageous account of a doctor showing a child Penthouse to show what it meant to be a woman!
I dare say that parents permissive with porn also raise the risk of sexual abuse, if not from family members (already obsessed with such things, especially if of the taboo kind) then from outside influences (as the parents don't care, and the kid may feel unloved who are the kind of kids most pedophiles look for) which in of itself has been known to cause sexual acting out. IOW, correlation does not imply causation .
It's not the only thing they claim that begs the question, but look how long I've gone on so far, and still more to go! So I'll look to wrap up and say the site smells heavily of BS to me. (I'm pretty sure I've heard of masturbation included with porn causing ED, and that I KNOW is BS, at least for most people, if anything masturbation makes sex happen easier as long as it's not compulsively done at every opportunity, in which case porn probably is involved, incidentally at least.)
I was going to do a few paragraphs of "on the other hand" but given that most of what I can think of is speculative and the length of this post already, I'll just say the one thing that might make it a real problem (in which internet porn is the direct agent) is that perhaps it causes some strange imprinting at a young age that becomes a problem later on (the imprinting would trap them to the porn later on and make normal sexual relations difficult, but if this is the case then they'll probably never fully overcome it). Since studying sex in a meaningful way is hard to get supported (it happens, but not anywhere as much as it should, and we can thank the same jerks who lie to get people off of anything sexual they don't like), there's still too much mystery about how sexual imprinting works, so it MIGHT be a factor here.
'Course when kids and young people are heavily encouraged (sometimes even mandated) to spend so much time in front of a computer (gotta keep up the social media which can take up a lot of time, but is important socially and even for jobs), then social skills are likely to suffer. Boys like to pretend they know more than they do, and if porn is their primary "educational" material then they could peer pressure each other into the fantasy of that (though I see that as a failure of the parents and schools who either refuse to educate, or worse, actively lie to manipulate and frighten rather than inform until they unsurprisingly lack credibility with the kids they lied to).
In any case, I expect the personal accounts there are true (there have always been problems, and just as the internet facilitates the spread of porn, it also facilitates finding people that were hard to find before, especially if they're given some anonymity to speak up). But as I haven't heard of wedding businesses (which seem to be booming to me) going out of business (not even the ones who get flagged for refusing to service gays), condoms are still selling, and I see men chatting up women all the time, I doubt it's some scourge to worry about (just as most pot smokers and alcohol drinkers don't wind up on the streets). Heck, look at the claims of this thread that claim virginity at 20 is a rare exception!
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
posted August 19, 2016 06:14 PM
posted August 19, 2016 06:21 PM
posted August 20, 2016 07:48 PM
Yes, because normal guys dont have sexual desires.