http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/index.html
A non-randomly chosen cross-section of people (sexually active kids) are compared against another (adults) and the 40 year old author is horrified (note that any pre-supposed conclusion can be supported by hand-picking your examples). At first, the premise is that pr0n counter-intuitively makes people less interested in sex because pr0n itself has gotten so much more intense, but then can't help playing the "kids are having so much sex it doesn't mean anything" card. Which is it? Do they have loads have sex, or do they sit at home and wank? The author isn't quite sure, but whatever it is, it's bad. The whole article was spotty enough that I couldn't help but to comment.
Premise: Sexually active kids don't feel strong bonds with their partners. Conclusion: Pr0n is responsible. Verdict: Stupid. Could it be that kids are... immature? And that sexually active kids are perhaps... shallow? Could it be that a much better study would be a random selection of kids in 2000's versus documentation of a similar study conducted with kids in another decade?
Premise: Modern hard-core pr0n is harder-core than old-school hard-core. Conclusion: It replaces sex it's so good. Verdict: Wrong. The colors and VHS flicker is better, and pr0n has grown into several special niches (fetishes). Styles have changed; in mainstram video pr0n, the facial is now standard fare, but uninterested looking aging pr0n stares have been plugging all available holes and listlessly swapping positions for decades. The 70's were extremely kinky, with the disco scene, I'm told. I've known people (older than me) with lots of stories about massive drug use, piles of nekkid girls, coming home sexed and drugged out of their minds clothes lost somewhere, trying to sneak back into the house. People were shagging in their vans, for chrissakes. And we all know about hippie love-fests. The styles change, but the permiscuity is a human constant (mammal constant? animal constant?). The same stories circulate about the 30's and 40's, again, with different styles. Prostitution, loose women, the sex slave trade, multiple wives, orgies, and everything short of furries are documented in the old testament. Surely the existance of this stuff shouldn't surprise people any more. No, the heathen gods didn't vanish when people destroyed their golden idols.
And this ignores the whole question of whether pr0n is better than sex or has become more so -- intentionally ignores, that is. This doesn't deserve a comment and it certainly doesn't deserved to be stated as an expert's theory in print.
Theory: The ultra-hot bodies in porn flicks, TV ads, and magazine ads damage our partner's self-esteem and make it hard for them to keep their partners. Verdict: What the hell? So, 16 year old boys are dumping their 15 year old girlfriends... to date underwear models and pr0n stars? Everyone knows the quarterback gets the pr0m queen, and from there on down, it's 2nd place, 3rd place, etc. We're all trying to date the hotest member of the opposite (or sometimes same) sex as we can, and that creates a system of supply and demand. Ask a bunch of boys and girls if they're dating someone as hot as they want and they'll say "no". This is a fact of life and has nothing to do with magazines or porn. And as for self-esteem, could it be that, uh, maybe these kids are, uh, shallow?
Theory: Seeing people getting facials in porns makes women have to take the facials in real life now. Verdict: Oh frickin' wa. It's the style right now and it doesn't matter that it's the fall out of stupid porn flicks. If people didn't think it was neat for some reason and want to see it, it wouldn't have made it into the porn. Trust me, like any other fashion, it'll run its course. In the mean time, if some spooge in your eye is the worst fallout of the existance of pr0n, I simply fail to see the problem. As for boob jobs, this was also the fashion. It wasn't in fashion long before a natual backlash hit hard. The pent-up boob-job-fans had their day and it didn't take long before their rejoycing gave way to massive protests and it became clear that they were a minority. Porn might have given them the platform, but science filled it. Again, porn echos back our interests as fashions, where sometimes "our" is just an outspoken minority.
This is another opinion-passed-as-theory piece by an old person bitter because they weren't getting any when they were a kid and approximately half of the kids were sleeping with each other. My advice: have lots and lots of sex while you're still young and competitive so you don't wind up bitter like this author.
Bleah. Blasting this one was too easy.
-scott
You need to rent you a good one and release all that pent up frustration! : )
There are better studies than that one about why porn is bad. Whether you agree or not, get the movie anyway, I think you need it.
I saw that article yesterday. There's also a similar one written several years ago that has the same shrill message but also adds in plenty of shocked outrage that pr0n has become somewhat mainstream.
My biggest problem with this kind of article is the sensationalism. A good indicator is the hearkening back to the idealized way culture supposedly was contrasted with an unscientific sample of anecdotes from people who have problems related to some aspect of the supposedly hard gritty reality we have today.
Yes, some people undoubtedly do have problems with using pr0n to replace reality. Some people have problems with using WoW to replace reality. Some people are addicted to gambling and shopping. Does that mean these activites are dangerous for everybody? Not neccessarily.
I found that article an interesting contrast to this article about the cultural implications of 'Shortbus'(text may be NSFW, but this is a discussion about pr0n, for crying out loud).
