The fact that in the second link the author doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between pedophilia (sexual ATTRACTION towards children) and child sexual abuse doesn't inspire me with confidence.Lil devils x said:
Porn and unrealistic expectations for men and women, and hentai
- Thread starter CpT_x_Killsteal
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Attraction to children is the prelude to abuse, they are frequently linked as the same due to how they relate to one another. We want people to seek help when they are in the attraction stage to prevent it from ever reaching the actual abuse stage. The longer a paraphilia is left untreated and fostered or even worse actually catered to, the more difficult it is to treat as well as the more damaging it becomes. It is better to address and treat it in the first stages before it becomes routine or obsessive. Once it has reached the point of " this is what I am attracted to" or " this is what I need to orgasm" it is in the more advanced stages, and more difficult to treat effectively.TheSlothOverlord said:
That wasn't the point. The point was that using porn as an alternative takes away the desire to try and find real life women. Why bother going out and making an effort when there's an easy option? It is extremely damaging to teens but also for adults who become shut ins. Not even shut-ins, but unable to get aroused by the sight of real women. And the trouble is that porn is as easy as a "snap of their fingers" (or click of their mouse). Because it is so accessible and easy, with infinite women ready to perform any act on demand, men who watch porn are going to find that actual women cannot compete.Ihateregistering1 said:
This is not true, porn is not exactly the same as any other media. Men who watch porn to which they masturbate and orgasm are conditioning their bodies and brains in such a way that they can swiftly become addicted. They will eventually need to find more and more since the same material will lose its appeal and that it can not only take the place of even trying to pursue a woman in real life, but make sex with one less stimulating.Starik20X6 said:
If you genuinely believe this then I feel very sorry for you. I can't even comprehend the world you are a part of that you'd rather "porn suck away at your primal sexual attraction to real people". That's very sad indeed and if anything, proves just how much of an effect Internet porn can have on young men. It's the rat experiment from the 50s [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasure_center#Rodent_experiments] but on young men, pressing the lever/clicking the mouse incessantly.Gundam GP01 said:
If someone just doesn't want to date or has no sex drive at all, and they are a post-puberty adult, then that absolutely does make them unhealthy. A healthy adult will have a sex drive. Your statement about deciding what is healthy for oneself is ridiculous. You do not get to decide what is and isn't healthy, defining it to suit yourself. You get to decide whether or not to do healthy or unhealthy things but you don't get to redefine the word and make unhealthy things more palatable. Eating McDonalds daily is unhealthy. Drinking dirty or polluted water is unhealthy. Smoking is unhealthy. Masturbating to Internet porn to the exclusion of seeking a real life partner is unhealthy. No one will stop you from doing any or all of those things...it's every person's prerogative how they live their lives but you shouldn't delude yourself into believing these are healthy things.Ebola_chan said:
Yes there is. I'm sorry to say but there is absolutely something wrong with that. It is not a normal or healthy state for an adult to be unable to get aroused by real people, but only by digital ones. Animated...personally I can at least understand the appeal of live action porn, but if someone can only get aroused by animated porn, then there is a serious health issue. It's their choice whether it's something they wish to fix in themselves, no one can force them. But if you believe it's perfectly healthy for a man to shun real women in favour of cartoon ones and stay in to masturbate to them, then I'm genuinely very sorry for you.Ebola_chan said:
I agree that non-offending pedophiles should get help with their problem, but many of them do not come forward because of overwhelming social stigma. And IMO, this stigma in no small part stems from the fact that pedophilia is so often equivocated with child abuse. Besides, pedophilia is a medical term with an exact definition that should be used in a precise way.Lil devils x said:
Gundam GP01 was saying that porn is a better alternative to risky sexual behaviour which might end up with contracting an STD or an unwanted pregnancy, not that he substitutes all of his sexual relationships with porn.KingsGambit said:
Why, because you said so?KingsGambit said:
How amusing, I could say the same thing to you.KingsGambit said:
It's not about "shunning real women in favour of cartoon ones". Animation/illustration is a completely separate thing from video or photography and especially real people. To say that one is superior to the other is madness. I like drawing erotic art. It's not a substitute for images of real women, it's my own artistic expression. I draw attention to certain features, frame poses in certain ways, draw impossible dreamlike scenarios... these things are not possible in real life, and that's fine. In fact, the extensive study of female anatomy I use when I draw just gives me a greater appreciation. Because when I see a beautiful girl's naked body in real life, it's no longer just a human body, to me it is a work of art.KingsGambit said:
It's fine if you have your own preferences, but all you're doing is harshly judging people for the things they enjoy.
it's undoubtedly a real thing, but it is not healthy by any stretch. A healthy adult has a sex drive. If one is asexual, they either have a health issue (physiological or psychological), our are lying.mecegirl said:
Don't worry, I didn't had high expectations one day to find a Shark-Girl in real life.Redlin5 said:
And you are right to be terrified. I am a Shark.
Btw, I don't get the whole point of the Thread. We may talking about the fake expectations most people have when they watch a hentai/adult animation, but don't you think even the most "realistic" things someone can do in his life, aren't fake expectations?
For example......no f*ck it, lets just say any kind of "crazy" fetish you can think of which a real human being can do. Aren't these suppose to be unrealistic as well?
Again, I want to say details, but this site isn't the one for this.
I just only hope to understand what I am trying to say.
As I understand the research in this area, not many people are really denying that the majority of people who use porn will be able to do so healthily and responsibly, just like the majority of people who use drugs or play video games will be able to do so healthily and responsibly. However, like the above, it can become a compulsive activity. It can become a way of avoiding real life problems, and in that sense it can be very, very detrimental to people's lives.
There is also some evidence that porn influences attitudes even in the majority of healthy users. Some of it is fairly positive (porn consumption makes people more accepting of non-traditional sexual relationships and acts) and some is not (porn consumption causes people to judge the sexual attractiveness of real life sexual partners more harshly and to underrate the quality of their own sexual experiences). This kind of psychological research is often quite limited in terms of what it can conclude, however, so we need to be skeptical of taking it all at face value.
Human beings don't really have a sex drive in the animal sense because unlike animals our sexual arousal response is extremely predicated on cognitive feedback. We have to experience arousal as a subjective feeling in order to become physically aroused enough to have intercourse.
A person who is asexual does not experience sexual attraction to other human beings. This does not mean they do not experience sexual arousal. It doesn't even mean they don't have sex with other human beings. Asexual people may have sex with others for a whole range of reasons, just as gay or straight people may occasionally have sex with people of the sex they do not find attractive. What defines an asexual person, whether hyposexual or not, is the lack of sexual attraction to other people.
If you're going to declare that asexuality is unhealthy, then exclusive heterosexuality is also unhealthy. Not being able to sexually desire people of the same sex is clearly a symptom of mental dysfunction, right?
There is also some evidence that porn influences attitudes even in the majority of healthy users. Some of it is fairly positive (porn consumption makes people more accepting of non-traditional sexual relationships and acts) and some is not (porn consumption causes people to judge the sexual attractiveness of real life sexual partners more harshly and to underrate the quality of their own sexual experiences). This kind of psychological research is often quite limited in terms of what it can conclude, however, so we need to be skeptical of taking it all at face value.
Not having a sex drive is a completely separate condition called "hyposexuality", which sometimes correlates with asexuality but is not in any way indicative of it.KingsGambit said:
Human beings don't really have a sex drive in the animal sense because unlike animals our sexual arousal response is extremely predicated on cognitive feedback. We have to experience arousal as a subjective feeling in order to become physically aroused enough to have intercourse.
A person who is asexual does not experience sexual attraction to other human beings. This does not mean they do not experience sexual arousal. It doesn't even mean they don't have sex with other human beings. Asexual people may have sex with others for a whole range of reasons, just as gay or straight people may occasionally have sex with people of the sex they do not find attractive. What defines an asexual person, whether hyposexual or not, is the lack of sexual attraction to other people.
If you're going to declare that asexuality is unhealthy, then exclusive heterosexuality is also unhealthy. Not being able to sexually desire people of the same sex is clearly a symptom of mental dysfunction, right?
I'm curious as to who exactly it's an issue for. Are people's self-esteem getting hurt because they aren't getting hit on by those who aren't attracted to other people? I'm always skeptical when the scientific community decides that something is unhealthy or goes against nature, this is the same community that used to advise drilling holes into patients skulls to get rid of headaches. This is different than a team of scientists determining that a certain food causes diabetes or something, that's easily quantifiable and measureable. How exactly do they conclude that sexless people are "unhealthy"? Is it because they aren't procreating, because the world is already overpopulated. Is it because they're harming others? (And I'm excluding sexual predators, I'm not disputing that they're 'bothering people' even though that's an under exaggeration. But this thread is about pornography and sexual preferences so I'm gonna focus on that.) So if it's not having an adverse affect on the population, other people or the person themselves then I'm not going to consider it an issue just because some publication declares it to be. Again, the scientific community isn't infallible, clearly. This whole argument reminds me of people who consider homosexuality a mental illness that can be cured with seminars and prayers. I'm curious how 'treatment' for this would work though. Do you believe sexual orientation can be changed with therapy and drugs, because I've always believed that you can't change what somebody is (or in this case isn't) aroused by.Lil devils x said:
I don't see how posting two links to articles about fetishism and sexual predation have anything to do with what I was talking about, I've already made it clear that I'm not talking about pedophiles, rapists, or any other types of sexual predators. I guess fetishes can play a role in somebody preferring porn or no sexual stimulation at all over actual flesh and blood people though, so I guess it sorta belongs. But if you're posting articles, would you mind linking to the one that says the non-mating crowd are unhealthy by virtue of not having lots of sex? I'd love to settle in and read that one.Lil devils x said:
I'd like to point out that you don't need a degree to have an opinion on something, and that's all I was expressing, my opinion. Having one isn't the same as handing out diagnoses, but stating that a certain type of person is unhealthy and advising them to get help sounds like a diagnoses to me. And that rings a bit hypocritical if you don't have some sort of degree in psychology. Unless you do, in which case I redact that statement.
Keep in mind some people choose this of their own volition, as a lifestyle. By your logic are Buddhist monks who choose celibacy unhealthy, as well as priests and anyone else who doesn't pursue sex? Looking at it objectively, there are actually potential health benefits to opting out of sex. Zero risk of STDs, pregnancy and the like. Not to mention people might not want to have sex for a whole slew of other reasons. Fear of intimacy, uncomfortable with the exchange of fluids, haven't found the right partner, etc. Painting all of these people with the "you've got a problem" brush seems more petty than anything. It's ironic that there are very real, very measureable benefits to not having sex, while people are parroting that it's the exact opposite with not really much to go on.
Normally I would be the first to echo your whole "leave the professional assessments to the professionals" thing - there's way too much armchair theorizing going on in general. This particular case is pretty shaky ground, though. This type of disorder is basically a social construct based on normative paradigms - it's a disorder because we, as a society, think it's weird. The same thing that you said above could be said about homosexuality in the early 1970's, before the APA decided through a vote (!) that it should be stricken from the compendium of psychiatric disorders.Lil devils x said:
All it takes for the issue at hand to become a non-issue is increased visibility and social acceptance.
Neither link you provided deals with anything directly comparable to the subject though. If you deem "atypical" or "not usually considered sexually arousing" as close enough for a comparison (as in: "what transvestite has to do with porn-dependent person"), then you just exchanged "I can define what's healthy for me" for "society can define what's healthy for me"[footnote]Not to mention that you are walking into a trap with porn itself becoming more and more popular; every time it becomes less taboo, therefore moving slightly away form "atypical", those definitions might eventually start working against you.[/footnote]. Too bad social norms regarding sexuality have been perfectly in-line with what past/present medical experts have been saying in... no society, ever. Anyway, even if experts were being followed to the letter, they can offer nothing remotely comparable with "sugar is unhealthy because it destroys teeth" or "tobacco destroys this and that", as waaay too much regarding sexuality rests on psychology[footnote] Of course if THAT is what you meant by "healthy", then I doubt anyone would want to contest your arguments, as your "healthy" is faaar more arbitrary than it initially seemed.[/footnote]. There's more though, jump back to ancient Greece and you may realise that using "atypical" or "outside of the norm" suddenly results with a significantly different (or smaller?) set of paraphilias. And we're not even touching the future, which is bound to skewer every related norm with technology.Lil devils x said:
Then there's that issue about "why" it (let's choose "whatever" atm) needs counseling. Aside from the obvious cases where eg. self-inflicted harm is involved your links are also mentioning such unrelated things like career or social status. Seriously, you could only stretch your definition of "healthy" so far.
As for dopamine (and subsequent addiction), you realise that its presence has nothing to do with porn and everything with sexual release, which means sexual activity that is deemed "healthy" leads to pretty much identical effect. Sure, "standard sex life" provides circumstances that limit possibility of addiction, if only due to life-imposed limits. That indeed leads to a conclusion that "normal sex life" offers fever opportunities to become addicted than "porn enthusiast's life", but it is still worthless as an argument about what's "healthy" and what isn't. Unless your definition of "healthy" relies on delving into social circumstances even further - after all a filthy rich person with sufficiently high sex drive can end up with virtually any dopamine-injection routine. Then there's polygamy. Then, if we follow this line of thinking a bit closer to Absurdland, contraception is inherently unhealthy, as it increases a chance for dopamine addiction specifically within what's currently considered "normal" ruleset of sex.
Finally, there's something strange going on with your model. It's hard to declare "porn-life" unhealthy only because it's limiting both motivation and performance/satisfaction related to "sex-life" (something hat can very well be true in the right circumstances). In terms of sexual release - well, you just asserted that even the worst addict has more than enough means. In terms of relationship - there's a lot of people who get by without forming any meaningful one or forming some that have nothing to do with sex. [footnote] I recall that XIX century, the same XIX century that kinda insisted on marriages, procreation and such, had circa 20% of various "uncles" and "aunts" (http://web.clark.edu/afisher/HIST253/lecture_text/WomenMiddleClass_19c_Europe.pdf). They were very important for society, given how many children were being born in their families and how pathetic child care was at the time. While they were eagerly mocked for their inferior status and stereotypes about eg. eternal bachelors were rampant, good luck trying to claim how "unhealthy" they were as a group. The comparison is even more favourable for present times if we remember how many people stayed single due to various social and economical barriers, ie. not always by choice. If you are going to follow the idea of "what's typical" from your links, their rather sex-less life *was* considered norm at the time (expecially regarding women) as well.[/footnote]If you are going to claim that that in itself is a sign of mental illness, then it's going to be entertaining, especially if it includes you stating what specific level of sex drive is healthy
Given how "sex life" is hardly at the bottom of Maslov's pyramid, this whole argument is like insisting that your constant presence in cinema skews your expectations and lowers your ability to appreciate theatre and therefore you hurt your ability to be entertained in general (see: "unhealthy"). It's not that hard to imagine a movie-buff pointing out that they *are* being entertained all right while theatre, while certainly enjoying societal approval as "sophisticated art", is simply not in their sphere of interest due to various reasons. You can debate how many of those reasons were caused by cinema - and you will certainly find some. The more you spend in cinema, the harder is going to figure out how to behave in a theatre or what's going on with that "opera" thing. You might even be considered a redneck by society. Hell, given how movies work, it's actually easier to become addicted via dopamine as well - but that's probably the closest thing to "mentally ill" you can ever get.
What about people who do have sex drive (as if there were those who didn't), but it is low enough for them to decide that cost/benefit is not good enough to pursue a specific path in life? What if they have a higher sex drive than what's considered "healthy", but circumstances change, they move to a different society, their "market value" is very low (etc) and therefore, with cost/benefit being even less favourable, they are seeking release elsewhere? Are they "not healthy" because low sex drive is a symptom of an ilness or are they "not healthy" because their choices or fetishe are considered atypical? Furthermore, is "sex drive" something measurable, like the one used eg. in Epstein's tests? If yes, what's "healthy" score? If not, what mumbo-jumbo description can be considered as such?KingsGambit said:
Honestly, I didn't mean for people to take that so literally, of course there's more or less a standard for what is and isn't considered healthy, but keep in mind that it is very, very flawed at times. Even at the best of times it wavers and changes, it's anything but infallible. But on to what I said, I should've been more clear. I meant it more in the sense of 'you have to decide what's right for you sometimes rather than follow the majority'.KingsGambit said:
There are clear negative effects on someone's health for all of your examples except one. Overindulging in fast food, obesity. Drinking polluted water, illness and dysentery. Chain smoking, lung cancer and restricted breathing. Choosing porn over sex... carpal tunnel?
I don't see the connection you're trying to make, also keep in mind that people can feel sexual arousal and just choose not to act on it. If somebody is attracted to other people but can't experience arousal then yes, that's a real, provable medical problem, defective genitals. But then there are people who have the potential to be turned on, but nothing arouses them, or they're aroused only by things that are implausible. Those are the people who I'm asserting aren't unhealthy.
This issue is covered in the links under sexual attraction to objects, and yes this is an issue for people who are attracted to things other than other human beings INSTEAD of human beings. My degrees are in Pediatric Medicine and Immunology. Lack of libido is not the same as an obsession or fixation, you are comparing unrelated conditions, nor are you qualified to determine what someone should seek counseling or medical treatment for. Bad advice on the internet is bad advice. Most of what you stated here was not in relation to anything I said.Ebola_chan said:
If they are fixating on objects rather than actual people, yes, they should bring this up to a medical professional, and let them decide whether or not treatment is the best course of action. Allowing it to go further can be detrimental for them long term, so it is better to seek help sooner rather than later.
Both links address it directly, as it is an attraction or fixation on objects, non human beings. Sexual attraction to things in place of human beings is a condition that is usually treated easily if caught early on. Even if it was considered the " norm" by social standards to have sexual attraction to objects, it would not be considered the " norm" by medical standards. Social standards =/= medical standards.eberhart said:Lil devils x said:Neither link you provided deals with anything directly comparable to the subject though. If you deem "atypical" or "not usually considered sexually arousing" as close enough for a comparison (as in: "what transvestite has to do with porn-dependent person"), then you just exchanged "I can define what's healthy for me" for "society can define what's healthy for me"[footnote]Not to mention that you are walking into a trap with porn itself becoming more and more popular; every time it becomes less taboo, therefore moving slightly away form "atypical", those definitions might eventually start working against you.[/footnote]. Too bad social norms regarding sexuality have been perfectly in-line with what past/present medical experts have been saying in... no society, ever. Anyway, even if experts were being followed to the letter, they can offer nothing remotely comparable with "sugar is unhealthy because it destroys teeth" or "tobacco destroys this and that", as waaay too much regarding sexuality rests on psychology[footnote] Of course if THAT is what you meant by "healthy", then I doubt anyone would want to contest your arguments, as your "healthy" is faaar more arbitrary than it initially seemed.[/footnote]. There's more though, jump back to ancient Greece and you may realise that using "atypical" or "outside of the norm" suddenly results with a significantly different (or smaller?) set of paraphilias. And we're not even touching the future, which is bound to skewer every related norm with technology.
Then there's that issue about "why" it (let's choose "whatever" atm) needs counseling. Aside from the obvious cases where eg. self-inflicted harm is involved your links are also mentioning such unrelated things like career or social status. Seriously, you could only stretch your definition of "healthy" so far.
As for dopamine (and subsequent addiction), you realise that its presence has nothing to do with porn and everything with sexual release, which means sexual activity that is deemed "healthy" leads to pretty much identical effect. Sure, "standard sex life" provides circumstances that limit possibility of addiction, if only due to life-imposed limits. That indeed leads to a conclusion that "normal sex life" offers fever opportunities to become addicted than "porn enthusiast's life", but it is still worthless as an argument about what's "healthy" and what isn't. Unless your definition of "healthy" relies on delving into social circumstances even further - after all a filthy rich person with sufficiently high sex drive can end up with virtually any dopamine-injection routine. Then there's polygamy. Then, if we follow this line of thinking a bit closer to Absurdland, contraception is inherently unhealthy, as it increases a chance for dopamine addiction specifically within what's currently considered "normal" ruleset of sex.
Finally, there's something strange going on with your model. It's hard to declare "porn-life" unhealthy only because it's limiting both motivation and performance/satisfaction related to "sex-life" (something hat can very well be true in the right circumstances). In terms of sexual release - well, you just asserted that even the worst addict has more than enough means. In terms of relationship - there's a lot of people who get by without forming any meaningful one or forming some that have nothing to do with sex. [footnote] I recall that XIX century, the same XIX century that kinda insisted on marriages, procreation and such, had circa 20% of various "uncles" and "aunts" (http://web.clark.edu/afisher/HIST253/lecture_text/WomenMiddleClass_19c_Europe.pdf). They were very important for society, given how many children were being born in their families and how pathetic child care was at the time. While they were eagerly mocked for their inferior status and stereotypes about eg. eternal bachelors were rampant, good luck trying to claim how "unhealthy" they were as a group. The comparison is even more favourable for present times if we remember how many people stayed single due to various social and economical barriers, ie. not always by choice. If you are going to follow the idea of "what's typical" from your links, their rather sex-less life *was* considered norm at the time (expecially regarding women) as well.[/footnote]If you are going to claim that that in itself is a sign of mental illness, then it's going to be entertaining, especially if it includes you stating what specific level of sex drive is healthy
Given how "sex life" is hardly at the bottom of Maslov's pyramid, this whole argument is like insisting that your constant presence in cinema skews your expectations and lowers your ability to appreciate theatre and therefore you hurt your ability to be entertained in general (see: "unhealthy"). It's not that hard to imagine a movie-buff pointing out that they *are* being entertained all right while theatre, while certainly enjoying societal approval as "sophisticated art", is simply not in their sphere of interest due to various reasons. You can debate how many of those reasons were caused by cinema - and you will certainly find some. The more you spend in cinema, the harder is going to figure out how to behave in a theatre or what's going on with that "opera" thing. You might even be considered a redneck by society. Hell, given how movies work, it's actually easier to become addicted via dopamine as well - but that's probably the closest thing to "mentally ill" you can ever get.
What about people who do have sex drive (as if there were those who didn't), but it is low enough for them to decide that cost/benefit is not good enough to pursue a specific path in life? What if they have a higher sex drive than what's considered "healthy", but circumstances change, they move to a different society, their "market value" is very low (etc) and therefore, with cost/benefit being even less favourable, they are seeking release elsewhere? Are they "not healthy" because low sex drive is a symptom of an ilness or are they "not healthy" because their choices or fetishe are considered atypical? Furthermore, is "sex drive" something measurable, like the one used eg. in Epstein's tests? If yes, what's "healthy" score? If not, what mumbo-jumbo description can be considered as such?KingsGambit said:
That's strange, those articles seemed like an attempt to liken all abnormal sexual behavior to sexual predation. But I still maintain that there's nothing unhealthy about a lack of attraction to other people, even when attraction to objects, or even something implausible is involved. You haven't done anything to counter that point, it's easy to disregard someone's entire argument by saying it's totally unrelated, but I just don't see how it is. Maybe if you went through and explained to me where I trailed off? I try to avoid doing that, but it happens.Lil devils x said:
Ah, I hate to say I expected as much, but you don't have a degree in psychology or anything tangentially connected. As much as you're slinging around accusations of others being incapable to diagnose (Again, I've made no diagnosis, no attempt to give unsolicited medical advice or anything like that, I just expressed my opinion, plain and simple. Of course, I'm pretty sure I already said that.) while you're no more of an expert than anyone else.
As far as me comparing "unrelated things" well, isn't that why it's called a 'comparison'? That doesn't mean it's irrelevant, and it doesn't make it unworthy of a proper response.
Do you have any idea what is required to have a degree in Pediatric Medicine? I could have just as easily changed my major Psychology early without having to do all the extra work... Yes, I did all that extra work, accumulating a lifetime of student debt to get a degree beyond that just to be told by some random person on the internet I am not qualified to to tell someone to seek counseling. Good stuff there. Too funny. Thank you, I needed a laugh for the day.Ebola_chan said:
"Expected as much" Oh that is good. Psychology degree <<<< Medical Degree. DOH!
Lil devils x said:
I assume "by others" does not mean "by other MDs", therefore, with how "what's considered by others" changed over time, there's still too much sociology in your medicine.
Not to mention people who are actually fixated on a depiction of a pornstar ("a thing"[footnote]...especially with sexual attraction =/= selected means of sexual release[/footnote]) are, by my uneducated guess, the same kind of outlier your other examples are. Which is, hilariously, redeeming porn, as it has been consumed by billions over ages and still resulted in merely a tiny group, compared with other examples who had no such easily accessible means/triggers to "step too far".