Porn and unrealistic expectations for men and women, and hentai

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

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.

The urges and behaviors may involve unusual objects, activities, or situations that are not usually considered sexually arousing by others.

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".

There are varying degrees of what is considered "norms" depending on the parameters of the study however, this is considered separate than "social norms" of the period. Simply because one region or group may find asphyxiation socially acceptable, does not that is the "norm" for the species. "Fixation" is key. Fixation is not a healthy relationship, there is a difference.

fix·a·tion
fikˈsāSH(&#601n/
noun
1.
an obsessive interest in or feeling about someone or something.
"his fixation on the details of other people's erotic lives"
synonyms: obsession, preoccupation, mania, addiction, compulsion

 

[Just Ebola]

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 medial attention for. Bad advice on the internet is bad advice. Most of what you stated here was not in relation to anything I 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.

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 change 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.

"Expected as much" Oh that is good.

It's easier to laugh something off than it is to come up with a solid and well-though out argument, it's pretty obvious which one you're going for. I'm not trying to offend you, maybe I should've chosen my words better, but speaking technically, no, you're not qualified to diagnose people. You don't need a degree to advise someone to seek counseling, anyone can do that. But that isn't what you're doing, an unfounded mass-diagnosis of mental illness is not the same thing. I'm sorry it's a blow to your ego, but you're not a psychiatrist, and you're no more qualified to hand out a diagnosis than anyone else, or anyone you say isn't qualified.

That's not to say that your chosen fields don't give you a unique perspective, but if I needed mental help I wouldn't go see a pediatrician.

I'd prefer not to derail the thread with personal quibbles, lets keep things on track and actually argue our points rather than get upset and offended. You've left pretty much all my questions unanswered so far, so can we get back to that?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

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 medial attention for. Bad advice on the internet is bad advice. Most of what you stated here was not in relation to anything I 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.

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 change 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.

"Expected as much" Oh that is good.

It's easier to laugh something off than it is to come up with a solid and well-though out argument, it's pretty obvious which one you're going for. I'm not trying to offend you, maybe I should've chosen my words better, but speaking technically, no, you're not qualified to diagnose people. You don't need a degree to advise someone to seek counseling, anyone can do that. But that isn't what you're doing, an unfounded mass-diagnosis of mental illness is not the same thing. I'm sorry it's a blow to your ego, but you're not a psychiatrist, and you're no more qualified to hand out a diagnosis than anyone else, or anyone you say isn't qualified.

That's not to say that your chosen fields don't give you a unique perspective, but if I needed mental help I wouldn't go see a pediatrician.

I'd prefer not to derail the thread with personal quibbles, lets keep things on track and actually argue our points rather than get upset and offended. You've left pretty much all my questions unanswered so far, so can we get back to that?

Since this apparently went over your head, I already have all of the requirements to have a psychology degree, but chose to better myself instead. IF you do not even understand what the requirements are to obtain these degrees, what is the point in trying to explain this to you? Not only am I qualified, I can prescribe medication for it if I chose to treat them myself instead of handing them a referral. Yes, It is easier to laugh than it is to list every course I took so you can make a side by side comparison where their education stopped and mine kept going just to make you understand why what you said was so funny.
Good day, I have errands to run. Thank you.
( FYI: MD's hand out referrals because they do not have all day to spend counseling patients. Counselors have much more time on their hands, as they are less skilled. )

 

[eberhart]

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.

The urges and behaviors may involve unusual objects, activities, or situations that are not usually considered sexually arousing by others.

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") 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".

there are varying degrees of what is considered "norms" depending on the parameters of the study however, this is considered separate than "social norms" of the period. Simply because one region or group may find asphyxiation socially acceptable, does not that is the "norm" for the species. "Fixation" is key. Fixation is not a healthy relationship, there is a difference.

#1 Thing is, you will find something similar when you look more closely at "sexual attraction to human beings". Turns out it is also revolving around "things" and is influenced by social norms to a significant degree - and if that's so secondary, explain slightly different levels of attraction 20 and 90-year olds cause on average (fixation on age, right?). The same can be said about fixation China had on certain type of feet, leading to arousal perfectly in-line with social norms. Neither of those is "attraction to human being" any more than "atraction to pain caused by one" is, selection is pretty arbitrary and if any biologically - supported argument could be made, it should probably devolve into declaring a set of breeding parameters as "healthy". Not sure what progress would it make, but the moment you introduce higher functions of the brain, you end up in the same dead end.

#2 Fixation is definitely not healthy, but in a world where masochism exists, declaring that porn could lead to one is stating something beyond obvious. The only thing that does stand out is how, unlike many other things, it is designed specifically to provide sexual release (eg. dopamine, but it's sexual-release-related, not porn-related, so...). Beyond that... nothing. It's like stating that living near McDonalds leads to being unhealthy - when it's going there and eating like a pig that does. Is McDonalds more liekly to cause addiction than a restaurant? Even if it is, the influence of McDiet on things outside of your preference/ability to eat different food is at least measurable and pretty well documented. You didn't provide much about sexual side of things, in comparison - aside from what I already described via cinema vs. theatre.

 

[DementedSheep]

Asexuality is a real thing and is perfectly healthy.

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.

Something is only a health issues if it is actually negatively affecting the persons well-being and ability to function. Not typical =/= not healthy.

 

[Just Ebola]

Since this apparently went over your head, I already have all of the requirements to have a psychology degree, but chose to better myself instead. IF you do not even understand what the requirements are to obtain these degrees, what is the point in trying to explain this to you? Not only am I qualified, I can prescribe medication for it if I chose to treat them myself instead of handing them a referral. Yes, It is easier to laugh than it is to list every course I took so you can make a side by side comparison where their education stopped and mine kept going just to make you understand why what you said was so funny.
Good day, I have errands to run. Thank you.
( FYI: MD's hand out referrals because they do not have all day to spend counseling patients. Counselors have much more time on their hands, as they are less skilled. )

Nothing went over my head, I'm not talking about requirements as much as I'm talking station in life. You took the courses, but you are not a practicing psychiatrist. Therefore you lack the experience and perspective of one, and that's why I don't put any stock in your diagnosis. Especially when you would rather derail things than actually argue your stance and provide counterpoints. Because why make a valid argument when you can just laugh and assure somebody they wouldn't understand, am I right? As convincing as that is, I didn't get into this so I could take part in a pissing match over degrees, but actually exchange thoughts, and actually get some in return. Still hasn't happened, funnily enough.

Look, I understand how it works, but it's the very fact that you don't spend all day counseling patients that makes you ill-equipped to diagnose every person on earth that doesn't feel an attraction to other people as mentally ill. You can argue that a pediatrician is somehow better than a psychologist but I find it extremely hard to believe when you seem incapable of talking about any of this rationally. If you want to opt out without actually contributing anything meaningful and thoughtful to this thread, be my guest, it's probably better that way.

Good luck with your errands!

 

[Nomad]

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.

This is highly debatable, and especially so in relation to this specific case. Psychiatric disorders are, by nature, social constructs. Heck, even the DSM-5 definition of mental disorders specifically draws up the lines with regards to whether or not the behaviour is "culturally approved". Since you're waving your qualifications around, then I would assume you're also well aware of the fact that there's a lively debate in the field itself [https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rethinking-psychology/201307/the-new-definition-mental-disorder] regarding the very viability of mental disorders as a concept. Your idea of a mental disorder as a natural absolute carries little scientific support [http://www.crossingdialogues.com/Ms-A08-02.pdf]. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the 1973 APA vote on homosexuality, if mental disorders are indeed natural givens.

 

[crimsonspear4D]

When it comes to porn, I can see how most young and few older men would become manipulated by it. Seeing very attractive women playing the seductive, eager slut, the naive amateur, or the man-hating, confident yet-easily tricked and tamed feminist (you'd be surprised how much of a thing this is) and portraying that with just an application of cock these women could be yours... in your dreams. With women it's a different affair, I've known women who like to watch porn as well ,mostly interracial and cuckold porn and not the bondage or femdom I'd been led to believe, but they do watch it. I've heard how women lose their self-esteem and self-worth watching porn, even though fairly recently a lot of "amateur" or semi-profession adult actresses aren't just skinny, plastic queens with more implants than brain cells.

The main problem that I have seen with people who watch porn in lieu of having real sexual relationships, is that both genders see themselves as unattractive or unwanted by the other; and yes, it's that whole "they believe society has unified sense of attraction thing" that most feminists spout on about. But IN MY OWN NARROW-MINDED OPINION, I sort of feel that women have it somewhat easier. I mean with men, we can find almost anything attractive about women, even their feet or their elbows or something - I've seen fat or "thick" women in porn who are more attractive than skinny ones. But the one thing that most men fear is that one would not be able to satisfy a women, regardless of their own looks. Men are taught that ALL women (especially the normally unattainable highly attractive ones) all crave THE BIG D, and when a women tell you otherwise they are either lying or trying patronizingly spare your feelings, either way it sucks!

Hentai, on the other hand, I don't see how anyone can get "cripplingly addicted" to it, I mean I can understand in japan where most of it so conservative and strict, and sexually repressive. But here? Not really. But since 90% of ALL hentai is female rape or victimization I can see how it fucks people especially men up. I've been watching hentai for nearly a decade now, and I find myself being annoyingly bored and frustrated with it. Mostly because it's 90% percent women getting raped all the time. I start to think that men in japan can't even "get hard" unless a girl is in some form of danger.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I don't pretend to be an expert on human sexuality, but I think plenty of guys who watch porn are quite interested in having sex with a real life woman, but aren't able to achieve that with the snap of their fingers. I think that guys who 'prefer' porn over a flesh and blood woman are a pretty small minority of guys who watch porn. Not every guy is George Clooney and can just find a willing sex partner any time they want.

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.

Do you have any scientific evidence of this? I'm aware that excessive porn consumption can cause sexual dysfunction in men, but you seem to be putting the cart before the horse. I'd say that the vast majority of men who turn to porn exclusively and don't ever pursue real women didn't start out that way: they pursued real women but found it so difficult, so unsuccessful, and/or so frustrating that they opted to turn to porn instead because it provides a much simpler alternative. If porn disappeared tomorrow, I don't think these guys would magically become more successful with women, and instead they would simply be sexually frustrated with no real outlet for that frustration.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Again, that's assuming what you're saying even happens in the first place. In my experience, everything you're saying is bullshit.

Are you saying that you WANT me to go out and catch STDs and have a bunch of children that I'm not prepared for?

Are you saying that the *only* alternative to staying in and masturbating to cartoon porn on the Internet is going out and having promiscuous, unprotected sex with a string of people? Have you considered that there are more responsible and healthy ways to have satisfying sex with real people that don't lead to STDs and a bunch of children?

You, as with any one, can do whatever you so choose. It's your life to live. But if you prefer porn to real women, can't get aroused except by the digital kind of woman then it is an unhealthy state to be in. I genuinely have sympathy for you and don't blame you; I blame the web sites that make porn so accessible that they've ruined thousands upon thousands of mens' abilities to pursue real-life relationships. They are as bad as casinos who ruin gamblers, games like WoW that have created WoW widows [https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/WOW_widow/info], illegal drugs that also create addicts and other such vices. Feed your vice, enjoy it, stay in and ignore real people, but don't trick yourself into thinking that it's a healthy way to live. You're doing yourself a massive disservice in the short and long term.

 

[Rosiv]

I don't really see the alternatives to be honest. War shooters like Call of duty glorify war and violence, as do alot of games in general( with regards to violence) and I see no way to buck that trend. In video games case, this is due to the fact that video-games require a "game" aspect, and a "game" requires challenge. Virtual Violence seems like a very "human" way of creating that challenge. I suppose the obvious retort to that would be puzzle games that lack it, but I personally can not imagine playing videogames without violence. This also sadly makes me not able to picture another entertainment, porn(hentai), without the standards I have seen thus far. I am not saying these are good standards, or that they should be kept, but porn at this accessibility is such a recent thing; maybe the people who have these unrealistic expectations are just a product of their time. Again, I wouldn't really know of a solution.


As an aside: I always thought entertainment in general, whether it be gambling, porn, video-games, etc... , didn't cause an actual "addiction"(if by addiction, we mean a physical withdrawal after being deprived), but more of a "compulsion" (in my opinion: being "drawn" to do something out of habit).

 

[Recusant]

What about those women who watch porn?

Much the same applies. See below.

This is an interesting choice of phrases. I think you've forgotten, however, that we're not just members of a species, but also individuals, and that our "health" thus has to be measured in terms beyond the evolutionary. An adult homosexual male probably won't be attracted to real life women; this doesn't make him any less "healthy". It means he's very likely not reproducing, but again, that means little if we're only considering the man himself.

I wasn't referring to homosexuals in my post.

You didn't specifically exclude them, either; given the relevance to what you were saying regarding sexual attraction, I assumed you were making a deliberate point about what was "healthy".

How does it negatively affect health? By using porn a man will be rewiring his brain. The dopamine reward system can quickly turn its use into an addiction. A man who uses it all the time instead of seeking actual sex with women will find that when he's confronted by a real woman he doesn't feel aroused by her. He may not feel the desire to pursue her, he may not know how to talk to her, to flirt or be able to perform if they did get frisky. Training one's body to orgasm to porn and one's own hand will make it harder to be aroused by an actual woman with a normal figure, the friction from a vagina is not the same as a hand. Erectile dysfunction, inability to orgasm are prime issues.

"Addiction" is a heavily loaded word. I don't understand the sense you're using it in here, unless you're implying that humans are all nothing more than dopamine addicts, with their every action working (directly or indirectly) towards getting their next fix. Humans don't work that way, no animal does. Instinct isn't thought control. But it's not just habit, either. Repetition can override instinct, but it can't change it- Lamarckian psychology, while an interesting idea, is still wrong. Our hypothetical man may develop a preference for the type of women he sees in porn; this will not remove his interest in the women he encounters in the physical world. The sheer volume of pornography readily available may tell him that he can, essentially, have his women "made to order", exactly to his taste, when and wherever he wants them, and this may give him less motivation to pursue real women, it doesn't mean he feels no attraction. This leads into your next point...

Unrealistic expectations was suggested in the OP and there is that too, particularly for minors and inexperienced boys and young men it can mess up their views of real women and real sex. Then there is how orgasms release dopamine again. As well as being a quick road to addiction, it can also cause men to seek more and more graphic scenes to get the same feeling (as the same things lose efficacy). By training his brain to get off to an infinite supply of women, all ready to drop their clothes at his mouse click, women of all shapes, colours and sizes, a man will find it much harder to be satisfied with just one real one.

This is not only wild exaggeration, it's flagrantly insulting. A sensation being pleasurable does mean it is "addictive" in any sense of the word, save that it is pleasurable. The feeling of drawing a breath into lungs that've gone without it for too long is quite possibly the best one I've ever known- and one we've nearly all felt, to one degree or another. Do we have massive waves of brain damage caused by pleasure-seekers looking to scratch that dopamine itch by rendering themselves unable to breathe? Not at all. The closest we come in the odd auto-erotic asphyxiation accident. Dopamine hits can be habit-forming; yes, but we'd never have lasted as a species if we fell victim as readily as you seem to think we do. Being "addicted to sex" is like being "addicted to oxygen" or "addicted to calories". Instinct is a GPS, (personal) Biology is a passenger shouting directions, but Will is behind the wheel. Instinct says "reproduce". Biology says "here's a series of neurochemical cocktails to help push you in that direction". Neither makes you take a given course of action, neither can.

Now, the more children you have, the more likely at least one of them will survive to breed on their own; the more women you inseminate, the more children you're likely to have. This is basic biological math. The desire to spread your genes around, and the resulting discontent with not doing so, isn't a product of porn, it's a product of the laws of nature. It's also a big part of the reason why our species' love affair with monogamy is so on-again-off-again; your children are a lot more likely to survive and breed if you're around to help care and provide for them. All you can blame porn for, in this case, is giving people messages they misunderstand: it's not supposed to be representative of the real world, it's supposed to be a self-contained fantasy. It's not intended as "education" of any kind. People will see it and get incorrect ideas, true. Then they'll go out into the real world and discover the truth. They will enter society not knowing how to romantically talk to women. They'll learn. Unless you're pushing for banning fiction of any kind and an entirely society-determined courtship process, I fail to see the problem.

I don't follow some of what you're saying here.
- Should they be denied? Should who be denied what? No one is denying anyone anything.

To the contrary. You're stating that those who can't or won't go through the difficulties of securing physical sex with another person are inferior in the area of "health", denying them the status of "healthy". My post was attempting to illustrate (rather indirectly, I admit) that in terms of personal physical, personal psychological, society-wide and species wide, they're not notably inferior (that is, less healthy) than their counterparts who don't.

- "crippling social or emotional problems" - I did say "healthy" in my post. I'm not touching psychological issues.

You did indeed say "healthy". That was your exact word. Mental health is a part of health; that's why it contains that word. Semantics aside, you're talking about human sexuality; the only way you can say you're not "touching" psychological issues is if you admit you're grappling them.

As for the effort required to date and go out with actual women, that's the price for a real relationship. If it is too steep a price, or the man doesn't have the "time, effort, patience", "energy, will or circumstance", etc, then he can stay single, at home and masturbate to a computer screen should he so choose. Healthy, sexually active men should be going out and meeting women. They should be aroused by seeing a beautiful woman. If they don't get aroused by real women but can only "get it up" to digital ones on a screen, that is not healthy. But it is their choice to make and their life to live; no one is gonna intervene.

And there, I think, is the rub. Why, exactly, should our hypothetical man pursue physical women? He's found a route that's easier, faster, simpler, and cheaper. The only reason you give is that it's the behavior of men who are "healthier", but you don't even clarify what you mean by that. To reduce what you and I have spent several hundred words on to its simplest form:
You claim "healthy" men should be going out, meeting women, and being aroused by them.
I ask: why?

 

[Super Cyborg]

Having no experience with women romantically or sexually, and having never watched porn, I don't really have expectations (by that I mean I don't know what it's supposed to be like, especially for your first time). I seem to enjoy getting arousal by looking at pictures of women I find attractive, with clothing on (some leg, shoulder, and belly skin showing is enough for me). Usually it's real women, but every once in a while, it can be animated. Can't really add much beyond that, except people do what they want, and that with such an overpopulated world, having less babies being made is a good thing.

Also, I was expecting this thread to go in a completely different direction (trying to decide if that's a good thing or bad thing).

 

[SquallTheBlade]

Attraction to children is the prelude to abuse

Just like heterosexuality is prelude to rape?

 

[SquallTheBlade]

You, as with any one, can do whatever you so choose. It's your life to live. But if you prefer porn to real women, can't get aroused except by the digital kind of woman then it is an unhealthy state to be in.

Why? It's not hurting ANYONE. By definition it can't be unhealthy. Unhealthy state is something which will affect people negatively. Either the user or the people around him/her.

You're doing yourself a massive disservice in the short and long term.

Why exactly? Are you saying people are missing out because they don't pursue sexual relationships? Seems to me you are just saying that people should enjoy the same things you do.

 

[Starik20X6]

Porn is exactly the same as any other media- often what it depicts is hilariously far from reality, and for the most part any reasonably well adjusted person can tell the difference.

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.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. The only reason porn works in the first place is because the brain cannot tell the difference between a photo/video of a potential sexual partner, and the actual presence of a potential sexual partner[footnote]Obviously on a conscious level you know the difference, but as far as all the systems involved in getting you horny are concerned, there's no difference between looking at real or digital renderings of boobs/dicks etc.[/footnote]. If that wasn't the case, looking at porn wouldn't get you aroused. Rather, what's happening is those men are conditioning themselves to be only able to orgasm by masturbation while observing something sexual, rather than through active participation with a partner. Which is absolutely a problem, but I wouldn't think that it's the porn itself causing it. If you put one of these guys in a room with a two way mirror while some girls in the other room do stuff, I'd wager the guy would be able to climax while watching.

As for needing more and more material to climax, well, we can see that in other walks of life- thrill seekers attempting more and more dangerous things, food lovers wanting spicier and spicier foods- hell, alcoholics and drug addicts needing more to reach the same level of drunk/high after repeated use. Like anything, you build up tolerances for things you're exposed to. Which absolutely yes is a problem if someone can't orgasm without the use of a sex sling, 27 sequentially sized dildos and a Chewbacca costume, but that's not the fault of porn, but their own desensitisation to more conventional eroticism.

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

The funny thing about hentai, is how almost every girl model is skinny, has big cleavage, and a 'high school girl's voice'

You clearly need to delve deeper into the hentai world. There's a huge amount of variety compared to real porn.
If there's one thing hentai does better than proper porn it's variety. You're bound to find exactly what you want and it's not even that hard.

 

[Remus]

Again, that's assuming what you're saying even happens in the first place. In my experience, everything you're saying is bullshit.

Are you saying that you WANT me to go out and catch STDs and have a bunch of children that I'm not prepared for?

Are you saying that the *only* alternative to staying in and masturbating to cartoon porn on the Internet is going out and having promiscuous, unprotected sex with a string of people? Have you considered that there are more responsible and healthy ways to have satisfying sex with real people that don't lead to STDs and a bunch of children?

You, as with any one, can do whatever you so choose. It's your life to live. But if you prefer porn to real women, can't get aroused except by the digital kind of woman then it is an unhealthy state to be in. I genuinely have sympathy for you and don't blame you; I blame the web sites that make porn so accessible that they've ruined thousands upon thousands of mens' abilities to pursue real-life relationships. They are as bad as casinos who ruin gamblers, games like WoW that have created WoW widows [https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/WOW_widow/info], illegal drugs that also create addicts and other such vices. Feed your vice, enjoy it, stay in and ignore real people, but don't trick yourself into thinking that it's a healthy way to live. You're doing yourself a massive disservice in the short and long term.

Apparently according to you it's healthier that sitting in the comfort of my own home while browsing the web to see what my favorite artists have drawn since last I checked.

Also, dont fucking patronize me, dude.

It has not "ruined" anything. I do not want a romantic or sexual relationship with anyone unless there's a certain kind of trust or connection involved between us. Right now I dont feel anything like what I want toward anybody I know. (Well, except for one guy, but that's not likely to happen. *sigh*)

That would not change if I didnt use porn.

My friends dont mind. My ex-boyfriend didn't mind (and still doesn't,) and my current 'crush' doesn't mind.

Stop being such a fucking prude unless you can prove your claims.

Guys GUYS. You're both trying to find moral high ground in a discussion about PORN. By its very nature, such a position cannot be found without coming off as a judgmental asshole staring down your nose at the other posters. Stop judging and stick to the topic at hand.