Pornography, “Family Values”, and a Sexually Liberal Society

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Well this bolded part is pretty far off base. I'd like to see some statistics about it. The primary cause for divorce (and overall marital discord) is money or money problems. Second is adultery, but just how much effect pornography has on that, I do not know, but I have never heard about it being a major factor.

I have seen the following number thrown around on a few Christian websites:

"The Internet was a significant factor in 2 out of 3 divorces (American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers in 2003)"
e.g. http://www.safefamilies.org/sfStats.php

However, I checked the cited source divorcewizards.com, but was unable to find any information on that number.

I'm suspicious about its accuracy as well, and I agree with you that the primary cause of divorce is still money. It should also be asked how often pornography is cited as a reason among couples because they personally cannot accept their own fiscal difficulties as a valid excuse to end a relationship.

[afc wimbledon]

gate/horse genie/bottle etc etc

western capitalism is a system built entirely to feed peoples need for instant gratification, as such no matter what the consequence we aint giving up our mood altering drugs, porn, super whoppers with cheese etc

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It's interesting to me that today's society it is totally opposite. Women are not supposed to enjoy sex or attract many men. I know it's more open in the western world but women are still stigmatized as sluts or someone's 'old shoes' (a common chinese expresion).

I wonder how, where, when and what caused to shift from one extreme to another.

I think it's the whole attitude that sex is "done" to a woman as opposed to "with" them. This is perpetualized pretty consistently in popular culture as well. How many times have we seen a woman's first sexual encounter dramatized as some life-altering decision in television shows or movies, whereas with young men it seems to be a race and the choice of partners is treated as completely arbitrary. We also see it in dramatizations of flings or one-night stands, where the woman is often characterised as being distraught when the man doesn't pursue a relationship with her after a sexual encounter.

I think this is kind of where the slut-shaming comes in. We treat sex as something men enjoy physically, but something a woman does out of obligation or weakness, which turns the woman into the victim of her sexual partner regardless of consent.

[Daradon]

There's so much good stuff in this thread I could comment on, from societal issues and theories, to the older anthropological ideas, but I just wanted to finish a personal thought of mine first.

I think the current proliferation of pornography mostly has to do with the proliferation of technology and media. Not because of a underlying erosion of values or even huge shift to a more liberal society.

To that idea, I think it's like any of the challenges we face in this new information age. Taking time for ourselves, putting down our smartphones (and laptops, posting on CP eep!), spending time with our families. Slowing things down.

I see it more as one of a larger group of problems and yes even evolution of our time and technological era. The problems and challenges that may come about with viewing too much pornography are not just marriage or family based in nature, but personal. And not even in the extreme cases that are often brought up and probably over reported by societal watchdogs. But just in a basic, 'get up, get off the couch, and get outside and live you life' idea. That's the way I see it.

Get excited about your real life. Not the one you live through the computer or the media, or porn stars. I don't think any of it is bad in moderation, it's just the over indulgence that starts to rip at our lives. Personally and in family situations.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think it's the whole attitude that sex is "done" to a woman as opposed to "with" them. This is perpetualized pretty consistently in popular culture as well. How many times have we seen a woman's first sexual encounter dramatized as some life-altering decision in television shows or movies, whereas with young men it seems to be a race and the choice of partners is treated as completely arbitrary. We also see it in dramatizations of flings or one-night stands, where the woman is often characterised as being distraught when the man doesn't pursue a relationship with her after a sexual encounter.

I think this is kind of where the slut-shaming comes in. We treat sex as something men enjoy physically, but something a woman does out of obligation or weakness, which turns the woman into the victim of her sexual partner regardless of consent.

Yup and I wonder how and when this started because earlier in the thread we talked about tribal times where the woman was seeking pleasure and showing the men how pleasureable it really is to get more men!

There must be a point in history.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I haven't read this book, but I have taken some social anthropology classes, and I don't really buy what they're selling. (If you've read it, I'd love to hear more detail on this point.) The argument that we were sexually most like the bonobo doesn't really hold up, because we've evolved to be pretty different where it matters most:
Bonobos have the largest phallus-to-mass ratio of any ape, because their orgy style of reproduction meant that larger phalluses were of great reproductive benefit (basically, whoever can get in furthest has the best chance of having his genetic material passed on). By contrast, in gorilla society, where there's no chance for such selection, and little chance for females to execute choice, phalluses are completely minuscule. Humans fit somewhere in the middle in terms of phallus-to-mass ratio, but are actually adapted to be quite different from any other primate: we lack the phallic bone that other primates have, making us somewhat more bendy, and we are relatively girthy compared to other primates. Both the added girth and flexibility suggest that there is some element of female selection and a modest amount of competition (more than gorillas, less than chimps and bonobos). Essentially, what we see in society today. When you're looking at the evolutionary record, it's important not to focus on what's the same across related species (as these may be vestigial devices in some species), but what's different, because differences are always a response to change and don't happen randomly.
I think there's certainly a strong argument to be made that many primitive societies used communal care-giving approaches and less formal male-female relationships and certainly there probably have been some societies that have been more free-loving in their mating, but the evolutionary record just doesn't suggest that a bonobo-style mating system was ever a part of our history.

Although I think that the whole argument is moot, because it attempts to use historical record to explain what is 'natural'. That somehow, what our ancient ancestors did was somehow superior than the behaviours that our more puritan recent ancestors held. (Not sure if that's the message of the book, but that's certainly the tone of the review.)

Excellent post. One of the best in this thread.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Yes, unless the porn replaces sex with the wife.

I think it also comes down to sexual compatibility. In a monogamous relationship, if one person has more of a sex drive than the other, there's going to be problems no matter what.

I could be way off, but I'd hazard a guess that the majority of couples fall into the category of having an unbalance in their sex drive. If porn is getting in the way, I'd be more inclined to believe there to be pre-existing problems with the relationship than porn being the main reason things fell apart. Pure opinion of course.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Russic

I could be way off, but I'd hazard a guess that the majority of couples fall into the category of having an unbalance in their sex drive. If porn is getting in the way, I'd be more inclined to believe there to be pre-existing problems with the relationship than porn being the main reason things fell apart. Pure opinion of course.

Yes and no. I think it's pretty common for one partner to have a higher sex drive than the other for any variety of reasons, whether physical or psychological.

[troutman]

My opinion was surely skewed by my time as a divorce lawyer, but the number of married couples that had separate bedrooms (for a long time) was always stunning to me.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by troutman

My opinion was surely skewed by my time as a divorce lawyer, but the number of married couples that had separate bedrooms (for a long time) was always stunning to me.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19230...ationship.html

You're probably already aware that a big chunk of your quality of life depends on how much and how well you sleep. Well, there is almost no way those slumber hours are going to be improved on by adding another person into the mix. On average, people are woken up six times a night by their partner. Everything from hogging the sheets, to rolling over, to jimmy legs, to the sweats and night terrors can ruin the quality of your partner's rest, night after night, week after week. Not to mention the estimated 90 million Americans who snore. If you're one of them, you might be robbing your bed buddy of up to two hours of sleep a night

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_19230...#ixzz2CEcVIEW3

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Monotheistic and organized religion. And it wasn't all about controlling the women either. Those at the top end of the power structures found out you could control the men, by controlling the women. Basically by controlling the sexuality of a culture. If a man is getting the sex he desires, he doesn't really care about too much else. If you take that away from him you can get him to go to war, follow your lead, engage in behaviors that you want him to.

I don't think that's a very fair description. First of all monotheistic religions are not the only ones with fidelity rules. I would even guess that most religions have something to say about this matter.

Historically speaking, marriage (and equivalents) have mostly been arrangements of some combination of the following:
a) child-bearing
b) child-caring
c) commitment to work together
d) unions between families (as opposed to individuals)
e) a pact where one side provides for the other.
f) "love" (what ever that has meant)

The need to uphold, register and control these relationships was not born out of jealousy or control (well not purely), it was because if one side in these relations let the other down, the other (usually the woman) could suffer terrible poverty, hunger and possibly die. Her childred most certainly were going to be in big trouble.

Pretty much every kind of pressure from economical extortion to social pressure to the threat of vendetta have been used to keep (usually) the male home and providing for his wife (possibly wives) and more importantly his children. (Who are not only his children, but part of someone elses extended family.)

Religions have mostly simply been formalizing what have already been considered moral virtues by the society in question.

Of course when you start setting rules in stone, you always tend to drag behind the times, which inevitably change.

Looking at that list pretty much all of them are to some extent obsolete issues. (Couples rarely work together anyway, unions between families have pretty much lost their meaning, women don't need men to provide for them, children are not necessarily doomed to poverty after a divorce, common care for children can be provided even after the divorce...)

In the modern society, especially in the middle-classes and up, everything can be arranged. This has already fundamentally changed the way we think of marriages, and as a result the way we think of fidelity.

Fidelity is now almost exclusively an emotional and a private issue, where as once it could be considered a direct threat to the surrounding society through the family connections of all involved.

Although mostly sexual fidelity was not such a big deal, as long as the persons involved were seen to take care of their other duties and no children were born.

Also, even in technically very strict religious cultures rich men having children out of wedlock has often been be accepted. As long as the man provided for all his children and all mothers involved, he did not truly break against the true rules of the society.

[VladtheImpaler]

Leave it to you people to reduce something as wonderful as pornography to a dry academic subject.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Leave it to you people to reduce something as wonderful as pornography to a dry academic subject.

You find any of this dry?!

[Itse]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Leave it to you people to reduce something as wonderful as pornography to a dry academic subject.

There is nothing dry about social and economic history! It happens to be my field of study and I think it's way more fascinating than porn

Although, perhaps not quite in the same way.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Although I think that the whole argument is moot, because it attempts to use historical record to explain what is 'natural'. That somehow, what our ancient ancestors did was somehow superior than the behaviours that our more puritan recent ancestors held. (Not sure if that's the message of the book, but that's certainly the tone of the review.)

This last part plays into my earlier questions. We have a tendency to construe what is ancient or "natural" as correct over and against those things that have developed in accordance with society and culture. I am wondering if we are on the verge of witnessing a similar such development. Are traditional conceptions of love and marriage, and the connections between lust and infidelity becoming obsolete in a more sexually liberal society? Not that monogamy is "wrong" or "unnatural", but is it becoming an increasingly unrealistic ideal?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You find any of this dry?!

Oh, don't take it personally - it's an interesting discussion.

[polak]

Judging on how my earlier post was ignored, I'm going to say the fundemental flaw in this discussion is the christian definition of "family" and how a person should live there life in that aspect (nuclear family).

[photon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yes and no. I think it's pretty common for one partner to have a higher sex drive than the other for any variety of reasons, whether physical or psychological.

For sure, the chances that they'd be identical are pretty much zero.

Porn in marriage is a complex issue, if there's already issues in the relationship then porn can exacerbate them (or even become the focus when it really isn't the focus), or if there's a good relationship then porn can be more easily dealt with or contribute to enhance the relationship.

Religion can just make those things harder, I saw many times where a man would get up in front of the congregation and publicly apologize to his wife in front of the congregation for viewing porn, crying, repenting, guilt, shame.. it was terrible.

How much of that was actual porn addiction interfering with the relationship? And how much of that was simply expectations of the partner based on their understanding of their religion? Religion can impart and demand such an unforgiving rigidity that that rigidity and expectation itself is the thing that creates the problem, not the fact that your partner takes care of their drive by themselves once in a while. The expectations prevent any chance of communication, any chance of a reasonable response, so the only option is either to hide it, or let the expectation destroy the relationship.

If both partners are open to communication then it's easier to understand. If it's interfering with the relationship then they can discuss how to change it so that both parties needs are met (if that means don't ask don't tell, or changing the "kind" of porn watched (I find anything that degrades women offensive), or whatever) then that should be the objective.

But if one partner is so rigid that there's zero ability to even communicate without destroying things, then the other partner can resort to hiding then when things eventually come out there's a whole betrayal/lying factor that makes it worse, when if both sides approach things reasonably that could be avoided.

This is one area that, like kids and religion, should be discussed extensively in a relationship before making it more permanent. What's each partner's view on the issue? Are they compatible, or will it become an issue?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Not that monogamy is "wrong" or "unnatural", but is it becoming an increasingly unrealistic ideal?

I believe it is.

I don't have much more to add than that, but I see it all over.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Itse

I don't think that's a very fair description. First of all monotheistic religions are not the only ones with fidelity rules. I would even guess that most religions have something to say about this matter.

Historically speaking, marriage (and equivalents) have mostly been arrangements of some combination of the following:
a) child-bearing
b) child-caring
c) commitment to work together
d) unions between families (as opposed to individuals)
e) a pact where one side provides for the other.
f) "love" (what ever that has meant)

The need to uphold, register and control these relationships was not born out of jealousy or control (well not purely), it was because if one side in these relations let the other down, the other (usually the woman) could suffer terrible poverty, hunger and possibly die. Her childred most certainly were going to be in big trouble.

Pretty much every kind of pressure from economical extortion to social pressure to the threat of vendetta have been used to keep (usually) the male home and providing for his wife (possibly wives) and more importantly his children. (Who are not only his children, but part of someone elses extended family.)

Religions have mostly simply been formalizing what have already been considered moral virtues by the society in question.

Of course when you start setting rules in stone, you always tend to drag behind the times, which inevitably change.

Looking at that list pretty much all of them are to some extent obsolete issues. (Couples rarely work together anyway, unions between families have pretty much lost their meaning, women don't need men to provide for them, children are not necessarily doomed to poverty after a divorce, common care for children can be provided even after the divorce...)

In the modern society, especially in the middle-classes and up, everything can be arranged. This has already fundamentally changed the way we think of marriages, and as a result the way we think of fidelity.

Fidelity is now almost exclusively an emotional and a private issue, where as once it could be considered a direct threat to the surrounding society through the family connections of all involved.

Although mostly sexual fidelity was not such a big deal, as long as the persons involved were seen to take care of their other duties and no children were born.

Also, even in technically very strict religious cultures rich men having children out of wedlock has often been be accepted. As long as the man provided for all his children and all mothers involved, he did not truly break against the true rules of the society.

I can't really argue how those rules and religions start because you are correct. Like the no pork example with Jews, it's was probably just a good common sense rule at the time. Now with modern agriculture it's not needed, but since it's been a religious rule for so long, the devout don't argue it. But yes, a lot of these rules and movements come out of needs of the society at a time.

However, it is pretty apparent that when religion becomes more organized those at the top of the power structure start making rules and religious laws that have less to do with common sense, safety, and the well being of the culture, and more to do with keeping their power, or making the world the way they wish to see it. Like much of Islam today and their rules against women. Especially the rules forbidding education. There are no deep societal or common sense cultural ideas or rules that forbid that (unless you are talking about the political ones that have been in the guise of religion for a very long time). These rules can be so old, we can't even see how they happened or why, and so just take them on their religious grounds, which were never religious in the first place.

I threw monotheistic in my argument, because that seems to be a common point where religions do become far more organized. I agree it's not completely correct, there have been oppressive polytheistic empires, but I believe it fits for most examples, and the strongest offenders.

Of course everything is an evolution. A more organized culture or religion does bring up other changes and benefits, or changes to human society that could be argued as vital. I was simply answering a question earlier to where a lot of these attitudes probably came from and how oppressive rules get put into play without much opposition.