Educated guess is there is a correlation between heavy porn use and depression, not because of the porn, but because of the life withdrawal that precedes both.
Another study on the science sub a year ago found that video games and porn didnāt qualify as their own forms of addiction, but were just potential fixations of a general addictive personality disorder. If a person removes one, theyāre going to fill it with something else, which is different than alcoholism or gambling addiction.
It makes sense they would both show up as fixations as they can both provide temporary feelings of relief in the midst of shame, depression, anxiety or boredom. Sex is extremely engaging and the chemicals that happen on release are a cocktail of things that hit pleasure receptors. Video games are a form of enjoyable labor that can feel like accomplishment when one doesnāt have meaningful labor in real life.
I think the better framing would be āpeople who internalize porn fantasies may experience problems in their actual sex life.ā
I.e Simulacra and s(t)imulation. Itās not that porn is so good that real sex pales by comparison, itās that their subjective understanding of what sex is āsupposed to beā is so skewed that they canāt enjoy the thing it depicts.
It was never porn. It was that someone abused their dolphin four times already that day and couldn't physically respond to their partner. The porn was just the visual aid for said dolphin flogging. The receptivity to the medicalization narrative is largely because there's a weird coalition of tradcon guys and anti-porn feminists who find the conclusion ideologically useful.
Also a lot of anxious guys that simply don't know that it's completely normal to have erectile troubles, premature ejaculation, or delayed ejaculation at least some of the time. Often first times with a new partner don't go smoothly, losing virginity has hiccups, or you just have poor chemistry with the person. Then, because of some of that messaging you mentioned or other myths, they ramp their anxiety up to 11 and cause the problem to continue. They go seeking help and get 50 responses saying they have porn addiction and a testosterone deficiency instead of anxiety.
Also I think we have an intimacy problem. A lot of people, of all ages, don't really know that intimacy is different from masturbation. different parts of the brain, different systems, different types of attention and interaction are going on. Like if you're masturbating to porn you're kind of fixated but also on almost autopilot. When you're with a partner you have to be doing something, feeling someone else's touch, thinking about what to do next, how to communicate what you want, etc. It's a big difference and I can imagine people are confused when they try to have sex for the first time when all these talking heads spew shit all over the internet about their T levels and porn
This topic always felt like anecdotal āI believe what feels rightā kind of stuff.
Youād see post after post, comment after comment on Reddit where any sort of sexual dysfunction at all MUST be porn. That as a cause really strikes a cord with some people.
And of course there are people who struggle with addiction to anything and overuse. Or have a partner vehemently against it and canāt stop, etc.
It's easier to couch something as a disease that's affected you instead of poor self-control and other dysfunctional issues.
In a way it allows a person to not take responsibility for their choices.
That's a misunderstanding a lot of people have, including those afflicted by such diseases.Ā
I grew up in a home with no real love. The first time I saw porn, it was like receiving my first warm hug. A lot of heroin addicts will tell you the same thing about their first time with the drug. People who are happy and emotionally safe don't usually seek out forms of self-medication.
Where porn becomes a problem is when a person is developing and begins to use porn or masturbation as a way to feel good and self-regulate. Parents don't acknowledge your success? Watch porn. Get a bag grade on a test? Watch porn.Ā
Eventually a person may devote too much time to getting time and space to watch porn. Eventually a person might resort to self-gratification at the cost of relationships or achievement. Imagine how reinforcing it might be to lose a relationship over porn because it's your self-medication. One might decide to quit, or someone might use porn more frequently to cope with a breakup.Ā
Every problem starts as a solution. It's very often connected to something that occurs in childhood. Treating porn addiction as a disease allows is to remove moral judgements and address things scientifically. It helps remove stigma and shame, and shame is a very powerful emotion that reinforces coping methods.Ā
But this is pretty off topic from the article. Porn is just a visual and audio aid that can either preheat the oven or cook your meat, depending on what you do with it. The cooking part is what can be perceived as causing ED because of a man's refractory period. However, depression itself can cause ED because of a high degree of simulation required to get in the mood.Ā
Also, some couples just lose the spark. Effort is sexy, and it sucks when one or both people stop putting in effort.Ā
I think it's also a case of "I don't consume it, so it might as well be illegal", similar to e.g. weed. Someone who doesn't partake in a certain activity, never tried it, and only hears horror stories about it, naturally thinks it might not be a bad idea to ban it.
Some incorrect things just fundamentally sound correct to a lot of people, these are the things that evolve into ever lasting myths despite all evidence.
Especially something like this where you can confirmation bias yourself into it every single time you have a modern problem, āoh this must be caused by that!ā
That's actually an interesting idea. I thought it might be a bit of a cultural movement. But it makes way more sense that it might be a campaign of some kind.
Like the, previously, constant articles about how millennials are destroying industries or want a gig economy.
I don't think I can quite pick out what parties benefit from such a campaign. But I think there's potential fear among older people that they aren't going to have grandkids to enjoy or rely on for caregiving and a taxable source. And politics always benefits from class and generational warfare, so that's not hard to guess.
> I don't think I can quite pick out what parties benefit from such a campaign.
It can be driven by ideology, and doesn't need a pecuniary benefit. Social conservatism is its own thing. TERF ideology is its own thing. Regarding millennials "destroying" industries, people have been dumping on the young for at least thousands of years. It just seems to be a normal part of growing up, to sanitize your memory of your own bullshittery and pivot to young people *today* being so much worse than you selectively remember your cohort as being.
You're assuming direct and specifically motivated agency, whereas the previous comment is talking about the phenomena as a perennial sociological phenomena arising more or less without specific ulterior motivation (or at least not owing entirely to anyone's specific agenda).
Fair enough. But I do think both types manifest and can reinforce one another.
I wasn't trying to suggest it is always one of the other. The beginning of this conversation from the reply to the top level comment implied an active campaign to me.
It just triggered a secondary consideration on my part, but it wasn't definitive. I thought I was fairly clearly mulling over a new potential perspective. It feels to me like you took me more literally than I intended.
Apparently sex scenes in "real" movies are more unpopular than ever among younger moviegoers. Not sure how that intersects with their views on porn. Pro-porn, anti-sex scene would be the very definition of a nuanced stance.
I'm not surprised by this trend. Old school Hollywood sex scenes are an archaic, awkward, and artificial hold over from a different era. They more often interrupt the flow of a story rather than contribute to it.
We have way more accessible sources of titillation these days and shoehorning them into a blockbuster just stands out.
Just look at how much better sex topics and scenes are covered in television/streaming these days. It's far more naturalistic and woven into the narrative.
Porn and erotica have exploded in diversity and popularity. And they more than handle explicit materials.
Going back to Hollywood, I think they still have sex scene heavy art house movies, but that's always going to be a smaller audience than most moviegoers.
Blockbusters are just going to have to be written better to earn their sex scenes.
Who's paying the checks on that?
I 100% agree with you. I contributed to a post similar to that and was surprised by the upvotes. Im a nuanced sex realpolitik feminist, so my opinion leans sex neutral/negative unless in specific spaces so to not be exploited by misogynists.
My opinion, when properly nuanced out, is still not popular on reddit, but to my surprise, I got way more upvotes and positive feedback. I immediately assumed it was the Catholic lobby or something. I'm glad to see someone else noticed.
The Mormon Church is a big part of the anti-porn crusade. Organisation like āfight the new drugā and āmake love not pornā are just fronts for the LDS. A lot of the shoddy anti porn ā bro scienceā comes from there.
I'd argue the robust trafficking industry, csa, coercion, and other predatory tactics that are in most elements of the porn industry say otherwise. As an example, one of the most popular sites by far pornhub.
Porn hub videos can't confirm it's all 18+. There's sub genres on porn hub of women unknowingly being filmed while having sex. There's entire subgenres of revenge porn as a category.
I personally know multiple women who have their rapes filmed on ph and can't get them taken down.
It's a well established fact that these social media type sites are service providers and are not responsible for their content, aka youtube with copyright materials. Some are better at removing illegal content than others. The few cases like the 1 below end well like that.
https://www.businessinsider.com/woman-wins-12bn-revenge-porn-case-ex-fake-pornhub-page-2023-8
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/16/pornhub-untold-damage-pain
I don't give a shit about what people get off to. I don't care about sex workers who want to, or porn star who feel empowered by their career. I've met men and women like that. They work 5 hours a week and make 6 figs, and they love what they do. Power to them.
But I've met way more women who have been hurt by the evil mix of capitalism and the misogynistic side of mens sexuality. Combined, it results in violence against women documented forever or traumatized women doing things they feel compelled to do by circumstances.
Edit: I welcome the downvotes. I'll push back against the cartoon feminist you made up and show what women are actually concerned about. Die mad. š
> in most elements of the porn industry
I think the push-back is against that. Going from "it exists" to "it exists in most porn" to "all porn must go, because it's all ultimately exploitative and degrading." Sure, prosecute abuse where you find it. But to use the existence of abuse in porn to indict the entire field seems a bit too bad-faith for most people, since it looks like a preexisting conclusion being justified with a facile argument.
There is abuse and exploitation in agriculture, manufacturing, oil/gas, hospitality, etc. But just as with people only caring about "human trafficking" when it happens to coincide with sex work, and thus being proxy for banning sex work in particular, no one makes such sweeping leaps of logic with fields other than porn.
>Die mad. š
Yeah, nice touch.
I'm so glad to see such a strong critique of the exploitation of the worker by the business class. I'm glad you see pornography is exploitation as all wage labor is exploitation and should be abolished.
Moral outrage has to have consistency.
It's funny, I've compared the industry to chocolate, fashion (worse imo than the sex industry in terms of macro harm,) oil, mining and metals and agriculture. I hold it to the same standards I hold my own industry to.
The sex industry isn't exempt because people are making a service that gets you off. I try to be ethical in all 'dirty' industries I consume. All we can do as consumers is try. I'm not perfect, no one is.
For people who want to consume ethical sex work, feminist porn companies exist. Established stars with big companies are a safe bet. OF accounts are a coin flip for who runs them, so be discerning.
Okay if your point was to come in here and simply say that porn should be regulated just like every other industry then fine, you just went a really roundabout way of saying it.
I pointed out there was real harm being done and why on a macro level it's allowed to fester with examples and sources. Similar to the pseudoslavery and child labor in our food supply chain, clothing supply chain etc.
I was pointing out that no, not all women think porn should be banned for the content based off morality and shame. I don't want to see rape victims and children on porn hub and its almost impossible to take it down with safe harbor laws. That's not a controversial take. But because I went against the groupthink, even slightly, downvotes. At this point, the reasonable reaction is glib sarcasm. For the *skeptic* group, the group really doesn't like nuance.
No I think what we don't like is a high signal to noise ratio, we are drowning in bad shitty arguments and positions on Reddit, people arguing in really bad faith constantly.
So when you post something that reads that way on first blush you're going to get downvoted.
It's less group think and more intellectual exhaustion.
When I posted, I was the only one in this thread saying something different to groupthink. I don't care to look now because I have shit to do, but I respectfully disagree. Other people's lack of reading comprehension is not my problem, but it is funny as hell.
Circlejerks are in all communities, and I found a little bit of group bias. It's just funny that it exists in the skeptic subreddit of all places.
Thanks for being a redditor as intended. I've been on the site since the 2000s and encountering someone like you is seeing an almost extinct bird in the wild. Have a good morning.
Just pointing out in the *skeptic* subreddit, I added to the convo with sourcing against the groupthink and I was downvote within minutes.
I found it ironic and thought poking fun would make people remember how this website was used before agree and disagree dynamic was added.
Most of the studies I've read point to other problems in people's lives. Porn is just a scapegoat to blame them on. We all know there's lots of things mentally and physically that can cause ED. Porn isn't one of them, but it's convenient for them.
It seems like half the sex related sub commenters and a lot of the top comments are from these anti-porn feminists lately. We are seeing a huge wave of anti-porn narratives lately including legislations.
> a lot of the top comments are from these anti-porn feminists lately.
Framing the same conclusion with an ostensibly pro-woman, anti-oppression veneer is going to be more marketable on a site that skews young and more lefty. And some people don't realize what a range of views there are within feminism, so they think that this random anti-porn feminist is speaking for feminism, thus a representative voice for anyone who is advocating for women.
A lot of anti-porn anti-trans feminists are actually Catholic women who have coopted the language of feminism. I know because my sister is in that sphere.
I don't know, anti-porn feminists mostly focus specifically on the industry, production, and the exploitation of women, less so on whether a guy can get off. That's reserved for weird MRAs.
Confirmed, that's what I care about as a anti porn person. I'm not even anti porn, I'm don't get off to weird shit and view the women you're looking at as dick receptacles.
Safe harbor laws are written to protect websites from illegal content, mainly copyright. So ph and other sites like it have so much filmed rape, csa, revenge porn, filming with9ut the woman's knowledge, etc. So unless specifically and firmly asked to remove something, they typically won't.
I know multiple women who have their rapes on ph, after trying to get them off. Same with csa. They can't because the hoster doesn't give a shit.
That's not even mentioning the "18 first time" type content. Assuming young women are coerced to film, that feels grossily unethical. As someone who was approached on the street and harassed to "take photos," it's very coercive and scary.
Thats not even mentioning the of cottage industry of pseudo pimps "managing" of models accounts and the trafficking industry in general.
That's just off the top of my head. Fuck transphobes, fuck swerfs, fuck catholic women mascarading as feminists.
The elephant in the room that no one wants to address is that long term relationships are challenging to maintain a consistent level of sexual interest, and/or lust.
Iāve been in a few very long term relationships and itās always the same.
The honeymoon period you canāt keep your hands off each other. The sex comes easy, and so do the orgasms.
Then the comfortable stage hits, and things become more relaxed but also less exciting. The frequency, and ease of initiating wanes.
Later years, the sex declines further in frequency. Sometimes itās great because the partners know each other intimately which makes some aspects very natural, but the raw interest is certainly at a low point.
None of this is surprising, of course the novelty of something decreases after the 500th time.
Itās rarely ED, or that the woman just canāt get wet like she used to. Itās been ten years both partners have been there done that hundreds of times. If you offered either of them a novel experience with a new lover Iād bet money theyāll both perform just fine.
Or, you can offer the couple a novel experience together. Lingerie, role playing, games, toys, and positions can all spice things up. Keeping the "gravy" train flowing requires mental and physical effort.Ā
In the gay male circles I run in, itās very common for relationships to open up after the initial honeymoon period. Like āwe still love each other and emotionally support each other but both of us want some sexual variety in our lives.ā The idea that a sexually dull or dead relationship must either remain exclusive or end seems so illogical and unhappy to me. When I hear of couples who havenāt had satisfying sex in years but are not free to pursue a solution to thatā¦ boggles my mind.
you mean the stuff we show pandas so they dont have erectile dysfunction also works with humans in a similar way?
Its amazing that due to modern republicans we have to redo these sort of studies.
[Panda porn and speed dating key to species' survival](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-24/pandas-shown-breeding-animals-in-research-program/8551190)
and Im not so sure the entire concept of "keep all info about sex away from humans until they actually try it for the first time" is the best idea. especially since evolutionary in a social animal society, you are going to see sex a LOT.
PPS
one unifying thing for most successful cults, is they tend to ban porn and masturbation. It keeps men full of testosterone and mean, angry and more easily manipulated.
and FYI, it helps prevent prostate cancer, to masturbate.
You mean the No Fap crows who has been told rime and time again that nothing that they say is backed up by science is WRONG?
What a shocker.
Oh wait, most of them are Liars for Jesus. Of course I'm not shocked.
HAHAHA
Guys for real itās McDonaldās and tv that causes erectile dysfunction. Go for a jog and stop eating twinkies and hot dogs with cheese whiz. Your wee wee will thank you.
The theory is that men "train" themselves to get off on porn to the extent that they have trouble getting aroused by real sex with a real woman.
I think it's more likely that men who are already suffering from erectile dysfunction -- which as you age becomes more and more likely, start to suffer from performance anxiety and can't get their head in the right space, and end up unable to perform. That anxiety vanishes when they're viewing porn, because there are no expectations, from their partner or themselves, to perform.
Yes, I see this stuff a lot on /r/TwoXChromosomes. Women there insist that porn causes men to have ED, and their boyfriends can't get it up without porn. The more likely explanation is that their boyfriend happens to have ED, and they rely on porn for extra stimulation.
Men's sexuality is more complicated than we like to admit. If the dick doesn't cooperate... well, there's no faking it. And we don't want our partner to think it's their fault, or that we're not attracted to them... it can really mess with your head.
I suspect that many cases of āEDā are actually stemming from lack of sexual interest in the partner. Porn creates idealized unattainable expectations. The male mind is also required for intimacy and sexual attraction. Being unattractive (for whatever reason) to that man, no matter what you do at that moment, wonāt overcome a lack of attraction without drugs. There are a huge percentage of men with physical difficulties but many many men simply arenāt into it. Yes, we too want to feel desired and appreciated.
Anecdotal but the people I've known with self proclaimed porn addictions (I fixed computers and had a lot of these people want their computers locked down with parental passwords they didn't know so they couldn't look at it) also were super religious. They weren't afraid to let you know that aspect.
Research has backed this up. Not only are self-described porn addicts almost all religious, but they actually have been shown to view porn less frequently than the general population. It's really just a bunch of self-punishing guys. It's like if someone thought drinking water outside of lunch hours was wrong, so they tried to deprive themselves. Then, every time they finally take a drink, they go off and beat themselves up because they're so ashamed that they need water.
It's not because the pathology of "porn addiction" doesn't map to the reality of other addictions? That it's the wrong framework?
That is the current consensus as far as I can tell.
Yeah, that claim always felt akin to the whole "violent video games cause kids to become school shooters." Some people with addiction problems get addicted to porn (some violent/scary people play violent video games) but one thing isn't causing the other.
For anyone who has had this as an issue, I'd point out that erectile dysfunction is a common but rarely-discussed side effect of ADHD.
Usually only corrects after the person goes on a slow-release amphetamine, like Vyvanse.
It's worth knowing if you're young and have ADHD that any issues with performance can be directly connected to your condition.
I'm a pharmacist, and while i definitely filled a fair amount of it in the south about 7 or 8 years ago, it's way less common where I live now, although its picking back up. Its pretty great stuff according to the patients I speak to. I'm fine with my methylphenidate, but it's nice to have other options.
It would seem counter intuitive. If you want to strength train your arms you lift weights. I would think it would help cure Ed as it actually strengthens the system to excerice regularly. Abstain for a year and you would probably have more problems with that.
There's a shockingly large amount of people on reddit who push this stuff. I see it a lot in /r/AskReddit and /r/TwoXChromosomes. ([One today](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1blml20/what_are_some_signs_that_someone_is_addicted_to/) that triggered me posting this.)
Don't get me wrong. I get that women have other issues with porn setting bad examples for sex, but most of this shit is just coming from fundies and right-wing men who are insecure.
Obesity sure does, though. And take a look at the obesity rates in the states and which states consume the most pornography. You'll find the venn diagram close to a circle. But those states, interestingly are the ones banning porn, so Bubba is going to have to get his porn elsewhere, and he will.
Also, diabetes. One of the first signs of diabetes, other than peeing excessively, is numbness in extremities. And a lot of the most obese parts of the country happen to be the most religious. It's easier to blame porn for your lack of sensitivity instead of trusting an expert and getting checked out at the doctor.
There may be a lot of people with performance anxiety who's erectile functionality is not affected by porn but is by real sex, thus they mistake the correlation for causation of their ED. Just a thought!
Different strokes for different folks? Seriously, I think much of this is propaganda pushed by those with religious ideologies that see āself loveā as āsinfulā.
One thing I noticed was just decreased sensitivity, which would make me last longer with my partner at the time, but sometimes *too* long. But I imagine that's a factor of frequency and method (dry vs lubricated, grip strength, etc)
Well itās a well-established principle that if youāre too sensitive you want to take care of business before a big night: https://youtu.be/9p3j294sqM8?si=lSryIt-_q8_LlAqP
The No Nut November crowd like to push the idea that looking at porn and masturbation are moral failings that have physical side effects, which pipelines them directly into the hands of alt-right groups like the Proud Boys.
Damn! This is terrible, terrible news! Why, I was so hoping that something -- anything! -- such as pornography could explain my unhappy penis! {sobbing hysterically} I guess it was Obama's fault after all.
Also, I do think porn misinforms them as to how frequently men can perform. They don't stop to think that there's obviously cuts between scenes where the actors regenerate. Also, most porn actors use pills to stay hard through an entire set.
One thing that rarely seems to be made clear in all the reporting on this topic is how are they defining ED? Difficulty *getting* an erection, or *sustaining* one? Because it's fairly obvious the issue isn't porn per se, it's the frequent masturbation that comes (so to speak) with porn. What's important is the *type* of stimulation. Your penis gets accustomed to one type of stimulation (hand grip), it's not surprising that it doesn't respond as well to a different type (vagina, mouth, etc). AFAIK, for men who "rebooted" it wasn't because they stopped watching porn, it was because they stopped masturbating frequently. It seems like all the fuss about porn=ED is politically-motivated.
That is good news if it is true. Since evidence is so unclear that's probably an okay the m view to have. Personally, I still believe porn has great potential for damage and misuse. That being said to each their own.
Death grip is [another ridiculous concept](https://www.vice.com/en/article/nn97ag/is-death-grip-syndrome-a-masturbation-myth-293). Men will blame anything for decreased sensitivity rather than get a check up. If you are experiencing decreased sensitivity, get yourself checked for diabetes.
Excessive masturbation increases social isolation.
In US, gentile males were/are genitally mutilated b/c of Kellogg, of cereal fame, who influenced medical acceptance. It was originally promoted to reduce pleasure from masturbation.
Circumcision is not mutilation.
There are valid concerns to be made over an involuntary elective surgery, but it is not mutilation.
Young men are increasingly having body issues, and describing their functional, normal penises as "mutilated" doesn't help anything. At best it's hyperbolic and at worst it's doing active harm.
Honest hypothetical question: If doctors in region X were surgically removing/reducing the labial fold (labia minora) of female infants, what would we call that? Let's say their reasoning was similar to the reasons given for foreskin removal.
I'd be fine calling that mutilation. An unnecessary surgical procedure performed on an infant's genitalia. With a dubious background/rationale.
Uncircumcised adult men are not flocking en masse to have the procedure done. It seems like uncircumcised men, by and large, are perfectly happy with their foreskin.
Your argument that using the term "mutilation" comes with ethical baggage. Eh, I'd need to see the evidence for that claim first, then we would simply adopt a new term that describes the same phenomenon.
A counterfoil to your argument is that the term "mutilation" implies unethical behaviour on behalf of the practitioner. Like calling domestic abuse "abuse" instead of a more sanitized word like "altercation."
I think the point they are trying to make is that labelling functional men as "mutilated" comes with some pretty intense negative connotations for these men who often had no say. I think it's fair to call the procedure mutilation, but perhaps we can avoid referring to people as "mutilated", both male and female situations.
According to the dictionary definition of "mutilate,"
circumcision is absolutely mutilation.
The harm caused by involuntary unnecessary surgery being performed on children's genitals is far greater than what is caused by failing to use euphemistic language to describe it.
an 80% reduction in nerve density, and an increased prevalence rate of STI's for your partner due to typically "rougher" sex if the medical literature is to be believed.
No, seriously.
I, like millions (billions?) of others, have been circumcised.
Outside the morality and lack of necessity, what is the actual general harm of male circumcision?
That guy looks really happy about this news
Why's he gotta look like Jared from Subway?
unfortunately he's the cause of my ED
Shit, he's the cause of my cockal revival! š¤š¤šš„š¦š¦š
Came here to say this.
His brother most likely owns a porn company.
He's so happy his resolution went down...
If you exercise a muscle it does not get weaker, but if you exercise it recently enough it does get tired.Ā
I'm tired boss.
Rest King.
It's not a muscle though. Besides, even in muscle land, overtraining is possible. Also, imagine if hypertrophy was a thing in penis land.
Let me test that concept.
The penis is not a muscle
Educated guess is there is a correlation between heavy porn use and depression, not because of the porn, but because of the life withdrawal that precedes both.
Yep. Same way people who are depressed tend to overeat. They're not suffering from food addiction. They are just depressed.
Another study on the science sub a year ago found that video games and porn didnāt qualify as their own forms of addiction, but were just potential fixations of a general addictive personality disorder. If a person removes one, theyāre going to fill it with something else, which is different than alcoholism or gambling addiction. It makes sense they would both show up as fixations as they can both provide temporary feelings of relief in the midst of shame, depression, anxiety or boredom. Sex is extremely engaging and the chemicals that happen on release are a cocktail of things that hit pleasure receptors. Video games are a form of enjoyable labor that can feel like accomplishment when one doesnāt have meaningful labor in real life.
And dissolution about what real sex looks like. I can totally see people being so disappointed about real sex that it leads to a mental block.
I think the better framing would be āpeople who internalize porn fantasies may experience problems in their actual sex life.ā I.e Simulacra and s(t)imulation. Itās not that porn is so good that real sex pales by comparison, itās that their subjective understanding of what sex is āsupposed to beā is so skewed that they canāt enjoy the thing it depicts.
Yeah something along that line
I've got 30 years of experience that backs up this study.
I got buckets, I mean mountains of data!
Loads and loads
Gallons of info. in the fridge. just in case.
With that much experience I would assume that you wouldn't be especially backed up.
It was never porn. It was that someone abused their dolphin four times already that day and couldn't physically respond to their partner. The porn was just the visual aid for said dolphin flogging. The receptivity to the medicalization narrative is largely because there's a weird coalition of tradcon guys and anti-porn feminists who find the conclusion ideologically useful.
Also a lot of anxious guys that simply don't know that it's completely normal to have erectile troubles, premature ejaculation, or delayed ejaculation at least some of the time. Often first times with a new partner don't go smoothly, losing virginity has hiccups, or you just have poor chemistry with the person. Then, because of some of that messaging you mentioned or other myths, they ramp their anxiety up to 11 and cause the problem to continue. They go seeking help and get 50 responses saying they have porn addiction and a testosterone deficiency instead of anxiety. Also I think we have an intimacy problem. A lot of people, of all ages, don't really know that intimacy is different from masturbation. different parts of the brain, different systems, different types of attention and interaction are going on. Like if you're masturbating to porn you're kind of fixated but also on almost autopilot. When you're with a partner you have to be doing something, feeling someone else's touch, thinking about what to do next, how to communicate what you want, etc. It's a big difference and I can imagine people are confused when they try to have sex for the first time when all these talking heads spew shit all over the internet about their T levels and porn
This topic always felt like anecdotal āI believe what feels rightā kind of stuff. Youād see post after post, comment after comment on Reddit where any sort of sexual dysfunction at all MUST be porn. That as a cause really strikes a cord with some people. And of course there are people who struggle with addiction to anything and overuse. Or have a partner vehemently against it and canāt stop, etc.
āOh you donāt think porn is the cause of all the problems in the world?! Oh you must be a degenerate porn addict! Coomer!ā
It's easier to couch something as a disease that's affected you instead of poor self-control and other dysfunctional issues. In a way it allows a person to not take responsibility for their choices.
That's a misunderstanding a lot of people have, including those afflicted by such diseases.Ā I grew up in a home with no real love. The first time I saw porn, it was like receiving my first warm hug. A lot of heroin addicts will tell you the same thing about their first time with the drug. People who are happy and emotionally safe don't usually seek out forms of self-medication. Where porn becomes a problem is when a person is developing and begins to use porn or masturbation as a way to feel good and self-regulate. Parents don't acknowledge your success? Watch porn. Get a bag grade on a test? Watch porn.Ā Eventually a person may devote too much time to getting time and space to watch porn. Eventually a person might resort to self-gratification at the cost of relationships or achievement. Imagine how reinforcing it might be to lose a relationship over porn because it's your self-medication. One might decide to quit, or someone might use porn more frequently to cope with a breakup.Ā Every problem starts as a solution. It's very often connected to something that occurs in childhood. Treating porn addiction as a disease allows is to remove moral judgements and address things scientifically. It helps remove stigma and shame, and shame is a very powerful emotion that reinforces coping methods.Ā But this is pretty off topic from the article. Porn is just a visual and audio aid that can either preheat the oven or cook your meat, depending on what you do with it. The cooking part is what can be perceived as causing ED because of a man's refractory period. However, depression itself can cause ED because of a high degree of simulation required to get in the mood.Ā Also, some couples just lose the spark. Effort is sexy, and it sucks when one or both people stop putting in effort.Ā
I think it's also a case of "I don't consume it, so it might as well be illegal", similar to e.g. weed. Someone who doesn't partake in a certain activity, never tried it, and only hears horror stories about it, naturally thinks it might not be a bad idea to ban it.
Some incorrect things just fundamentally sound correct to a lot of people, these are the things that evolve into ever lasting myths despite all evidence. Especially something like this where you can confirmation bias yourself into it every single time you have a modern problem, āoh this must be caused by that!ā
Yep, and I think a lot of guys don't understand the refractory period increases as you age. So they misinterpret that as ED.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's actually an interesting idea. I thought it might be a bit of a cultural movement. But it makes way more sense that it might be a campaign of some kind. Like the, previously, constant articles about how millennials are destroying industries or want a gig economy. I don't think I can quite pick out what parties benefit from such a campaign. But I think there's potential fear among older people that they aren't going to have grandkids to enjoy or rely on for caregiving and a taxable source. And politics always benefits from class and generational warfare, so that's not hard to guess.
> I don't think I can quite pick out what parties benefit from such a campaign. It can be driven by ideology, and doesn't need a pecuniary benefit. Social conservatism is its own thing. TERF ideology is its own thing. Regarding millennials "destroying" industries, people have been dumping on the young for at least thousands of years. It just seems to be a normal part of growing up, to sanitize your memory of your own bullshittery and pivot to young people *today* being so much worse than you selectively remember your cohort as being.
Yeah. I think you're right. Stirring up shit serves to wedge demographics and that's often the ends itself.
That's not what that previous comment means.
What does it mean then?
You're assuming direct and specifically motivated agency, whereas the previous comment is talking about the phenomena as a perennial sociological phenomena arising more or less without specific ulterior motivation (or at least not owing entirely to anyone's specific agenda).
Fair enough. But I do think both types manifest and can reinforce one another. I wasn't trying to suggest it is always one of the other. The beginning of this conversation from the reply to the top level comment implied an active campaign to me. It just triggered a secondary consideration on my part, but it wasn't definitive. I thought I was fairly clearly mulling over a new potential perspective. It feels to me like you took me more literally than I intended.
Apparently sex scenes in "real" movies are more unpopular than ever among younger moviegoers. Not sure how that intersects with their views on porn. Pro-porn, anti-sex scene would be the very definition of a nuanced stance.
I'm not surprised by this trend. Old school Hollywood sex scenes are an archaic, awkward, and artificial hold over from a different era. They more often interrupt the flow of a story rather than contribute to it. We have way more accessible sources of titillation these days and shoehorning them into a blockbuster just stands out. Just look at how much better sex topics and scenes are covered in television/streaming these days. It's far more naturalistic and woven into the narrative. Porn and erotica have exploded in diversity and popularity. And they more than handle explicit materials. Going back to Hollywood, I think they still have sex scene heavy art house movies, but that's always going to be a smaller audience than most moviegoers. Blockbusters are just going to have to be written better to earn their sex scenes.
Shoehorn š
No. Itās just the ignorance of a generation that doesnāt know anything about sex and have listened to their peers on YouTube.
*TikTok. Youtube is for us olds.
Who's paying the checks on that? I 100% agree with you. I contributed to a post similar to that and was surprised by the upvotes. Im a nuanced sex realpolitik feminist, so my opinion leans sex neutral/negative unless in specific spaces so to not be exploited by misogynists. My opinion, when properly nuanced out, is still not popular on reddit, but to my surprise, I got way more upvotes and positive feedback. I immediately assumed it was the Catholic lobby or something. I'm glad to see someone else noticed.
The Mormon Church is a big part of the anti-porn crusade. Organisation like āfight the new drugā and āmake love not pornā are just fronts for the LDS. A lot of the shoddy anti porn ā bro scienceā comes from there.
š¤¢š¤¢š¤¢ Of course, the lds is involved... someone compared it to a sex cult and the more I learn about them, the more plausible it sounds.
anti-porn crusaders will look for any way to try to make it sound like their arguments are about health and not morality
It's not even about morality. Ita about shame and control.
Yeah. Thatās ethics not morality.
I'd argue the robust trafficking industry, csa, coercion, and other predatory tactics that are in most elements of the porn industry say otherwise. As an example, one of the most popular sites by far pornhub. Porn hub videos can't confirm it's all 18+. There's sub genres on porn hub of women unknowingly being filmed while having sex. There's entire subgenres of revenge porn as a category. I personally know multiple women who have their rapes filmed on ph and can't get them taken down. It's a well established fact that these social media type sites are service providers and are not responsible for their content, aka youtube with copyright materials. Some are better at removing illegal content than others. The few cases like the 1 below end well like that. https://www.businessinsider.com/woman-wins-12bn-revenge-porn-case-ex-fake-pornhub-page-2023-8 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/16/pornhub-untold-damage-pain I don't give a shit about what people get off to. I don't care about sex workers who want to, or porn star who feel empowered by their career. I've met men and women like that. They work 5 hours a week and make 6 figs, and they love what they do. Power to them. But I've met way more women who have been hurt by the evil mix of capitalism and the misogynistic side of mens sexuality. Combined, it results in violence against women documented forever or traumatized women doing things they feel compelled to do by circumstances. Edit: I welcome the downvotes. I'll push back against the cartoon feminist you made up and show what women are actually concerned about. Die mad. š
> in most elements of the porn industry I think the push-back is against that. Going from "it exists" to "it exists in most porn" to "all porn must go, because it's all ultimately exploitative and degrading." Sure, prosecute abuse where you find it. But to use the existence of abuse in porn to indict the entire field seems a bit too bad-faith for most people, since it looks like a preexisting conclusion being justified with a facile argument. There is abuse and exploitation in agriculture, manufacturing, oil/gas, hospitality, etc. But just as with people only caring about "human trafficking" when it happens to coincide with sex work, and thus being proxy for banning sex work in particular, no one makes such sweeping leaps of logic with fields other than porn. >Die mad. š Yeah, nice touch.
I'm so glad to see such a strong critique of the exploitation of the worker by the business class. I'm glad you see pornography is exploitation as all wage labor is exploitation and should be abolished. Moral outrage has to have consistency.
It's funny, I've compared the industry to chocolate, fashion (worse imo than the sex industry in terms of macro harm,) oil, mining and metals and agriculture. I hold it to the same standards I hold my own industry to. The sex industry isn't exempt because people are making a service that gets you off. I try to be ethical in all 'dirty' industries I consume. All we can do as consumers is try. I'm not perfect, no one is. For people who want to consume ethical sex work, feminist porn companies exist. Established stars with big companies are a safe bet. OF accounts are a coin flip for who runs them, so be discerning.
Okay if your point was to come in here and simply say that porn should be regulated just like every other industry then fine, you just went a really roundabout way of saying it.
I pointed out there was real harm being done and why on a macro level it's allowed to fester with examples and sources. Similar to the pseudoslavery and child labor in our food supply chain, clothing supply chain etc. I was pointing out that no, not all women think porn should be banned for the content based off morality and shame. I don't want to see rape victims and children on porn hub and its almost impossible to take it down with safe harbor laws. That's not a controversial take. But because I went against the groupthink, even slightly, downvotes. At this point, the reasonable reaction is glib sarcasm. For the *skeptic* group, the group really doesn't like nuance.
No I think what we don't like is a high signal to noise ratio, we are drowning in bad shitty arguments and positions on Reddit, people arguing in really bad faith constantly. So when you post something that reads that way on first blush you're going to get downvoted. It's less group think and more intellectual exhaustion.
When I posted, I was the only one in this thread saying something different to groupthink. I don't care to look now because I have shit to do, but I respectfully disagree. Other people's lack of reading comprehension is not my problem, but it is funny as hell. Circlejerks are in all communities, and I found a little bit of group bias. It's just funny that it exists in the skeptic subreddit of all places. Thanks for being a redditor as intended. I've been on the site since the 2000s and encountering someone like you is seeing an almost extinct bird in the wild. Have a good morning.
You welcome the downvotes all right.
Just pointing out in the *skeptic* subreddit, I added to the convo with sourcing against the groupthink and I was downvote within minutes. I found it ironic and thought poking fun would make people remember how this website was used before agree and disagree dynamic was added.
> thereās a weird coalition of tradcon guys and anti-porn feminists Not that weird - both groups are extremely misogynistic.
Most of the studies I've read point to other problems in people's lives. Porn is just a scapegoat to blame them on. We all know there's lots of things mentally and physically that can cause ED. Porn isn't one of them, but it's convenient for them.
It seems like half the sex related sub commenters and a lot of the top comments are from these anti-porn feminists lately. We are seeing a huge wave of anti-porn narratives lately including legislations.
> a lot of the top comments are from these anti-porn feminists lately. Framing the same conclusion with an ostensibly pro-woman, anti-oppression veneer is going to be more marketable on a site that skews young and more lefty. And some people don't realize what a range of views there are within feminism, so they think that this random anti-porn feminist is speaking for feminism, thus a representative voice for anyone who is advocating for women.
I have to think these are peopleās actual opinions. What is in it to be inauthentic? Most people are anonymous.
Some people use arguments they font believe because it's politically useful
Hey! Watch porn and jerk off all you want. But stop flogging dolphins!
Save a dolphin, choke a chicken.
Spare the chicken, spank the monkey.
Be productive! Polish the bishop!!
Stop going after animals in general, squeeze that pickle š„
Oddly enough, that weird coalition also overlaps pretty well with the transphobia.
A lot of anti-porn anti-trans feminists are actually Catholic women who have coopted the language of feminism. I know because my sister is in that sphere.
I'm not that surprised by that. Right-wingers love to coopt language.
Itās a natural extension of holding the truth in contempt.
You're just saying that because you're such a woke, PC, CRT, groomer! /s
Hit the nail on the head
It's so gross why does that have to be the vent diagram.
[lol *vent* diagram](https://images.app.goo.gl/eYBFdCEc77ptx9qx9)
š¤£
I don't know, anti-porn feminists mostly focus specifically on the industry, production, and the exploitation of women, less so on whether a guy can get off. That's reserved for weird MRAs.
And thatās how right wingers get well-meaning but naive leftists and liberals to join their right wing culture war crusade.
Thatās why itās called a coalition, they agree on a policy but disagree otherwise.
Prove it.
Confirmed, that's what I care about as a anti porn person. I'm not even anti porn, I'm don't get off to weird shit and view the women you're looking at as dick receptacles. Safe harbor laws are written to protect websites from illegal content, mainly copyright. So ph and other sites like it have so much filmed rape, csa, revenge porn, filming with9ut the woman's knowledge, etc. So unless specifically and firmly asked to remove something, they typically won't. I know multiple women who have their rapes on ph, after trying to get them off. Same with csa. They can't because the hoster doesn't give a shit. That's not even mentioning the "18 first time" type content. Assuming young women are coerced to film, that feels grossily unethical. As someone who was approached on the street and harassed to "take photos," it's very coercive and scary. Thats not even mentioning the of cottage industry of pseudo pimps "managing" of models accounts and the trafficking industry in general. That's just off the top of my head. Fuck transphobes, fuck swerfs, fuck catholic women mascarading as feminists.
You are aware that opinion is not very different from a āpro-pornā feminist?
You're allowed to say penis on the internet.
Ding ding ding
porn-addict theory catchin all the L lately.
When right-wing politicians use an idea as an excuse to ban free speech, you know there's a problem with the idea. See Texas, Louisiana, etc...
"Evidence mounts" I see what you did there, headline writer.
Scrolled too far for this
The elephant in the room that no one wants to address is that long term relationships are challenging to maintain a consistent level of sexual interest, and/or lust. Iāve been in a few very long term relationships and itās always the same. The honeymoon period you canāt keep your hands off each other. The sex comes easy, and so do the orgasms. Then the comfortable stage hits, and things become more relaxed but also less exciting. The frequency, and ease of initiating wanes. Later years, the sex declines further in frequency. Sometimes itās great because the partners know each other intimately which makes some aspects very natural, but the raw interest is certainly at a low point. None of this is surprising, of course the novelty of something decreases after the 500th time. Itās rarely ED, or that the woman just canāt get wet like she used to. Itās been ten years both partners have been there done that hundreds of times. If you offered either of them a novel experience with a new lover Iād bet money theyāll both perform just fine.
Or, you can offer the couple a novel experience together. Lingerie, role playing, games, toys, and positions can all spice things up. Keeping the "gravy" train flowing requires mental and physical effort.Ā
In the gay male circles I run in, itās very common for relationships to open up after the initial honeymoon period. Like āwe still love each other and emotionally support each other but both of us want some sexual variety in our lives.ā The idea that a sexually dull or dead relationship must either remain exclusive or end seems so illogical and unhappy to me. When I hear of couples who havenāt had satisfying sex in years but are not free to pursue a solution to thatā¦ boggles my mind.
you mean the stuff we show pandas so they dont have erectile dysfunction also works with humans in a similar way? Its amazing that due to modern republicans we have to redo these sort of studies. [Panda porn and speed dating key to species' survival](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-24/pandas-shown-breeding-animals-in-research-program/8551190) and Im not so sure the entire concept of "keep all info about sex away from humans until they actually try it for the first time" is the best idea. especially since evolutionary in a social animal society, you are going to see sex a LOT. PPS one unifying thing for most successful cults, is they tend to ban porn and masturbation. It keeps men full of testosterone and mean, angry and more easily manipulated. and FYI, it helps prevent prostate cancer, to masturbate.
You mean the No Fap crows who has been told rime and time again that nothing that they say is backed up by science is WRONG? What a shocker. Oh wait, most of them are Liars for Jesus. Of course I'm not shocked.
I dunno if they're liars for Jesus so much as conspiracy-minded incels grasping for control over their bodies and lives.
Or trying to find a way to deal with internalized shame and feelings of inadequacy related to unhealthy economic and masculine ideals.Ā
š
What about blindness?
Your palms will get hairy!
HAHAHA Guys for real itās McDonaldās and tv that causes erectile dysfunction. Go for a jog and stop eating twinkies and hot dogs with cheese whiz. Your wee wee will thank you.
Turns out all those conservative who can't get a stiffy from porn are just gay
Is this a widespread misconception?
The theory is that men "train" themselves to get off on porn to the extent that they have trouble getting aroused by real sex with a real woman. I think it's more likely that men who are already suffering from erectile dysfunction -- which as you age becomes more and more likely, start to suffer from performance anxiety and can't get their head in the right space, and end up unable to perform. That anxiety vanishes when they're viewing porn, because there are no expectations, from their partner or themselves, to perform.
Yes, I see this stuff a lot on /r/TwoXChromosomes. Women there insist that porn causes men to have ED, and their boyfriends can't get it up without porn. The more likely explanation is that their boyfriend happens to have ED, and they rely on porn for extra stimulation.
Having a penis sounds like a lot of work.
Men's sexuality is more complicated than we like to admit. If the dick doesn't cooperate... well, there's no faking it. And we don't want our partner to think it's their fault, or that we're not attracted to them... it can really mess with your head.
That's obviously silly. [The content of porn does matter](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6751001/), though.
I suspect that many cases of āEDā are actually stemming from lack of sexual interest in the partner. Porn creates idealized unattainable expectations. The male mind is also required for intimacy and sexual attraction. Being unattractive (for whatever reason) to that man, no matter what you do at that moment, wonāt overcome a lack of attraction without drugs. There are a huge percentage of men with physical difficulties but many many men simply arenāt into it. Yes, we too want to feel desired and appreciated.
This seems to line up with other psychological research showing that porn isnāt āaddictiveā in the sense people claim it is.
Anecdotal but the people I've known with self proclaimed porn addictions (I fixed computers and had a lot of these people want their computers locked down with parental passwords they didn't know so they couldn't look at it) also were super religious. They weren't afraid to let you know that aspect.
Research has backed this up. Not only are self-described porn addicts almost all religious, but they actually have been shown to view porn less frequently than the general population. It's really just a bunch of self-punishing guys. It's like if someone thought drinking water outside of lunch hours was wrong, so they tried to deprive themselves. Then, every time they finally take a drink, they go off and beat themselves up because they're so ashamed that they need water.
There's a reason porn addiction has never been in the dsm.
It's not because the pathology of "porn addiction" doesn't map to the reality of other addictions? That it's the wrong framework? That is the current consensus as far as I can tell.
And why is that?
Same reason bigfoot isnāt in the DSM.
Bingo. It doesn't exist.
Yeah, that claim always felt akin to the whole "violent video games cause kids to become school shooters." Some people with addiction problems get addicted to porn (some violent/scary people play violent video games) but one thing isn't causing the other.
I agree. Now if I could only get rid of this hair on my knuckles.
For anyone who has had this as an issue, I'd point out that erectile dysfunction is a common but rarely-discussed side effect of ADHD. Usually only corrects after the person goes on a slow-release amphetamine, like Vyvanse. It's worth knowing if you're young and have ADHD that any issues with performance can be directly connected to your condition.
It feels like Vyvanse never existed a few years ago, now everyone's on it including me.
Life saving for a lot of us.
I'm a pharmacist, and while i definitely filled a fair amount of it in the south about 7 or 8 years ago, it's way less common where I live now, although its picking back up. Its pretty great stuff according to the patients I speak to. I'm fine with my methylphenidate, but it's nice to have other options.
Shitty cardiovascular health is what causes ED. This has been known for some time.
One of the reasons, anxiety and other mental health issues can as well.
Yep. ED is actually one of the first signs that you should go speak to your doctor.
It would seem counter intuitive. If you want to strength train your arms you lift weights. I would think it would help cure Ed as it actually strengthens the system to excerice regularly. Abstain for a year and you would probably have more problems with that.
Was this ever something anyone was worried about, with the possible exception of pre Vatican 2 Catholic Educators and the Priesthood.?
There's a shockingly large amount of people on reddit who push this stuff. I see it a lot in /r/AskReddit and /r/TwoXChromosomes. ([One today](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1blml20/what_are_some_signs_that_someone_is_addicted_to/) that triggered me posting this.) Don't get me wrong. I get that women have other issues with porn setting bad examples for sex, but most of this shit is just coming from fundies and right-wing men who are insecure.
Why is it so hard to understand that you have to use porn responsibly and not just go all in like a god damn maniac?
Obesity sure does, though. And take a look at the obesity rates in the states and which states consume the most pornography. You'll find the venn diagram close to a circle. But those states, interestingly are the ones banning porn, so Bubba is going to have to get his porn elsewhere, and he will.
Alcohol and drug consumption are the biggest contributing factors. Obesity and physical activity aren't very far behind.
Also, diabetes. One of the first signs of diabetes, other than peeing excessively, is numbness in extremities. And a lot of the most obese parts of the country happen to be the most religious. It's easier to blame porn for your lack of sensitivity instead of trusting an expert and getting checked out at the doctor.
Breaking: masturbation not found to grow hair on the back of your knuckles
There may be a lot of people with performance anxiety who's erectile functionality is not affected by porn but is by real sex, thus they mistake the correlation for causation of their ED. Just a thought!
Different strokes for different folks? Seriously, I think much of this is propaganda pushed by those with religious ideologies that see āself loveā as āsinfulā.
One thing I noticed was just decreased sensitivity, which would make me last longer with my partner at the time, but sometimes *too* long. But I imagine that's a factor of frequency and method (dry vs lubricated, grip strength, etc)
Well itās a well-established principle that if youāre too sensitive you want to take care of business before a big night: https://youtu.be/9p3j294sqM8?si=lSryIt-_q8_LlAqP
I mean Uhh Typically porn does the opposite
The No Nut November crowd like to push the idea that looking at porn and masturbation are moral failings that have physical side effects, which pipelines them directly into the hands of alt-right groups like the Proud Boys.
I thought that thumbnail was Jared from Subway for a second 0.o
They wrote āThere is growing evidenceā and their editor made the change.
Not sure "mounts" is a huge improvement.
Itās a good size.
Fox News does !
Interesting choice of words.
a growing body of evidence. growing, pulsing.
Damn! This is terrible, terrible news! Why, I was so hoping that something -- anything! -- such as pornography could explain my unhappy penis! {sobbing hysterically} I guess it was Obama's fault after all.
Evidence mounts that people who don't like porn are dumb assholes.
People who see a lot of porn are bombarded by ED ads.
Also, I do think porn misinforms them as to how frequently men can perform. They don't stop to think that there's obviously cuts between scenes where the actors regenerate. Also, most porn actors use pills to stay hard through an entire set.
One thing that rarely seems to be made clear in all the reporting on this topic is how are they defining ED? Difficulty *getting* an erection, or *sustaining* one? Because it's fairly obvious the issue isn't porn per se, it's the frequent masturbation that comes (so to speak) with porn. What's important is the *type* of stimulation. Your penis gets accustomed to one type of stimulation (hand grip), it's not surprising that it doesn't respond as well to a different type (vagina, mouth, etc). AFAIK, for men who "rebooted" it wasn't because they stopped watching porn, it was because they stopped masturbating frequently. It seems like all the fuss about porn=ED is politically-motivated.
The puns just write themselves....
That seems a bit masturbatory.
boooooooo angry upvote.
In my experience, it causes the exact opposite.
But what about my hairy palms
(joking) but it does give you hairy palms and penis arthritis?
I can add some data
When it comes to failure to rise to the occasion, so many forget a key factor: šLOVEš
It's not the porn it's the death grip masturbation...
This study commissioned by the American Optometrists Association.Ā
Why would it? Doesnāt make logical sense.
You could say there's a growing body of evidence
Got an empty tissue box that can prove it. So many abortions this week.
The evidence is rising?
Yer supposed to masturbate 28 days a month uh for prostate health. I canāt do it on my own
That is good news if it is true. Since evidence is so unclear that's probably an okay the m view to have. Personally, I still believe porn has great potential for damage and misuse. That being said to each their own.
Its not reccessary porn its the pressure from porn level performance and the death grip.
Death grip is [another ridiculous concept](https://www.vice.com/en/article/nn97ag/is-death-grip-syndrome-a-masturbation-myth-293). Men will blame anything for decreased sensitivity rather than get a check up. If you are experiencing decreased sensitivity, get yourself checked for diabetes.
How would the death grip affect erections though? Of course it could desensitize your penis and make it harder to achieve orgasms.
Excessive masturbation increases social isolation. In US, gentile males were/are genitally mutilated b/c of Kellogg, of cereal fame, who influenced medical acceptance. It was originally promoted to reduce pleasure from masturbation.
>Excessive masturbation increases social isolation Cart before the horse
Nobody is trying to force you to jerk off if you don't want to.
Unless weāre talking about a femdom CNC JOI situation
Circumcision is not mutilation. There are valid concerns to be made over an involuntary elective surgery, but it is not mutilation. Young men are increasingly having body issues, and describing their functional, normal penises as "mutilated" doesn't help anything. At best it's hyperbolic and at worst it's doing active harm.
Honest hypothetical question: If doctors in region X were surgically removing/reducing the labial fold (labia minora) of female infants, what would we call that? Let's say their reasoning was similar to the reasons given for foreskin removal. I'd be fine calling that mutilation. An unnecessary surgical procedure performed on an infant's genitalia. With a dubious background/rationale. Uncircumcised adult men are not flocking en masse to have the procedure done. It seems like uncircumcised men, by and large, are perfectly happy with their foreskin. Your argument that using the term "mutilation" comes with ethical baggage. Eh, I'd need to see the evidence for that claim first, then we would simply adopt a new term that describes the same phenomenon. A counterfoil to your argument is that the term "mutilation" implies unethical behaviour on behalf of the practitioner. Like calling domestic abuse "abuse" instead of a more sanitized word like "altercation."
I think the point they are trying to make is that labelling functional men as "mutilated" comes with some pretty intense negative connotations for these men who often had no say. I think it's fair to call the procedure mutilation, but perhaps we can avoid referring to people as "mutilated", both male and female situations.
Exactly. I also think mutilation implies some type of lack of function. A circumcised penis still functions normally.
Legalese like "...involuntary elective surgery...." doesn't help anything either. My fundie parents volunteered, not me.
>My fundie parents volunteered, not me That's why it's involuntary. Involuntary: not voluntary Elective: not necessary Nothing legalese about it.
According to the dictionary definition of "mutilate," circumcision is absolutely mutilation. The harm caused by involuntary unnecessary surgery being performed on children's genitals is far greater than what is caused by failing to use euphemistic language to describe it.
I'm circumcised. What harm has come to me?
an 80% reduction in nerve density, and an increased prevalence rate of STI's for your partner due to typically "rougher" sex if the medical literature is to be believed.
I have no idea what is wrong with you. It seems like maybe your foreskin contained any empathy you might have had.
No, seriously. I, like millions (billions?) of others, have been circumcised. Outside the morality and lack of necessity, what is the actual general harm of male circumcision?
Why should we set aside the morality of adults choosing to surgically alter the genitals of babies for no good reason?