Do you think regular porn watching could be damaging?

The Corinthian

WittyKitty1 wrote: »

In some ways, it slightly bothers me that he does because I know how those girls look and I know I look nothing like that which makes me a bit self-conscious when it comes to taking my clothes off etc..

It might slightly bother many men that their other halves keep a vibrator in their bedside table that's so large that you could almost play baseball with it - it might make us a bit self-conscious that we're not as well endowed.

But it generally won't because we know that such items are always exaggerated because they, not being real, have to be to compensate and such feelings would be more about our own sense of self worth than the vibrator or porn or whatever.

In short, in cases where people have self esteem issues over these things, my experience is the problem is with them, not these things, and even if there was no porn or vibrators or whatever to trigger these feelings, something else in the relationship will.

I think it could affect how you interact with women, in terms of your expectations of their bodies, abilities etc..

Perhaps when we're very young and inexperienced, and then we realize that it doesn't work that way and the positions you get in porn are actually really uncomfortable for everyone.

syklops

The Corinthian wrote: »

It might slightly bother many men that their other halves keep a vibrator in their bedside table that's so large that you could almost play baseball with it - it might make us a bit self-conscious that we're not as well endowed.

But it generally won't because we know that such items are always exaggerated because they, not being real, have to be to compensate and such feelings would be more about our own sense of self worth than the vibrator or porn or whatever.

In short, in cases where people have self esteem issues over these things, my experience is the problem is with them, not these things, and even if there was no porn or vibrators or whatever to trigger these feelings, something else in the relationship will.

Perhaps when we're very young and inexperienced, and then we realize that it doesn't work that way and the positions you get in porn are actually really uncomfortable for everyone.

Very well put.

Daveysil15

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Well that's pretty much all young men/boys of a certain age then.

Not really, as some men become sexually active much earlier in life than others.

Pug160

The ones who become sexually active at a young age are the ones who are the most comfortable around women in my experience. Although that's not to say they don't have other problems.

Legs.Eleven

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Not really, as some men become sexually active much earlier in life than others.

You've missed my point. There is a point in the lives of all men/boys when they are inexperienced. You're saying it'd only have an affect on inexperienced guys and I'm willing to bet money that nowadays, most lads watch some form of porn before they see a woman (who they're about to have some kind of sexual relations with) naked. Not saying I agree or disagree on whether it shapes their expectations of women but it's worth considering.

Daveysil15

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

You've missed my point. There is a point in the lives of all men/boys when they are inexperienced. You're saying it'd only have an affect on inexperienced guys and I'm willing to bet money that nowadays, most lads watch some form of porn before they see a woman (who they're about to have some kind of sexual relations with) naked. Not saying I agree or disagree on whether it shapes their expectations of women but it's worth considering.

It is worth considering yes, but you did say all 'young' men/boys. You could be inexperienced at any age. Even people who haven't watched porn would probably have unrealistic expectations of sex.

Milkman2012

It is a substitute for reality, i would advise that you control it and not let it control you, for example take a week off occasionally. It can also change perspective on women and lead to them being seen as sexual objects, something to screw whereas in a relationship if two people love each other first and then have sex it is a completely different, physically and psychologically to having a quick shag with a stranger or masturbating to porn. Porn is also used by some as a form of comfort (self love). One other issue, by watching porn, you may be supporting an industry that is abusive as in some of the characters may be acting under duress.
Final comment - don't be hard on yourself (excuse the pun) about it, some people indulge in porn and then have guilt issues, there are enough people in the real world only too happy to criticise you, don't add to it yourself.

Pug160

Milkman2012 wrote: »

It is a substitute for reality, i would advise that you control it and not let it control you, for example take a week off occasionally. It can also change perspective on women and lead to them being seen as sexual objects, something to screw whereas in a relationship if two people love each other first and then have sex it is a completely different, physically and psychologically to having a quick shag with a stranger or masturbating to porn. Porn is also used by some as a form of comfort (self love). One other issue, by watching porn, you may be supporting an industry that is abusive as in some of the characters may be acting under duress.
Final comment - don't be hard on yourself (excuse the pun) about it, some people indulge in porn and then have guilt issues, there are enough people in the real world only too happy to criticise you, don't add to it yourself.

Porn can do that but in all honesty it's not the only culprit. In my opinion, men and women in this part of the world have lots of social rules and taboos and all sorts of ideas about the opposite sex that makes social interactions unhealthy. Go out on a Saturday night in most towns and you'll see girls dressed almost identical to how some escorts would dress. Now I'm not going to judge and say whether or not that is right or wrong, but the fact is that as a society we are seeing a lot of contradictions, and young males in particular can become confused about the world we're living in.

A girl who dresses provocatively is sexualising herself whether she wants to or not. I understand that some girls just like feeling good about themselves and like having a good time, but they are still knowingly presenting themselves as objects. Porn is not the only thing turning girls into objects, it is the girls themselves. Porn is worse though, admittedly.

seenitall

Pug160 wrote: »

A girl who dresses provocatively is sexualising herself whether she wants to or not. I understand that some girls just like feeling good about themselves and like having a good time, but they are still knowingly presenting themselves as objects. Porn is not the only thing turning girls into objects, it is the girls themselves. Porn is worse though, admittedly.

I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but this is offensive. So, if I'm wearing a short skirt or low-cut top on a night out, I'm (knowingly or unknowingly) presenting myself as an object??

No, I am most certainly not.

It sometimes means (speaking for myself only here) that I wouldn't mind some male attention that evening, perhaps some flirtatious interaction with the opposite sex. What I am wearing is a subtle signal, as is my general demeanor and body language (OR it could be that on that particular evening the colour combo in the outfit works best for the mood I'm in, just so you know that not every time I pick out clothes for a night out is about men ). So anyway - we are still several worlds away from me wanting, or indeed, needing, to be perceived as an object.

A man who doesn't have a tendency to see women as pieces of meat in general, will certainly not find justification for doing so in them wearing sexy clothing; and vice versa, I would imagine.

Pug160

seenitall wrote: »

I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but this is offensive. So, if I'm wearing a short skirt or low-cut top on a night out, I'm (knowingly or unknowingly) presenting myself as an object??

No, I am most certainly not.

It sometimes means (speaking for myself only here) that I wouldn't mind some male attention that evening, perhaps some flirtatious interaction with the opposite sex. What I am wearing is a subtle signal, as is my general demeanor and body language (OR it could be that on that particular evening the colour combo in the outfit works best for the mood I'm in, just so you know that not every time I pick out clothes for a night out is about men ). So anyway - we are still several worlds away from me wanting, or indeed, needing, to be perceived as an object.

A man who doesn't have a tendency to see women as pieces of meat in general, will certainly not find justification for doing so in them wearing sexy clothing; and vice versa, I would imagine.

I'm not trying to be offensive, no. But in fairness, what you said is contradictory. You're saying you're dressing a certain way to attract attention, which is sexualising yourself, with respect. Do you think a man looks at a woman he finds sexually appealing and wants to go over and talk to her because he thinks he might have a great conversation with her? That certainly wouldn't be the primary reason.

Women have a much greater kind of sexual power than most men. The only way a man would get similar sort of attention would be if he was a bodybuilder and he went out in speedos - and it wouldn't necessarily be the good type of attention either. But my point is that women, because of their power, arguably have greater responsibility, and they need to be truthful about themselves and the consequences of what they may deem to be innocent behaviour. I am not saying it is wrong by the way, but I am saying women are sexualising themselves, and are having a great deal of fun doing so.

The Corinthian

seenitall wrote: »

No, I am most certainly not.

What are you presenting yourself as then?

If you dress in a clown costume, I'd imagine you're presenting yourself as a clown. If you dress in a business suit, you'd be presenting yourself as a professional. If you dress in a gimp suit, well it would be unmistakable that you're presenting yourself in a sexual, BDSM, manner. If you dress in a similar way to a porn actress or prostitute, why should the logic not extend in exactly the same way and be seen as akin to one?

I understand this may not be your intention and find it offensive that it might be, but - call a spade a spade - why does the logic suddenly deviate simply because you find it offensive if it doesn't? Genuine question.

Daveysil15

seenitall wrote: »

It sometimes means (speaking for myself only here) that I wouldn't mind some male attention that evening, perhaps some flirtatious interaction with the opposite sex. What I am wearing is a subtle signal, as is my general demeanor and body language.

There may be some people who wouldn't consider it very subtle though. Some women wear next to nothing, in which case they certainly would be sexualising themselves.

seenitall

@ Pug:

I didn't say I didn't want to be perceived as sexy ('sexualising myself', if you will), but objectifing myself? No. I still want to be perceived as a person (albeit an attractive, female person), with thoughts, opinions and feelings. My intention of what I am going to take from the evening is NOT to be taken wholly from the way I happen to be dressed, nor, for that matter, is it to be assumed by anyone from my clothes at all! In other words, I could be horny as hell, or I could be mildly interested in meeting a new person or two, or I may even - hold on to your seat, this is revolutionary stuff - like the way a certain dress shows off my legs now that I've lost weight and the last example HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH MEN. Surely you can see that?

BTW, what consequences of what women "deem to be innocent behaviour" are you talking about? I just hope to god that you are not talking about sexual assault or similar, because women have the "greater responsibility" - for what exactly? (I'd better not go on until you explain what you mean.)


@ TC

As above, I hope to present myself as a reasonably attractive woman.

Do porn stars or prostitutes dress as I do? Don't know and don't care, frankly. One facet of a person's appearance is not some tacit approval of a free-for-all.

The onus is on a man to ascertain that I don't belong to either profession before he has launched himself onto me like a dog in heat.

The Corinthian

seenitall wrote: »

Do porn stars or prostitutes dress as I do?

No idea, but Pug wasn't talking about you, but about young women who do dress akin to prostitutes or porn stars when they go out. You're the one who decided we were talking about you.

One facet of a person's appearance is not some tacit approval of a free-for-all.

Yet people do judge a book by it's cover; that's a regrettable reality of life. I can virtually guaranteed that you get first impressions of men based upon how they're dressed too - are you saying men cannot do the same?

The onus is on a man to ascertain that I don't belong to either profession before he has launched himself onto me like a dog in heat.

I don't think anyone should launch themselves on anyone else, TBH. However, denying that how we dress shapes how others see us, does smack of denial.

seenitall

The Corinthian wrote: »

No idea, but Pug wasn't talking about you, but about young women who do dress akin to prostitutes or porn stars when they go out. You're the one who decided we were talking about you.

Yet people do judge a book by it's cover; that's a regrettable reality of life. I can virtually guaranteed that you get first impressions of men based upon how they're dressed too - are you saying men cannot do the same?

I don't think anyone should launch themselves on anyone else, TBH. However, denying that how we dress shapes how others see us, does smack of denial.

I am NOT denying any such thing. What I'm saying is that a lot of people's judgments or perceptions as to what other people are communicating (or, to be pedantic, mean to communicate) with their clothes or any other aspect of their appearance, can be deeply flawed.

A matter of miscommunication. Which is why I would advise not to be too quick to follow this train of thought: "Whoah, dressed like a pro tonight, eh! I'm in for sure, she's up for it!"

The Corinthian

seenitall wrote: »

I am NOT denying any such thing. What I'm saying is that a lot of people's judgments or perceptions as to what other people are communicating (or, to be pedantic, mean to communicate) with their clothes or any other aspect of their appearance, can be deeply flawed.

It may be flawed, but people do judge a person by the cover and in getting upset at the idea that someone might, you are effectively denying that this happens.

Here's a question; if you see a well-dressed and groomed man wearing an expensive watch, would you not come to a number of conclusions about him? Or another one, wearing old clothes, unkempt and unshaven? Or wearing a rugby shirt, or Celtic t-shirt? Or sandals?

Now you may be special and not do so, but however 'flawed' it may be to read a book by it's cover, people do it; therefore one should be aware that it will happen. And unless you feel that the above examples should not affect someone's perception of another, then you have to extend the same logic to the perception projected by a woman dressed akin to a sex worker.

A matter of miscommunication. Which is why I would advise not to be too quick to follow this train of thought: "Whoah, dressed like a pro tonight, eh! I'm in for sure, she's up for it!"

Experience will teach men that, but that's hardly the message that it sends out and younger men will often get the wrong message. But is it entirely their fault that this is the message they get? After all, such clothing is used by sex workers for a reason.

seenitall

I'm not getting upset. I told a poster that stating that women are objectifing themselves is offensive, which I feel it is, to women. Doesn't objectifing mean to be seeing a person as an object? Do you think that 'even' the woman who dressed for male attention on a given night, wants to be objectified, wants to be considered a plaything and nothing more? I have a fair idea she doesn't, because I can't imagine it's a pleasant thing for anyone to feel outside the context of consensual intimacy - but my point was that a night out is very far away from that context yet, until two people have established an understanding by means other than looking at who's wearing what.

The answers to your questions are self-evident, I will make certain judgments or draw certain conclusions based on people's clothing, same as anyone - men may can think whatever they want, of course, as can anyone. Clothes do send messages, we've established that. But anyone heeding those messages would be wise to also arm themselves with corroborating those perceived messages by various different channels of communication, not just one!

For example, and this is a big one, have a look at the social context. Especially these days, when dressing skimpily and sexily for a night out is practically the uniform of women in a certain age group, I think it's more than a little unwise to jump to any conclusions about any individual women or their intentions on the basis of their clothes. Sure, some of these women will be 'up for it', but a lot won't. As I said, the onus is on the man to make sure on the matter in further communication.

There are a lot of influences at play when a woman chooses clothes for a night out; many of them are merely cultural, or a matter of mood, or fashion choices or, indeed, a desire to conform - IT IS NOT ALWAYS AND NECESSARILY ABOUT SEX. I think it makes more sense for men to understand this, then for women to have to watch what they wear for fear of sending the 'wrong message'.

The Corinthian

seenitall wrote: »

I'm not getting upset. I told a poster that stating that women are objectifing themselves is offensive, which I feel it is, to women.

Last time I checked getting offended tended to upset people.

Do you think that 'even' the woman who dressed for male attention on a given night, wants to be objectified, wants to be considered a plaything and nothing more?

Indeed, but when I was twenty I was not wise. Indeed, back then I would have assumed that a cross dresser was homosexual, when in reality this is not necessarily the case. We all tend to judge the books by their covers until better.

I have a fair idea she doesn't, because I can't imagine it's a pleasant thing for anyone to feel outside the context of consensual intimacy - but my point was that a night out is very far away from that context yet, until two people have established an understanding by means other than looking at who's wearing what.

You're projecting. Just because you don't fancy being objectified, doesn't mean that all women don't. Or that they don't have daddy issues. Or gods knows what bizarre kink or fetish they have buried in their psyche.

The answers to your questions are self-evident, I will make certain judgments or draw certain conclusions based on people's clothing, same as anyone - men may can think whatever they want, of course, as can anyone. Clothes do send messages, we've established that. But anyone heeding those messages would be wise to also arm themselves with corroborating those perceived messages by various different channels of communication, not just one!

I agree, but that still does not change the fact that both men and women are often not so open minded.

As I said, the onus is on the man to make sure on the matter in further communication.

I do get the impression that there's a fair bit of abdication of responsibility going on here - like suggesting that a woman may flirt with a man all night, then change her mind (presuming the flirting was not a means to getting drinks bought for her), yet if the man 'misreads' this, it's his fault as the woman may behave in any way she likes and he's not allowed to read anything from it.

I think it makes more sense for men to understand this, then for women to have to watch what they wear for fear of sending the 'wrong message'.

I think that's a pretty selfish attitude. By the same logic, if a man sends out the message that he's single when he's not, then it makes more sense for women to understand this, and his actions are blameless.

seenitall

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think that's a pretty selfish attitude. By the same logic, if a man sends out the message that he's single when he's not, then it makes more sense for women to understand this, and his actions are blameless.

Wow. I, OTOH, think it would be a pretty selfish attitude for a man to read into a woman's appearance solely what he'd like to be true (dressed skimpily=wants sex, no other reasons allowed for), taking no other clues from a multitude of other methods of communication open to him. Regarding your comparison, I certainly wouldn't be so silly as to assume from the way a man looks that he is single, and when he actually tells me he is, we have entered a whole different ball-game, just as it is with the way a woman may look, and what she actually verbally (or even non-verbally, as in body-language) communicates.

I notice you haven't addressed my point about how wearing certain clothes is due to all different types of influences, not just 'sex on the brain' kind. That point is rather important to the argument I'm making, in that if the reasons for dressing up are diverse and are understood to be diverse by men, there wouldn't as much of 'cleavage on display=sure thing' train of thought going on in the heads of, er, - what did you say? - 20 year old, unwise men.

Tending to judge books by their covers until we know better - well, yes, all I'm saying is envisage the possibility that you are misreading the covers, that the story in the book may just be completely different from what a young man, eager to read that one particular thing on those covers, has decided to take from them.

As for non-verbal behaviour (body-language, attention proffered), I'd say it's somewhere between appearance and direct verbal expression on the scale of ambiguity in general, so I would certainly have much more time for a man from your example who is feeling led on by a woman who flirted all night and then decided to do a disappearing act, than I would for one who is feeling put out because a woman who is more undressed than she is dressed, has decided that a nod in his general direction is all he is getting in the way of her attention.

Or to put it more succinctly, it is far easier to misinterpret the way someone looks than what they say or do.

The Corinthian

seenitall wrote: »

Wow. I, OTOH, think it would be a pretty selfish attitude for a man to read into a woman's appearance solely what he'd like to be true (dressed skimpily=wants sex, no other reasons allowed for), taking no other clues from a multitude of other methods of communication open to him.

I agree, just as it would be pretty selfish for a woman to presume that because a man is wearing an expensive watch, he must be wealthy. However that man should be responsible enough to know that what he wears will put forward an image of him, whether he wants it or not, just as a woman should be when she dresses a certain way.

I'm not suggesting there's no responsibility on the part of the observer, but the observed, having chosen the persona they wish to portray, also shares some responsibility.

Regarding your comparison, I certainly wouldn't be so silly as to assume from the way a man looks that he is single, and when he actually tells me he is, we have entered a whole different ball-game, just as it is with the way a woman may look, and what she actually verbally (or even non-verbally, as in body-language) communicates.

I never said the man has told her he's single, only that his behaviour or certain things he says indirectly give that impression.

I notice you haven't addressed my point about how wearing certain clothes is due to all different types of influences, not just 'sex on the brain' kind.

I accept that, but this is not necessarily something people realize until they're older and more experienced.

Or to put it more succinctly, it is far easier to misinterpret the way someone looks than what they say or do.

True, but even in my advanced years, I've seen a few young women in outfits that practically had landing lights on their legs - it's not so much misinterpretation as false advertising.

seenitall

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said the man has told her he's single, only that his behaviour or certain things he says indirectly give that impression.

I think I covered this in my post above. Words and behaviours leave much less room for miscommunication than mere appearance. Therefore I believe the man (or the woman if the roles were reversed) would not be blameless in that instance to the point he would be if he were merely presenting a certain appearance.

Re the landing lights comment and the rest of it, I feel we're going in circles at this point, so I've nothing else to say. Happy to have contributed!

Pug160

seenitall wrote: »

I'm not getting upset. I told a poster that stating that women are objectifing themselves is offensive, which I feel it is, to women. Doesn't objectifing mean to be seeing a person as an object? Do you think that 'even' the woman who dressed for male attention on a given night, wants to be objectified, wants to be considered a plaything and nothing more? I have a fair idea she doesn't, because I can't imagine it's a pleasant thing for anyone to feel outside the context of consensual intimacy - but my point was that a night out is very far away from that context yet, until two people have established an understanding by means other than looking at who's wearing what.

The answers to your questions are self-evident, I will make certain judgments or draw certain conclusions based on people's clothing, same as anyone - men may can think whatever they want, of course, as can anyone. Clothes do send messages, we've established that. But anyone heeding those messages would be wise to also arm themselves with corroborating those perceived messages by various different channels of communication, not just one!

For example, and this is a big one, have a look at the social context. Especially these days, when dressing skimpily and sexily for a night out is practically the uniform of women in a certain age group, I think it's more than a little unwise to jump to any conclusions about any individual women or their intentions on the basis of their clothes. Sure, some of these women will be 'up for it', but a lot won't. As I said, the onus is on the man to make sure on the matter in further communication.

There are a lot of influences at play when a woman chooses clothes for a night out; many of them are merely cultural, or a matter of mood, or fashion choices or, indeed, a desire to conform - IT IS NOT ALWAYS AND NECESSARILY ABOUT SEX. I think it makes more sense for men to understand this, then for women to have to watch what they wear for fear of sending the 'wrong message'.

I think some girls are objectifying themselves, and are enjoying doing so. There is a distinction to be made in terms of looking presentable (such as a female office worker) and going out half naked. Those are two entirely different mindsets. It seems as though you are trying to lump the two together. Most of the girls who go out out dressed in skimpy clothes know full well that they're being objectified. There is an element of liking the attention, which can brighten up an otherwise dull week at work or looking after kids. There is an element of competition with other women. There is an element of enjoying having men approach and the power to reject {one girl in particular told her boyfriend this, who is my friend), and there are other elements that can only be classified as ''who the hell knows''.

But I strongly, strongly disagree with you that girls do not know what is going on. I think for you to say that is more insulting to them than anything we're writing on here. The irony of all of this is that it could be argued that even male 'players' don't objectivity or sexualise themselves as much as girls do on a night out - they usually just wear nice, well fitted clothes and show a bit of muscle. But women have the ability to crank things up much further as they can show much more flesh than males and wear much more overtly sexual clothing such as suspender tights and in some extreme cases lingerie. These are the types of clothing men buy women on Valentine's day for some passion in the bedroom. There is no male equivalent here. This is very important to understand I think.

And lastly, no, it's not always about sex. If fact, I'd go as far as saying it's rarely about the sex. Girls simply like the attention. That's the reason why they're doing it. What other way would they get that sort of attention? It's unlikely that most of them will ever be famous. Girls do it because it makes them 'famous' for one night of the week, and most know that they're being objectified and have no problem with it.

seenitall

Pug160 wrote: »

I think some girls are objectifying themselves, and are enjoying doing so. There is a distinction to be made in terms of looking presentable (such as a female office worker) and going out half naked. Those are two entirely different mindsets. It seems as though you are trying to lump the two together. Most of the girls who go out out dressed in skimpy clothes know full well that they're being objectified. There is an element of liking the attention, which can brighten up an otherwise dull week at work or looking after kids. There is an element of competition with other women. There is an element of enjoying having men approach and the power to reject {one girl in particular told her boyfriend this, who is my friend), and there are other elements that can only be classified as ''who the hell knows''.

But I strongly, strongly disagree with you that girls do not know what is going on. I think for you to say that is more insulting to them than anything we're writing on here. The irony of all of this is that it could be argued that even male 'players' don't objective or sexualise themselves as much as girls do on a night out - they usually just wear nice, well fitted clothes and show a bit of muscle. But women have the ability to crank things up much further as they can show much more flesh than males and wear much more overtly sexual clothing such as suspender tights and in some extreme cases lingerie. These are the types of clothing men buy women on Valentine's day for some passion in the bedroom. There is no male equivalent here. This is very important to understand I think.

And lastly, no, it's not always about sex. If fact, I'd go as far as saying it's rarely about the sex. Girls simply like the attention. That's the reason why they're doing it. What other way would they get that sort of attention? It's unlikely that most of them will ever be famous. Girls do it because it makes them 'famous' for one night of the week, and most know that they're being objectified and have no problem with it.

LOL. Yes, sure, I'm the one insulting women by claiming that no doubt not many of them like to be looked upon as objects.

A female office worker! I certainly wasn't talking about wearing office work clothes on a night out, what are you on about? You think I'm going to lump a pencil skirt in the same category as an ultra mini? Please.

I don't even know where to begin or end with your post, Pug, I find your views on intergender relations more suited to the 1950's, from the hilarious view about oh-so-modestly-presented male 'players' (as if they should be awarded medals of honour for not displaying more of their no doubt lethally irresistible wares! ), to the perseverance in claiming that human beings are all for being objectified by randomers, despite your admission that it's not always about sex!

Well, at least, if you know that dressing up is for attention, rather than sex, you won't be one of those young men mentioned in the exchange with TC from earlier on.

tsiehta

Presenting yourself in an sexually attractive manner does not mean one you wish to be viewed as a sexual object.

Similarly, presenting yourself as an older man with a moustache does not mean you wish to be viewed as a paedophile. However, by the logic in this thread, it would appear that this is a perfectly reasonable way to view such men, and it's selfish for them to expect others to not view them that way.

syklops

tsiehta wrote: »

Presenting yourself in an sexually attractive manner does not mean one you wish to be viewed as a sexual object.

Similarly, presenting yourself as an older man with a moustache does not mean you wish to be viewed as a paedophile. However, by the logic in this thread, it would appear that this is a perfectly reasonable way to view such men, and it's selfish for them to expect others to not view them that way.

Then what is the reason for presenting yourself in a sexually attractive manner, if you are not interested in engaging in sex?

jaffacakesyum

tsiehta wrote: »

Presenting yourself in an sexually attractive manner does not mean one you wish to be viewed as a sexual object.

Similarly, presenting yourself as an older man with a moustache does not mean you wish to be viewed as a paedophile. However, by the logic in this thread, it would appear that this is a perfectly reasonable way to view such men, and it's selfish for them to expect others to not view them that way.

+1000000

Really shocked at some of the views in this thread that women can be viewed as objects simply because they're dressed up a lot on a night out. Pretty horrible attitude to have. And I know I don't always agree with some of the posters on this thread in terms of gender issues but I have (or had) great respect for them for speaking out on men's issues.

But this, is just horrible.

jaffacakesyum

syklops wrote: »

Then what is the reason for presenting yourself in a sexually attractive manner, if you are not interested in engaging in sex?

Shocking as it seems, some women dress up to make THEMSELVES feel good. Not always about men, yknow!!

Some women have an interest in fashion and makeup and take it to extremes that I never would (never catch me in fake nails or eyelashes for example, but that's some women's thing, and that's ok).

Or, sometimes they do want to dress up and feel sexy, perhaps attract somebody, but that doesn't mean they want to be viewed as objects, there for nothing but sexual pleasure. They're still humans with personalities and feelings.

I have no problem with men saying women are 'sexualising' themselves. Even though it's not true for all women on a night out (yet people are blanket generalising here), I think it's fair to say that women can dress sexy on nights out to try and attract a partner. That's sexualising themselves. I see a big difference between dressing up to act sexy, and dressing up to be viewed as an object though :eek:

syklops

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Shocking as it seems, some women dress up to make THEMSELVES feel good. Not always about men, yknow!!

Some women have an interest in fashion and makeup and take it to extremes that I never would (never catch me in fake nails or eyelashes for example, but that's some women's thing, and that's ok).

Or, sometimes they do want to dress up and feel sexy, perhaps attract somebody, but that doesn't mean they want to be viewed as objects, there for nothing but sexual pleasure. They're still humans with personalities and feelings.

I have no problem with men saying women are 'sexualising' themselves. Even though it's not true for all women on a night out (yet people are blanket generalising here), I think it's fair to say that women can dress sexy on nights out to try and attract a partner. That's sexualising themselves. I see a big difference between dressing up to act sexy, and dressing up to be viewed as an object though :eek:

Hang on a second now, we are not talking about just 'dressing up', we are not talking about make up, we are not talking about fashion, we are not even talking about peolpe who dress sexily on a night out, we are talking about women who dress up the way escorts or porn actresses dress in their films or on their adverts.That was what we were talking about.

Even then, that is far removed what what the topic is.

who_me

The word 'damaging' seems a bit too extreme to me. Could watching a lot of porn change your opinions/attitudes? Probably. But "damage" you? I think that's because we have such a rigid (yet arbitrary) definition of correct behaviour, and anyone not conforming to that is "damaged".

I guess - like any other kind of movies - it does influence you. It creates certain expectations of both women and ourselves, and how sex should be. Some might say it dulls ones interest in 'normal' sex. But if anything, the opposite is true.

And I'll also say this - if it weren't for porn, my first sexual experience would have been an outright disaster (not that it was much better! ) It's funny, but it's one of the very few things in life you're left completely on your own for. When young, you're potty trained, taught to ride a bike, taught to swim, taught how to drive. But sex/seduction/flirting? You're on your own.

long range shooter

abstainer wrote: »

Am what?

Of course porn changes your brain? The brain gets addicted to the dopamine release from viewing pornography and abstinence causes withdrawal symptoms and a longing for that dopamine release. This is well documented.

So does beer,maybe you should have a pint instead of watching porn;)

http://news.yahoo.com/study-even-sip-beer-trigger-dopamine-release-132200004.html