Laz said I should hit ya, I'll do anything
for some spicy Ken-L-Ration, oh lick me!"
Posted on 10/22/2011 11:58:36 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows
Internet pornography is creating a generation of young men who are hopeless in the bedroom, according to research.
Exposure to lurid images and films in the new media is de-sensitising so many young people that they are increasingly unable to become excited by ordinary sexual encounters, a report said.
-snip-
The report, called 'Porn-Induced Sexual Dysfunction is a Growing Problem', explains that the loss of libido 30 years early is caused by continuous over-stimulation of dopamine, the neurotransmitter that activates the body's reaction to sexual pleasure, by repeatedly viewing pornography on the internet.
A 'paradoxical effect' is created whereby with each new thrill, or 'dopamine spike', the brain loses its ability to respond to dopamine signals, meaning that porn-users demand increasingly extreme experiences to become sexually aroused.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I agree with you, it’s very unhealthy, yet the “health professionals” tout it.
It could be even worse than that.
That classy green eyed blonde you’re talking to could.be “classygreeneyedblonde”.
Ick.
“... maybe the ladies gotta step up their game”.
I’m stepping up my game. I am rolling up a newspaper to wap you on the nose... is that enough game?! LOL!
And who's to say they weren't right? The internet porn thing is just an extension and intensification of the issue, not a new thing.
And who's to say they weren't right? The internet porn thing is just an extension and intensification of the issue, not a new thing.
And who's to say they weren't right? The internet porn thing is just an extension and intensification of the issue, not a new thing.
Ted Bundy was a well known manipulator of people, especially women. Just because he said it, I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in anything he said. He may well have done it as a "last laugh." Do you really think that Ted Bundy had a "deathbed conversion?"
Mark
Clicked post once. Showed up three times.
Sorry bout that.
The idea that women "feel" and that men "look" is laughable. If that were true please explain why women's fashion is so important. Or explain the almost feral reaction women express towards those "exotic" men dancers.
Or make a brief perusal of "women's literature", either the high class erotic, or the supermarket pulp variety.
The point I'm trying to make is that pornography is not so much the issue, it's an expression of deep, deep, sinful human nature that knows no so called "gender" boundaries.
Most discussions I've heard (radio, books, magazine, sermon, etc - from a Christian point of view) have been hopelessly compromised by fundamental errors. These include presuppositions arising from imaginary ideas about "Women" (usually male prejudice - today called sexism), and errors in analysis, and errors in putting together "solutions".
What is missed altogether is that the solution is Christ and Him crucified. He is our transformation - "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." (1 John 3:1-3) And that goes for both men and women.
When we sit at Mass, or Protestant "breaking of bread", we are to discern the body and blood of the Lord in the elements. We are to, as the writer of Hebrews said, see Jesus, not as we imagine Him to be but as He really is: According to the Scriptures ( 1 Corinthians 15:3&4). The writer to the Hebrews said this: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." (Hebrews 2:9)
We "see" Jesus in the Scriptures, reading in faith, informed by the Holy Spirit. As Jesus said, "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32) Jesus is our transformation.
Posting from your phone?
Nothing is better than the real thing.
Al Qaeda Porn bump. (img in post 20 came from the hard drive fd Osama Bin Laden)
.Look at it like a steam kettle, just because the kettle blows steam off every now that doesn't mean there is no boiling water inside.
It also makes your palms hairy and can cause you to go blind.
< cynicism > Women want to maintain their monopoly on the tang as the sole source provider for the sig-other man. Anything that cuts into their territory, prostitution, porn etc., really jerks their chain. < /cynicism >
Why do so many Americans think looking at erotic photos/videos is perverse? It is the natural order of life. What? We're all suppose to just do missionary with our legal married wife to pro-create? Pfft!
I'm with you.
too much are the optimum words....
to quote SNL from Halloween many years ago....sometimes a man has to do what he has to do to prevent 'premature ejac-o-lantern'.
Another worthless and incorrect study.
It’s difficult to read the original, I’ve only got one hand free.
Thars noy truw.
Two words; Nair and Spectacles.
Yeah I thought I was burned out untill I learned how to make RedNeck Viagra you take 1 bottle of Miracle-Gro 1 can of Fix-A-Flat and .............
That's it. I'm becoming a seminar speaker.
“I don’t understand — are women complaining they don’t get enough sex”
I think its more about control then anything else.
Even jihadis get camp followers.
I have enjoyed reasonable enjoyment of seeing naked women in print and screen for many years.
Unless one is obsessive and replaces interaction with warm blooded women with computer sex or maybe that is all they have then I don't see this as the issue the article claims except:
1) all women are not as physically beautiful as on the screen or magazines...as a rule.. so one can get crazy expectations...I know homely men who simply must have supermodels and wait forever
2)due to the often heightened nature on entertainment sex in mags and computer some men...and maybe women..the kind that like it “rough”..get oversexed by kink and freak..and that can lead to a dark place if overindulged...everyone like thigh highs and a little playing and stuff..and passion but when it gets to where you always have to have whips and chains and dress up or group sex or gang bangs and all the wild stuff you see today and you can no longer just enjoy the warm slow melt of a good woman one on one in a nice bed or backseat of your pickup then you have let something in that is destructive..I have seen this firsthand where guys usually but some women just have to go kink all the time and they get numbed to relationship sex...and yes..no question that internet freak has made women more bizarre than before where some simply feel they must do what they see some screen prostitute doing for money that really has not much place in a love relationship or marriage....
3)the access of hard sex for kids on the internet troubles me because it's just too much too soon..when I was a kid you had to seek it out usually from somebody’s dad that had it hidden away some closet or drawer...black and whites and pasty gals and swarthy men not doing anything particularly unordinary
There is no doubt that sex has loosened markedly and that women are now about as promiscuous as men in youth and they will do things now ..oral etc..that few did in my day. I think now they believe it's expected.
The paradox in all this is that in the white community in particular as women have become more sexually loose that men have become less masculine at the same time. The corresponding change in the black or latino community except at the higher ends is simply not happening with the men getting slighter built physically and acting feminine...so bizarre
I think this stuff will run it's course but at a price.
Every generation of mothers (well, except maybe the present one) has cautioned their daughters with some version of “leave something to the imagination!”
IOW, it’s not just about whatever is considered “modest” at that point in time. It’s actually about desensitizing men so that, almost no matter how much you take off, it’s . . . yawn.
Of course, a long time ago maybe moms were talking about a girl showing her ankle, or whatever.
But the fact is at some point there really is NOTHING left to the imagination. And the same thing happens that this study and others demonstrates happens with porn. Men become unarousable.
The amount of cleavage shown on Fox News these days would have been outrageous a few years ago. (Why do infobabes look like they are dressed for an evening cocktail party instead of a business lunch?) Now it’s all boobs all the time and — HELLO — no one cares. That literally means that no one cares.
Any woman who is okay with no one caring when she reveals her body is being very shortsighted, methinks. At some point (as you pointed out in your example), there’s nothing left to reveal and . . . then what when it really counts?
that will do it...my DroidX is not a master of FR posting
I care...I like the FOX babes
really...but I am not a woman obviously
and some are very good too
and other networks have them as well...the morning Headline News girl is a doll
it draws viewers and it helps when some like Guilfoyle and McCallum or Banderas have a decent viewpoint too...I like them
Ping
Ping
Whether they are right or not wasn’t really my point. Who knows? My point is that it seems if you live long enough you start to see the same stories (or variation on a theme {see global cooling in the 70s verses global warming in 90s}) all over again.
Paging Group Captain Mandrake...
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Surprise, surprise, surprise!!!! /NOT!!!
Remove sex from love, commitment and marriage - or even a real human being - and voila! Destruction of the natural biological urge. What to speak of relationships, marriage, families... and any children who are accidentally or even purposely exposed to the filth that is pornography.
People need to keep in mind that for the first 200 years of our country (maybe minus 20 years or so), no one thought that the First Amendment rights covered obscenity or pornography. Thanks to porn producers, the ACLU and a leftist dominated SCOTUS, we now have pornography without limits, abortion and homosexual indoctrination 24/7.
Ummmm....so men will look and women will then feel good.
The point is that women use their eyes as much as men. Many circles ignore that fact, and essentially say that men are the only ones who sin through the lust of the eyes and that women are affected by feeling.
Well said. Pornography is worse than a lot of street drugs(No, I don’t support that), in terms of societal damage and addiction.
The goal is always to destroy the family and morality. Making way for big-government tyranny.
Not to mention a lot of homosexuals recruit or are recruited with pornography. Perverts are not born the way they are, they are created i.e. taught, recruited and hooked on perversion by pornography. It almost always starts out with pornography.
[cough] Hi, Mr. Arrows. Good day to you, sir!
And to you, Mrs Lady.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Marnia Robinson is a former corporate attorney with degrees from Brown and Yale who writes books about the unwelcome effects of evolutionary biology on intimate relationships and the striking parallels between recent scientific discoveries and traditional sacred-sex texts. Her cross-disciplinary perspective incorporates the insights of psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and even ancient sages. With her husband Gary Wilson, who taught anatomy and physiology for years and is a neuroscience enthusiast, she writes articles for publications as diverse as The Evolutionary Review and the award-winning anthology Toward 2012: Perspectives on the Next Age. With Gary's help, she also blogs on "The Huffington Post" and "The Good Men Project." Cupid is available on Kindle and has been published in German.
At least she only specializes in "unwelcome effects of evolutionary biology on intimate relationships". Lord only knows what she'd find if she looked at "welcome effects" on things. But I can't help but wonder, although I can't find, if she specialized in "Womyn's studies" and "Gender studies". Well, she's a lawyer and has worked for Campbell's Soup, at least. And not to put too fine a point on it, she blogs at the Huff'nPuff.
Another red flag is when I see "cross-disciplinary perspective" or "interdisciplinary studies" in the biography of these "researchers." An interesting quote from her LinkedIn page: "No mammals are sexually monogamous, and yet close, trusted relationships are our best health insurance." HUH??
We all know that men are horny, pr0n addicted misogynists, but some statistics (from 2005-2006 but probably still valid) indicate that one in three visitors to pornographic websites are women. But 70% of them keep their cyber activities secret. Also, 17% of women admit to being addicted to pornography. Twice as many women as men favor chat rooms. And "Women, far more than men, are likely to act out their behaviors in real life, such as having multiple partners, casual sex or affairs." Or "Statistics indicate the term “sex” was searched for as often by female consumers as it was by males."
I wonder if Ms. Robinson read any of these statistics in her "cross-disciplinary" research on the "unwelcome effects" of porn.
It's always amazing to watch the knee jerk reaction against anything considered "porn", especially when you consider that Saudia Arabia, Iran, Syria, Bahrain, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Kenya, India, Cuba, China are the top pornography banning countries; while searches for the keyword "sex" are from the countries 1. Pakistan, 2. India, 3. Egypt, 4. Turkey 5. Algeria 6.Morocco, 7. Indonesia, 8. Vietnam 9. Iran 10. Croatia. -- notice any sharia law countries in that list? Hmmmm? Poor little muzzies with their burqa clad wimmen can't get enough T & A? (Won't get into the list for "xxx" or "porn".)
Then there's this little gem: "Promise Keeper men who viewed pornography in last week - 53%". (But it was just for "research", I'm sure.)
While "The pornography industry is larger than the revenues of the top technology companies combined: Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo!, Apple, Netflix and EarthLink" and "US porn revenue exceeds the combined revenues of ABC, CBS, and NBC", China, South Korea and Japan have larger revenues from porn than the U.S. In fact, those top three countries' porn revenues are larger than all the rest combined... including the U.S.
Isn't it interesting that something so universally disparaged, excoriated and legislated against is still so popular with nearly every facet of the human population. Even those who are most against it. I think Ms. Robinson needs to take her "cross-disciplinary", gender studies glasses off and maybe look at the forest instead of the trees.
I posted the article here because I thought my fellow FReepers would have interesting things to say about it. Thank you for confirming my theory.
Frankly, I’m a little skeptical about those revenue estimates for the porn industry, just because these days so much is given away for free. I have to wonder what businesses are included in that estimate (e.g., would strip clubs count?), and how they got their numbers.
|
2006 and 2005 Pornography United States Industry Revenue Statistics
|
|||
| 2006 (Billions) |
2005 (Billions) |
||
| Video Sales & Rentals | $3.62 | $4.28 | |
| Internet | $2.84 | $2.50 | |
| Cable / PPV / In-Room / Mobile / Phone Sex | $2.00 | $2.00 | |
| Exotic Dance Clubs | $2.19 | $1.34 | |
| Novelties | $1.73 | $1.50 | |
| Magazines | $.95 | $1.00 | |
| $13.33 | $12.62 | ||
|
US porn revenue exceeds the combined revenues of ABC, CBS, and NBC. |
|||
Again, these statistics were for 2005-2006, but I don't doubt that the basics may still hold true, although numbers might be larger now.
Thank you for the information.
Frankly, I would suspect the numbers would be lower today - when every Tom, Dick, and Jane record themselves doing the horizontal mambo and put it on the Internet, why pay? My gut feeling is that commercial porn may be going the way of the print newspaper, and for much the same reasons. Also, I’m not sure if adult toys and strip clubs should be considered porn - arguably prurient, but not necessarily porn.
I may have more to say once I visit the site - I’m very curious about the methodology used to arrive at those numbers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
