732. How Men Could Cope With Their Physiological Urges Without Disrespecting Women

732.   How Men Could Cope With Their Physiological Urges Without Disrespecting Women

This continues entry 702. The Male NoFap Movement Brings No Benefit For Women, which seems to have been misunderstood.    So I add some clarification:

An unpartnered man, who respects women as humans with a brain and a personality, behaves following these guidelines: 

He recognizes the risk of making himself a nuisance to women and the necessity to avoid this.   He accepts to prevent causing any harm to women and to his own ability to respect woman.   He never copulates like an alley dog, not by payed abuse nor by taking advantage of the consent of women without self-respect.   His need to cope with his recurrent physiological tensions requires a non-abusive method to maintain his homeostasis.

This method is the unrestricted use of his hand but with the clear cognitive attitude and goal of this being a merely mechanical way of cleansing.  
He is motivated to not jeopardize his respectful attitude towards women.   Therefore he avoids anything, which would desensitize him and which would trick his subconscious mind to automatically confound female bodies as toilets for his body waste.   
He distinguishes cognitively between mechanical cleansing and physical intimacy as a facet of a longterm monogamous bonded attachment.  

Therefore he never looks at pornography.  
 

Pornography has been made by abusing real women.  The customer of pornography is mislead towards the cognitive pseudo-justification and trivialization of watching women apparently enjoying copulation.  He avoids cognitive dissonance by the complete denial, that abused and disgusted women have only feigned and pretended in front of a camera, what appeals to the animal in him.  

The realistic quality of photos and movies tricks the male mind to confuse the combination of his manipulations while merely watching as if he himself had also experienced the performance of what he does not recognize as abuse.   The result of habitual exposure is a fatal desensitization and subconsciously learning and enhancing the automatic and spontaneous degradation of women as objects.   

Exaggerated male urges for female bodies have evolved over millions of years.   Photography only exists since 200 years.  Therefore a man needing mechanical relief can perform this without pornography.  

He never fantasizes about any really existing woman.  

Alley dog copulation without longterm emotional attachment and respect for a woman's brain and personality are mutually exclusive.  
When a man's animal instincts make him feel the urge to copulate like an alley dog, his choice of subsequent behavior makes a big difference only for the targeted woman.   If a man approaches her suggesting the physical abuse of her body, this informs her of his disrespect.   If he only abuses her in his fantasy while finding solitary relief, she usually does not even know it.  
But for the man's subconscious mind in both cases the experience is similar.  It is the successful and pleasurably rewarded degradation of a woman's body as a toilet.   Thus his respect for her person is damaged in both cases, no matter if she has agreed to real abuse or if her agreement was only a part of his fantasy.   

Only the woman, who is approached, can show her indignation and adjust her behavior towards him.   In the case of fantasized abuse, the targeted woman is impeded from appropriate reactions by the ignorance of his unnoticed disrespect.   While due to her unawareness of his hidden degradation and insult she continues to be friendly to an unworthy man, his subconscious mind is prone to misinterpret her lack of any indignation as consent or even encouragement.   

The side effect hereof is the deformation of his expectations and his accompanying loss of respect for women.  Instead of acknowledging all degradation and objectification of women as an outrage, he gets mislead to consider the indignation of women with self-respect as a defect in comparison with too many women appearing to him as if not bothered. As the result of this desensitization he considers only those women, who seem to comply with their own objectification, as healthy and appealing.    

Preserving the ability to respect women requires to avoid this effect.   

Any man, who disagrees with these guidelines, does not respect women.  

704. The Irrational Distinction Between The Abuse Of Women And Of Children

704.  The Irrational Distinction Between The Abuse Of Women And Of Children

A German politician has been caught as suspicious of owning child pornography.  Reported in the medias has been his possession of pictures of naked boys, which are not explicitly sexual.  Such pictures are actually not illegal in Germany.  

The German newspaper "Rheinische Post" writes today.  

"Die Bundesregierung plant, den Handel mit Nacktfotos von Kindern zu verbieten. Niemand dürfe mit den Körpern von Kindern und Jugendlichen Geschäfte machen" 

The federal government plans to make the trading naked pictures of children illegal.  Nobody should deal in bodies of children and adolescents.  

"Diese Bilder verletzen die Rechte von Kindern". 
These pictures violate the right of children.

http://www.rp-online.de/politik/handel-mit-kinder-nacktfotos-wird-verboten-aid-1.4046914     

Of course I agree with these quotes.   But it makes me angry, that all outrage and wish to protect is reserved to children, while the exactly the same treatment of adult women is considered as acceptable, normal and reasonable.   

There is a cruel fallacy in this arbitrary distinction of the victims by their age.   This fallacy is the entire focus upon the biological suitability of the victims for male needs and the subsequent denial of the damage done to victimized women.   

Abuse (by men) can be defined as the selfish, inconsiderate and irresponsible use of another human being's body, which a man in the state of dishomeostasis uses as an object for the purpose of getting rid of his body waste.  

Children are not biologically suitable for this.   Therefore nobody disputes children's need to be protected from all abuse, direct and indirect by pornographic representations.

But whenever women are concerned, the view is distorted.   Even though adult women are biologically suitable for sexuality, this does not imply any justification for abuse.  Women are entitled to be only targeted for a form of sexuality, which is no abuse, because it fulfills their emotional needs. 
It is generally accepted, that humans do not exist to be exploited as slaves, just because humans are suitable to do hard labor and others feel a need to make a profit from it.   Women do not exist to be abused, just because they are biologically suitable and men have physiological urges.   This still needs to be accepted.

This first distortion not only justifies the abuse of female bodies by their biological suitability, but the consequence thereof is also the male denial, that using a woman's body without emotional attachment and commitment even is abuse.  

The second distortion is the different interpretation of the damage done depending on the age of the abused victim. 

Only the damage done to children is recognized as such and attributed to the abuse.  
When abused women become drug addicts, alcoholics or psychiatric cases, this is not recognized and acknowledged as a consequence of what men have done to them.  Instead it is falsely attributed to genetic or personality defects.   

According to male attitudes, a sane and healthy woman can be abused without suffering, a woman, who cannot be abused without harm and trouble is defective and flawed.   Women are not considered to need protection against abuse, they are expected to be willing to be fixed, if they lack sufficient resilience.  
Women's self-abuse in exchange for material benefits is mistaken as a choice and as a healthy disposition.   Men's denial, that such self-abuse needs to be attributed to social problems depriving women of other options adds to the other male justifications of abuse.   The frequent delay between the abuse and self-abuse and manifestations of being damaged adds to the male denial of the true causes for the damage.
 

Therefore I am correcting the above quotes:  

Nobody should deal in bodies of other human beings, no matter the age.  

These [naked or pornographic] pictures violate the right of human beings of any age.

Suitability does not suffice to justify harming others.   

Those men, who consume pornography, who abuse prostitutes, who are promiscuous treating and perceiving women as mere toilets for their body waste, are hypocrites, if they demands more protection only for children. 

703. Differing Effects Of Varieties Of The Visual Objectification Of Women

703.  Differing Effects Of Varieties Of The Visual Objectification Of Women

The objectification and commodification of women by visual representations is nothing new.  

"The female nudes in Roman mosaics exalt beauty, the carnality and eroticism, while male bodies reflect determination, strength and power. This is one of the conclusions of research that analyzed the cultural construction and ideological implications of these artistic representations in which female predominate as compared to those of males."

"The deeply asymmetric treatment of male and female bodies is evident and, therefore, constitutes a reflection of relationships based on power, according to the researchers. "

"the main male figures tend to be gods, heroes and mythological beings, or else wrestlers and athletes."

"One very revealing example is a representation of Ariadne or the Nereid that shows a nude female figure lying on a marine animal, with one arm behind her head in a position and with a gesture that has been interpreted as "availability to the other.""

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140210083155.htm

The text of this video is in Spanish, but it shows some good examples of the mosaics:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKVwl4leLkU

 

These mosaics are expressions of the misperception, that women were objects existing to be used by men. This misperception had been women's plight through history.  

But there is a fundamental difference between the effects upon men's brains by ancient mosaics, frescos, statues or pottery decorations and the contemporary effects by the overexposure to more or less pornographic life like representations of female bodies.

No matter how provocative and explicit the ancient representations, they were nevertheless clearly and unequivocally artifacts.   Looking at a mosaic with whatever fantasy cannot have the same desensitizing effect upon a man's subconscious instincts as that which follows the abuse of a real woman.   (I consider any use of a female body without emotional attachment and without commitment as a form of abuse.)

Today the situation is much worse.   Visual representations, especially by high quality colorful moving pictures, are so much like real life people, that the male subconscious mind cannot distinguish between seeing a real woman and seeing a filmed representation of her.  (Thanks to Kanazawa for this insight).   The fantasy of abusing a filmed woman therefore contributes to the desensitization of men as if they had abused a real woman.  
This makes pornography so devastating.  Frequent abuse causes desensitization.   Desensitization lowers the threshold for attempting and intending more abuse.   It also blurs the male awareness, that approaching a woman for abuse is often perceived by the target as an insult and offense.          

Would any model or actress enact the exact scenes of the Roman mosaics, as far as there is an effect, that by the mosaic and that by the photo of the inaction on a man's brain would be very different. 
The mosaic would reinforce a man's conscious attitude, that women are there to serve him and to be used.   The photo would trigger his instincts, and subconsciously he would perceive the picture as an available real woman. 
 
I personally cannot see any additional artistic value of nudity compared with dress in any work of art and I also see no harm in nudity, when the represented naked body is obviously and unequivocally an artifact and not a real naked body presented for abuse and commerce.    But the contemporary pictures are too much resembling real life women and thus they are confounding men's instincts.  Such pictures have a very detrimental effect upon male brains, which those Roman mosaics could never have.  

702. The Male NoFap Movement Brings No Benefit For Women

702.   The Male NoFap Movement Brings No Benefit For Women

I just happened to read for the first time about the NoFap movement.   My first superficial reaction was to welcome the rejection of pornography.   But then I found out, that this is not the objective, but an unintended side-effect.   The real objective is men's very selfish intention of some weird form of self-improvement.   Reducing the plight of women is not the goal.   Women are insignificant in this concept.

The man watching pornography indirectly damages some women.   His victims are the women, who are abused by the production of pornography.   By his demand for pornography he contributes to producing more and thus abusing more women.  
He also desensitizes himself towards perceiving women as objects and not as persons, which harms women, who by mistake get involved with him with wrong expectations.  
But even though the pornography temporarily enhances his dishomeostasis, his subsequent solitary manual restoring of homeostasis has no direct victims.  

In the case of a not partnered man, there can even be a collateral benefit, when thus restoring temporary homeostasis, this can reduce his being a nuisance to all women, who do not want to be involved with him.    

The man on a NoFap project refrains from pornography but only as a collateral side-effect.   This is not his goal, the pornography has only lost its utility.  On a small scale this abstaining does unfortunately not suffice to reduce the market and the abuse of producing more.   
The not partnered man's goal is the self-improvement of learning to live with his urges.   During his NoFap periods, he lives in the state of permanent and growing physiological dishomeostasis.  Would he not get innately into such states, he would never have developed those habits, which he now wants to discontinue by NoFap.   This makes him anything between a nuisance and a hazard to all women around him.    

Even if he does not transgress boundaries by harassment, assault or rape, any interaction with him can be very unpleasant and unsuitable for a woman.   Though a woman wants a rational, decent and serious conversation, this is not available from a man, who is disabled and deranged by his instincts craving for her body.   So while in a state of homeostasis, he could be an interesting person, his NoFap inner battles deprive her of a rational interaction with him.

NoFap is not an appropriate solution for the male physiological affliction.   Instead it is necessary that men take full responsibility to cope with their biological predisposition in a way, which eliminates all abuse of women.  

There cannot be any doubt, that men in a state of homeostasis are much better not only for women, but for everybody around them and even for themselves.   The recurrent male dishomeostasis needs to be remedied.   

Men need to learn, that the best, if not the only non-abusive way of coping with their biology is forming stable, bonded, monogamous relationships, in which intellectual and emotional attachment with a woman as a person prevents abuse.   

Otherwise men's manual remedy needs at least to be mentally separated from any imagination or observation of the abuse of any living woman.   Men need to learn and to comprehend, that while their biological urges are real, this does not mean, that women exist to be abused for this purpose.   

Women are there to connect with emotionally and intellectually, or else they are not to be touched.   NoFap does not help men to learn this.    

Additional thoughts (2015-3-31).

It seems that the above text can be misunderstood.   I have therefore written an additional entry elaborating this topic:

732.   How Men Could Cope With Their Physiological Urges Without Disrespecting Women

680. Research Should Not Be Misinterpreted To Trivialize Pornography

680.   Research Should Not Be Misinterpreted To Trivialize Pornography

Pornography is a very serious problem.   Men damage themselves by a deliberate decision, yet they themselves do not suffer.   Instead they make women suffer by commodifying and objectifying them.  

Therefore men are not prone to refrain from exposing themselves, but they will gladly jump on any excuse to trivialize the self-exposure.  

The following may be mistaken as supplying such an excuse.  

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130906102536.htm

"asked 200 Danish adults aged 18-30 about their past pornography consumption; assessed a central part of their personality (the trait of agreeableness i.e., individual low in agreeableness typically holder higher levels of antagonism, coldness, hostility, suspiciousness, disagreeability, unfriendliness, and self-interest); and exposed them to hardcore pornography in the laboratory."

"Among men increased past pornography consumption was initially found to be associated with more negative attitudes toward women including more hostility, negative prejudices, and stereotypes."

"However, when the researchers actually exposed participants to pornography, personality (agreeableness) was found to influence the relationship between pornography and sexist attitudes so that it was only among participants low in agreeableness that pornography was found to increase sexist attitudes. Among this group it was found that laboratory exposure to pornography modestly increased hostile sexist attitudes. Further this increase was found to be brought about by increases in sexual arousal to the pornographic exposure material. For all other participants, pornography exposure was found not to influence sexist attitudes."

Pornography desensitizes men by destroying their ability to perceive women as persons, who suffer when being abused.  It replaces the appreciative perception by the sexist attitude of mistaking women as objects and commodities existing to be abused.

Desensitization is a time dependent effect.  The longer a man is exposed to pornography, the worse he gets and the more harm he does to women.  

The duration of the exposure to pornography in a laboratory study is limited, while the most damaged men are impacted by the cumulative effects of repeated and regular extensive exposures.   The short exposure in the laboratory does not simulate the magnitude of the real life desensitization.

Therefore the absence in this one study of an effect after only a short exposure does not justify any trivializing misinterpretation.    

I doubt, that high agreeableness suffices as a general protection against desensitization, it may only slow down the speed thereof.   The short exposure in laboratory may suffice to bring out the worst only in those men with low agreeableness, while those with high agreeableness would need longer exposure before they succumb.

626. The Counterproductive Absurdity Of Recent Feminist Attempts At Provocation

626.   The Counterproductive Absurdity Of Recent Feminist Attempts At Provocation

Lately there have been several feminist groups protesting against real issues by attempted provocation.   The method of their provocation included the display of their fully or partially naked and painted bodies.  
They are naive and they are fools.   As far as they provoked anything at all, it was only the hypocrisy of pretended social norms.  Getting attention is not the same as provoking onlookers to reconsider their opinions.  

In reality, these young women gave to male animals, what they subconsciously enjoy to perceive:  Triggers to their instincts.   On the level of animal instincts, men do not discriminate between cognitive connotations of the triggers.   A naked female body is a trigger to drool, no matter if in a movie, a commercial or by a misguided feminist.    

These women did not provoke anything at all, instead they presented the sight of young, fertile female bodies for men to drool over.  


I am a feminist as far as this means that I refuse to accept any disadvantage to a woman based upon her gender.   I am not a feminist, if this means to upvalue dull and unintellectual occupations like housework and breeding.  

Therefore I consider the core objective of feminism as to defend, restore and fight for the dignity of women as equals and as persons with a brain, who deserve better than to be degraded by objectification and commodification.

The male biological affliction of recurrent sexual dishomeostasis is a real handicap of those men, whose reason gets temporarily blurred under the impact of this state.  As long as feminists (of both genders) are in denial of the devastating effects of this handicap, the success of feminism is doomed to be limited.   Since the beginning of feminism about a hundred years ago, some of the worst legal inequalities have been overcome.   For example, today women are allowed to vote, can have a job without the requirement of the husband's permission and are allowed to become soldiers.  

But where the dignity of women is concerned, the development has gone the other way.   Women's dignity is and has been dwindling, as far as it had ever existed rudimentary in any country's social norm.   
Never before in the German history has the objectification of women been more ubiquitous and more considered as all men's normal right.   Prostitution has been made legally a job as any other, pornography is easily available, the media and commercials are full with pictures of seductive and lascivious women.   While child pornography is illegal for good reasons, nobody seems to see, that the same reasons do also apply for the requirement to protect women.    No person in Germany can pass a day without somewhere being exposed to pictures representing  women in seductive and lascivious attire and posture.       
 
It has become an implicitly accepted reality, that triggers to men's instincts are not only available but that men are entitled to expose themselves to be triggered at their convenience.   People have been desensitized so much, that even many women consider being triggered as men's innate rights.   

Men in some cultures use their power to force women against their will under tent like garments.  This is not only an outrage, but it is also an interesting self-disclosure by these men.  While the men in western cultures are in denial of their affliction, these men clearly admit their own dysfunction.    They recognize to be so much the helpless slaves to their own instincts, that they are unable to cope with any subconscious perception of the triggers radiated by uncovered women.   Their awareness for their own biological reality would by itself be preferable over the western men's denial.   Unfortunately this awareness is not used to benefit the women.  It could be a challenge for men to learn self-control.  Instead these men use their power to force the women to suffer under the burden of men's failure to cope with their own dysfunction.


Many feminists rightfully fight against all male behaviors, which are assaults and infringements upon non-consenting women.   But at the same time they also claim to have the right to send out the most drastic signals to the male subconscious without any self-restriction.    It is not only irrational, it is even unfair to men, when women make men drool over their bodies, yet demand male self-control as if they had not contributed themselves to the drooling. 

Feminists who complain and fight against being objectified but paint their faces, wear jewelery and sexy attire are contradictory.   They send out double-bind messages.   Their seductive attire signals 'I want to be seduced', while as a feminist they implicitly add 'but I refuse to be abused.'  Seduction is the first step to abuse, while forming a serious relationship is based upon reciprocal rational convincing of being a good long-term match. Whenever a man reacts to the apparent invitation to seduce, his subsequent attempts to seduce and abuse are rejected as an outrage.   


A constructive form of feminism needs to cooperate with men towards finding a fair compromise between men forcing women under a tent and between women making men drool while refusing to be used.  Feminists' attire would be rationally based upon the conscious avoidance to trigger men's unwanted behavior as a support for men attempting to cope with their affliction without harming women.

There would be only one way to provoke men out of their desensitized entitlement to the ubiquitous availability of visible female nakedness.   It would be a triggering strike.   The provocation would be by women systematically making themselves appear in public as anti-sexy.   Imitating the wearing of a tent would be too extreme, but women would cover themselves as much as they can still feel comfortable.    Being deprived of triggers to drool would be much more effective to provoke men's attention, that something needs to be changed.

But this will never happen.   While some feminists may consider anti-drooling behavior an option, there are unfortunately too many women, who are void of any need for dignity.   Instead they are so stupid, uneducated, simpleminded, vain and brainwashed, that they identify entirely with their looks and with their bodies.    They feel flattered and ego-boosted by men's attempts to seduce.  They feel power by both, by either being able to reject the attempts and by else extracting material benefits from men as a result of making them drool.  


Therefore while I personally have become allergic to the frequent disregard of my dignity as a person, I am fully aware that this cannot be attributed only to the male biological affliction, but I have to recognize this being enhanced and reinforced by many women.

548. The Evolution Of Men's Brains Lags Behind The Evolution Of Women's Cognitive Needs

548.   The Evolution Of Men's Brains Lags Behind The Evolution Of Women's Cognitive Needs

The technical quality of visual and auditory imitations of people on screens has reached a level of similarity, to which human brains have not evolved.   The inability of the human brain to distinguish between real persons and their virtual representations on screens effects the subconscious mind of both genders.    

But only in men this effect aggravates and enhances their unfortunate instinctive urges so drastically, that many of them become emotionally crippled by the tragic commodification and objectification of women.   

Consumers of pornography are misled by their brains to confound the perception of pornography as if it was the experience of observing the real bodies of the objectified women.   The more often men expose themselves to this fallacy, the more this distorts their attitude, expectations and behavior towards all women.   

This fallacy is perpetuated by the discrepancy of men's conscious superficial awareness of merely looking at a screen and the subconscious susceptibility.   They are either ignorant of the damaging impact of pornography upon their subconscious mind, or they choose denial, when women attempt to warn them.  
Men are not born as commodifying jerks, they are only born with a high risk to becoming jerks by the exposure to pornography.   

As usually, writing about what I personally perceive as an outrage against women's dignity is easily dismissed as a frustrated woman's rants refusing to accept her purpose as seen by many jerks, unless my complaints are backed up by other sources.  

So I just found an article on this topic:

http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:2pPhsT0Gex0J:scholar.google.com/&hl=de&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1

 Here are some interesting quotes:

"In The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television and New Media Like Real People and Places (1996) Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass argue that there is no essential or functional difference in how the brain responds to the ‘real’ physical world, and how it responds to media images and artificial entities. According to Reeves and Nass our “old brains” have not yet caught up with our new media technologies and they do not have the sophistication to distinguish between a real physical object in the world and a media image or robotic simulation of that same object. This means that people tend to respond in essentially the same way to screen images of a person or a virtual computer persona as they would to a real person. Even though we may be consciously aware that screen images and simulated entities are not real, nevertheless, we have an ingrained unconscious tendency to treat them as if they were"

"Recent research into the phenomenon of mirror neurons also suggests a neuroscientific basis for this physical and emotional response to screen images and artificial entities. Experiments show that areas of the brain collectively known as the ‘mirror neuron system’ respond not only when individuals perform an action themselves but also when they watch someone else perform that action. Watching someone pick up an object triggers a similar response to actually picking up the object yourself. Screen-based actions and experiences also trigger mirror neuron responses and corresponding physical motor responses; pornography is a key example here."

"Of course, this tendency to treat screen images and robots as social partners means that we have a corresponding tendency to expect them to react in ways that are socially and naturally appropriate and believable. When they don’t, and our expectations are not met, the result can be one of frustration, disappointment and annoyance."

This last quote is important concerning an additional trigger for men to harm women.   While men's brains confound the realistic pornographic images with real women, these picture are nevertheless restricted to the screen and not available for tactile abuse.   This can cause men to feel frustration and anger.    

When such frustration is added to a man's already distorted general attitude towards women, he becomes an even worse hazard of inflicting real life abuse and harm upon any woman happening to be in his reach.

547. The Subtle Immorality Of Christian (Pseudo-)Morals

547.   The Subtle Immorality Of Christian (Pseudo-)Morals

This continues entries 545 and 546.   

I watched this video made by a group of people around Reisman
 

The Kinsey syndrome

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2009/03/watch_videos_on.html#table34

This video presents principally the same information concerning Kinsey's misconduct and aberrations as does Tate's documentary.    I can agree with the simple attribution to Kinsey of the onset of the sexual revolution and with Reisman's pointing out, that pornographic magazines like Playboy are one facet of the damage done by the sexual revolution.  Her elaboration of the harm of pornography in her article in entry 545 is excellent. 

I see this in a wider context of an unfortunate reciprocal reinforcement between social development and technological progress leading to the fatal oversexation of society.    Kinsey's mere claim of what and how sexual behaviors should be a social norm happened to coincide with men's instinctive predispositions to commodify women.  But only the development of a sufficiently high quality of photos, moving pictures and recorded voices made the presented virtual persons in the media such a good imitation of real people, that there impact upon the brain is nearly or completely the same as if they were real.   
   

Beyond this partial agreement, the bias of some of the conclusions, interpretations and claims of the video make me shudder.    This video is one more example, how any morality derived from a religious belief system can be very immoral, when morality is measured by how much the victims are either harmed or spared.   

The morals of any religion arbitrarily defining sin cannot be more rational to the needs of individual humans than is the belief system itself.

Bias/fallacy 1.  The video attributes Kinsey's part in the atrocities to children to his having rejected religious beliefs.    There are many possible explanations of what was wrong with Kinsey causing him to harm other humans.  Maybe his behavior was due to psychopathy or any other disorder, but it was certainly not caused by the absence of religion.  

Bias/fallacy 2.  The video condemns behaviors, even though they do no harm.    

Homosexuality is generally condemned.  The video does not distinguish between the differences in the harm caused by either promiscuity or monogamy.    A caring committed couple is beneficial to each other, independent of both partners' gender being the same or different. 

Bias/fallacy 3.  The video even condemns beneficial behaviors.   Abortion is condemned, even though legal abortion is beneficial.   Women are protected from harm, while nobody is harmed.        

Bias/fallacy 4.   The video condemns necessary preventive adaptations to reduce the risk of harm, even though the causes of the necessity cannot be changed.  

The video condemns sex education for children.    The ubiquity of the oversexation of the media makes it nearly impossible to avoid young children to be exposed to age-unsuitable material.   Age appropriate sex education can reduce the risk or prevent harm.   

Bias/fallacy 5.   The video is not concerned about subjective harm, only about sin and fraud.  
Example 1:  The tragic case of the girl, whose father was paid by Kinsey for taking notes during his abuse of his own daughter.  
In Tate's documentary, she was presented as a suffering woman having been traumatized by an outrageous act.
In the religious video, she was presented as a witness of Kinsey's sin and fraud, her lifelong suffering was omitted.   
Example 2:   A man is interviewed about having ended his pornography addiction due to in his own words his 'fear of god'.   There was not one word of consideration, guilt or remorse concerning the victims abused directly and personally by him or indirectly by the production of the pornography.   He did not change his behavior to stop harming others, only himself.    He subjectively stopped to sin, not to harm.  

Bias/fallacy 6.   The video implicitly shows the christian attitude, that nothing done to an adult woman is a sin bad enough to be mentioned, let alone condemned.   In the christian world view, women are meant to suffer and to wait in patience until their god does his job to compensate them after their death for the plight.   

The video's attributing a lot of harm to children to the influence of pornographic magazines like Playboy is very stringent.   But there is not the least logical reason to protest against harm only when the victims are children, but to completely omit all of the harm done to women in the video's entire duration is over two hours.  

It is absurd to consider women as growing up automatically for the destiny of sufferings by male abuse and commodtification.    Harm to adult women is misinterpreted as a god's will, which therefore cannot be a sin to bother about. 


In addition of being already apistic, because this fits my rationality, any belief system, in which morals do not serve to protect and prevent all people equally from being harmed and abused, is as repulsive as it is dangerous.   
in the above example, the immorality of alleged morals happens to be christian, but this is just one example, some other religions inflict even more drastic harm on the victims by the alleged justification of a cruel pseudo-moral.  

545. Erototoxins - What All Men Should Be Aware Of But Very Few Are

545.   Erototoxins - What All Men Should Be Aware Of But Very Few Are

In entry 544 I wrote about how the influence of the oversexation of the media has aggravated men's innate tendency towards an asymmetrical basic attitude towards women as described in entry 543. 

This is not my imagination.   There are scientific sources.    This study is about the damage done on men's brains by magazines like Playboy, Hustler and Penthouse.    

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/History_and_Science_-_Erototoxic_Images_Drive_Sex_Trafficking_Demand.pdf

It is an important article to be read entirely, especially by those men, who do consume pornography with the naive illusion, that it would not affect them.    No selection of quotes could sufficiently represent the scope of the outrage reported in its 20 pages.   

This article taught me a new word:  Erototoxins.   In Reisman's own words:

"Pornography, “sexually explicit media,” function as “Erototoxins,” the toxic side of eros, converting complex persons worldwide into objects one ‘screws into’ via one or more of several orifices."

Cigarettes are sold with obligatory warnings printed upon the package as these:  

Smoking kills 
Smoking seriously harms you and others around you

Every item of pornography and other erototoxic material should have a warning too:

Pornography kills women and children
Pornography seriously harms your brain and causes you to harm others around you

539. Movies Are Contributing To The Harm Done By Promiscuous Jerks

539.   Movies Are Contributing To The Harm Done By Promiscuous Jerks

I have been mentioning before, that promiscuous jerks are predisposed by instinctive animal urges, but that the harm done to the victims is magnified by the sad influence of the media propagating, enhancing and reinforcing the social norm of oversexation.  

A recent study gives some evidence, that the influence of movies is contributing to women's plight by supplying the wrong role models.    

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120717162743.htm

"Adolescents who are exposed to more sexual content in movies start having sex at younger ages, have more sexual partners, and are less likely to use condoms with casual sexual partners,"

"Many adolescents turn to movies to acquire "sexual scripts" that offer examples of how to behave when confronted with complicated emotional situations. For 57 percent of American adolescents between the ages of 14 and 16, the media is their greatest source of sexual information. They often don't differentiate between what they see on the screen and what they must confront in daily life ."

What this study indicates as the fatal influence of sexual scenes in general movies, can logically be expected to be even worse in pornographic movies. 


There are other sources providing some further contextual explanations.    

1.  Kanazawa has pointed out, that people are misled to confound the mere moving pictures of people on TV with personal friends, because the evolution of the human cognition had no yet enough time to adapt to the realistic technical representations of people.   The spontaneous and subconscious human perception does not distinguish sufficiently.    

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/ehb2002.pdf

This has fatal consequences.   

Commercial movies are made to entertain people, not to educate them towards responsibility and consideration.   The stories of movies are not realistic.  They are in some way extreme and often dangerously pseudo-realistic.   Women are often abused in a drastic way, which in real life would be legally punished, but the severe harm experienced by them is omitted in the movies, because it is not entertaining.    They are damaged as objects, not harmed as humans.

Adolescents need the valid and beneficial role model of the happy serenity of a bonded monogamous couple.   But what should be encouraged most for imitation lacks any entertaining thrill.  Such a couple's happiness is as beneficial for the two partners themselves as it is dull and boring to the curiosity of gossiping and scandal enjoying bystanders, not matter if in real life or on a screen.    

Therefore the perception of the adolescents watching movies is mislead by confounding the images of the role models on the screen with real people appearing as an extension of their social environment.   Thus the influence of such role models to be imitated is dangerously strong.   

The adolescents are misled to consider the unreal, fantastic and extreme events and activities of the observed stories as if this were a valid representation of real life.

For the consumers of the movies and even more of pornography, abuse seems to end without any consequences, when the movie ends.  But in real life, abuse not only concerns a transgressor, but also a victim.   The abuser's onesided perception of having terminated the abusive event does not really end it.   Real life jerks cannot fully avoid to witness the visible reactions of the victims.  Even those jerks, who are not bothered or insensitive to whatever they do themselves often do notice the suffering, when the victims are their family members harmed by other jerks.

In short, real life harm has more or less observable consequences, which serve as a deterrent.   This deterrent is lacking in the movies.  The harm done by the promiscuity shown in the movies is hidden and omitted as if it did not exist.  Thus the movies mislead adolescents towards oblivion and denial of what they do to their victims by imitating the abuse.

2.   Milgram's experiment have been lately reinterpreted:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120718164947.htm

"The researchers hypothesized that, rather than obedience to authority, the participants' behavior might be better explained by their patterns of social identification. They surmised that conditions that encouraged identification with the experimenter (and, by extension, the scientific community) led participants to follow the experimenters' orders, while conditions that encouraged identification with the learner (and the general community) led participants to defy the experimenters' orders."

Explaining the physically barbaric act of applying electro shocks by identification can be generalized to explain the emotionally barbaric act of men's promiscuous objectifying of women's bodies also by the identification with the imitated actors in the movies.

520. An Irrational, Unjustified And Outrageous Distinction

520.   An Irrational, Unjustified And Outrageous Distinction

Under German law, being caught having child pornography on his computer usually suffices to send a man to jail.    But any man is legally free to consume as much pornography as pleases him, as long as the abused objects in the pictures are above a minimal age.  

The prohibition of child pornography is justified by its goal to prevent abuse.   Pornography has been produced by the abuse of real life children and there is the probability that consuming pornography is the first step of lowering the threshold towards subsequent real life abuse.      

This makes perfect sense.   But it makes just as much sense concerning grown up women.    Restricting this form of prevention to the protection of children cannot be rationally justified.   It is an absurd outrage to deny to women the same entitlement to be spared abuse by all possible methods of prevention, which are recognized as necessary for children.    

1.  Abuse is as bad for women as it is for children.

Any man of average physical strength has sufficient physical power to force the same amount of harm upon a woman of average strength as he has to force it upon children.    Women have no better chances to defend themselves against physical violence than have children.   Women are as much at the mercy of men's civilized self-control as are children.       

Any variety of real life abuse, no matter if rape, manipulation, taking advantages of someone's helpless and dependent situation or apparent self-objectification, is enabled by the abuser's mental process towards replacing inhibitions, self-control and restrictions by subjective justifications and excuses.  

The first step in this mental process is objectification.   (More about the perceptive objectification in entry 519.)    Objectification is an attitude concerning the essence and quality of other humans, which usually follows desensitization until the abuser's perception is distorted.   The abuser is void of the ability to perceive other humans as persons with human dignity, instead they are only perceived as objects, utilities, commodities.  

While some people objectify others due to some mental defect in their brain, like psychopathy, objectification is also the unavoidable result of desensitization and habituation.  This can happen both by the passive observation of role models abusing other human beings and by actively participating in and practicing abuse.    When women and children are objectified as existing for the purpose to be used sexually, pornography is one major source of this effect.  

There is always the hazard of objectification, because a body is perceived as a visible object, while the personality, the qualities of the mind are not directly visible.  Their discovery is only accessible indirectly by communication.    Therefore there is an unfortunate vicious circle.   Any attempt to communicate requires at least a minimal expectation of the other's ability to communicate as a person.   Nobody expects to communicate with an object.   Objectification precludes communication, while communication can reduce objectification.   Thus, once there is objectification, it reinforces itself further by the loss of any chance to rediscover the person hidden inside of what is perceived as an object.   

2.  No differences justify abusing women more than children.

Objectification includes the general fallacy of believing in and accepting, that the alleged purpose of the objectified person's existence is being used.   Whenever abuse of women becomes normal, common and regular behavior, some men are not even aware of the alternative of appreciating, noticing and recognizing women's mind and personality.  

This fatal process, that pornography leads first to desensitization and objectification and then to lowering the threshold towards real life abuse is the same, no matter if the degraded human being is a woman or a child.   Any distinction cannot be rationally justified.   Whenever men justify such a distinction, it is based upon a fallacy.

Male fallacy 1:  

When the victim is a woman, biologically her body is apt for male homeostation, while a child's is not.  This difference leads to the fatal fallacy, that abusing a woman's body as an object for sexual homeostation is often considered as less evil, less harmful and less traumatizing.    

The implicit implication of this fallacy is an outrage.   Those men, who objectify women by perceiving and believing, that women's ultimate purpose is to serve men's needs for homeostation, often also see nothing as really wrong in getting the fulfillment of this purpose by hook or by crook from reluctant and resistant women.    It is a monstrous fallacy to believe, that forcing women into their alleged natural purpose is more acceptable than forcing something upon a child, who is not considered to exist for the same purpose.      

Male fallacy 2. 

There is one difference between children and women:  Only women can be made to appear preempting male objectification by self-objectification, while children are usually accepted as being too young for consent.

The general male fallacy, that women exist for their homeostation is reinforced by the subsequent fallacy of believing in some women's apparent free choice of self-objectification.   Men often succeed to usurp control over resources for survival and they use this control to coerce women by dire necessity into submission to the objectification.   When hopelessness and resignation cause women to refrain from resistance to their fate, this is often mistaken as agreement.   This alleged choice of self-objectification facilitates the abuse and it allows men to condone and justify the objectification of women.    Manipulating women to comply by self-objectification is in reality a part of men's strategy and method to succeed in achieving the benefits of objectification with the least effort.

Male fallacy 3.

Some women are as much the unhappy victims of their instincts as are men, they too are feeling the urges of dishomeostasis.  This female dishomeostasis is the unfulfilled breeding instinct.    These women only appear superficially to cooperate with men's objectification by self-objectification.   It is men's fallacy to misinterpreted it as women's acceptance of existing to serve men.  In reality, these women's self-objectification is their method to restore homeostasis by becoming pregnant.   

Once they have reached their breeder's homeostation, they have no longer any reason to continue the self-objectification to men.   These men are dissatisfied when the women's breeding homeostation ends the men's recurrent sexual homeostation.  The women continue the self-objectification, but they shift the target away from the men and towards the slavery of raising the children. 

Objectification of people is not restricted to sexual abuse.   Whenever someone reduces his evaluation of a human being to the benefits and advantages to be derived from a utility, this is a form of objectification.    Whenever self-objectification blurs the awareness of both the abusers and of the victims for the true outrage, this perpetuates the abuse.  

When a person is forced by slavery to labor for the owner's profit, the objectification of slaves cannot be denied.    Therefore when and where slavery was abolished, it was done based upon the acceptance of the principle, that no human being exists for the purpose to be used for another person's economic benefits.   

It is time to abolish all sexual abuse too by this principle:

No human being, no matter if child or grown up woman, exists for the purpose to be used for men's homeostation. 

Apparent self-objectification is no ethical justification for the objectification of human beings.

 

A man, whose self-worth and self-esteem depends on his own correct and decent behavior only, refuses to participate in any objectification of women, even in spite of alleged and apparent female self-objectification.    Unfortunately, such men are a minority of men, they are the ethical quality elite.  

The majority of men are gullible and self-deceiving by willingly mistaking any appearance of women's self-objectification as sufficient justification for abusing women.   As long as they can maintain their false belief in female self-objectification, they allow themselves to feel decent and no jerks.  

They are oblivious of being jerks and abusers, when they objectify women directly as users of prostitute's bodies or indirectly by consuming the actors' images in pornography.  They really believe the absurd myth, that women prefer this form of earning an income over a decent job, where they could use their brain instead of their body.   It needs a lot of moronity in men to really believe such a myth.       

506. The Harmful Effects Of Pornography On Jerks And On Emotional Morons

506.   The Harmful Effects Of Pornography On Jerks And On Emotional Morons

As shown by a lot of scientific evidence in entry 505, exposure to pornography converts men into hazards to women with emotional needs.   

When men are knowingly harming women. they are ruthless jerks.   Others are emotional moron, who want to be decent and moral people, and who have a clear conscience believing to do nothing wrong.  They are oblivious or in denial of the real damage done by them.
This is a general observation, but it is also the case, when men harm first themselves by pornography and whose harming women is a direct consequence of having damaged themselves.  

When damaged men are outspoken in their refusal to commit, women have at least a fair chance to avoid being abused by them.   

But those men are the most dangerous, who appear, pretend or believe to want a companion, and whose bonding-disability is hidden until the discovery as the consequence of actually getting involved.   Women are mislead to agree to intimacy, which for them is the beginning of commitment.  They give and expect affectionate physical intimacy.  All they can get from the damaged men is being an object used in their mechanical copulations.  

These are two examples:

1.  The jerk:
 

I read somewhere on the web the desperate complaints of a guy, who has not only damaged himself by too much pornography, but who has reached the consciousness of suffering from it.    He describes with words, that resound his genuine pain and distress, how much he would want to have a woman as a companion.   But every time, when he wishes a woman to become his companion, the desensitization overrides everything else.  Physical involvement automatically converts the attempted mating into the subjective experience of another instance of his habitual abuse, and the woman meant as a companion is perceived as just one more degraded object and utility.    
This guy is a jerk, because he has recognized this effect upon himself, but in spite of knowing, what he does, he repeats his futile attempts to have a companionship.    Every time, when he tries again, he harms a trusting woman without feeling responsible.  
He is also jerk by being very selfish. His extreme exposure to pornography is the result of his making a good living by selling it.    He admits, that he continues his profitable business, knowingly inflicting the same harm upon others, in spite of being aware of having harmed himself.

2.  The emotional moron:

Recently I have corresponded for a while with a man, whose denial is remarkable.   He told me quite convincingly, that he really wants a long term monogamous relationship, and how much he is interested in communication and in companionship.   He put emphasis on his alleged appreciation for women.   He told me, that he never had a one-night-stand, and this of course made him attractive to me.  
When I asked him about his use of pornography, I thought it was merely a routine question.  I really expected a negative answer.    Instead I was consternated and horrified, when he admitted to having been consuming pornography habitually since over 40 years, whenever he was not in a relationship.   After 40 years, it is most probably an addiction.    

He naively considers pornography as a harmless everyday habit.   I have sent him the links to scientific articles about the harm done by pornography listed in entry 505.   Reading these articles had no impact upon his complete denial.   He claims that even if everybody else gets harmed by the exposure to huge amounts of pornography, he continues to believe, that he alone is the one exception, who has not been damaged.  

My mindmate to be found is neither a jerk nor an emotional moron.   He has no life history of abusing women, he has not desensitized himself neither by promiscuously using real bodies nor by exposing himself to the pornographic representations of abused bodies.

505. Science Indicating The Harm Of Pornography

505.   Science Indicating The Harm Of Pornography

For emotionally unharmed people, monogamy, commitment and exclusive pair-bonding are basic cognitive and emotional human needs. 
Promiscuity, polygyny, cheating, dumping, degrading and abusing others as mere bodies cause serious emotional harm to people.   

While the emotional benefits for individual human beings derived from the exclusivity of monogamy are the topic of romance in novels and movies, scientific research instead focuses mainly on general social, economic and evolutionary benefits of monogamy.  

Whenever I am reading men's profiles and the ubiquitous promiscuous and perverse wishes and goals, in addition to some feedback to this blog and to my own profiles, I sometimes feel as if I were an alien from another planet thrown into a filthy gutter.     

But luckily, I am not entirely alone with my evaluation of the damage done by the artificial social norm of an oversexed society.   There are learned and knowledgeable scientists studying the serious harm done by pornography.  

When already repeatedly expressing my disgust about the ubiquity of jerks openly pursuing promiscuity on the Internet and about the general oversexation of society, I had omitted to put special emphasis on pornography as the core of the problem.  Promiscuity is more an abstract concept, while pornography is its real life representation.  
The entire detrimental effects of the general oversexation including the subtle and indirect damage are like an iceberg, of which only one seventh is visible above the water.   This visible part is pornography, of which the harm can be shown most easily.     I already have called promiscuity a scourge of humanity, and so is pornography as its most visible expression.
 
While I was fully aware of the kind of damage done to users' brains by the exposure to pornography, I had not been aware to which extreme extensity and pervasiveness pornography had grown along with the ubiquity of the Internet.    While I cannot avoid being exposed to the general oversexation of daily life against my will, the access to pornography on the web requires proactive behavior.    By being able to avoid it, I was not fully aware the real magnitude of the problem.    

I attributed promiscuity directly to men's being physiologically driven by their strong animal instincts, this being aggravated by their having lost first the sensitivity to appreciate an emotional safe haven and subsequently also lacking the motivation to use self-control.  
Those promiscuous jerks and emotional psychopaths, whom I described throughout this blog as prototypes from my worst nightmares, have probably not become obnoxious and disgusting merely by an innate disposition.   Instead it is more probable, that the additional exposure to huge amounts of pornography has magnified their innate predisposition, until all their human qualities had been destroyed.  

It seems that pornography converts potential jerks into irreversible jerks.  

There has been done a lot of research on the different aspects of the harm done by pornography, and learned people have expressed and explained it much better, than I could do.   The following is a list of a some very good sources for further information.

Patrick F. Fagan: 
A Poison In The Home
http://www.diolaf.org/documents/Marriage%20and%20Family%20Life/Pornography%20Resources/a%20poison%20in%20the%20home.pdf
 

Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D.
The Effects of Pornography on Individuals, Marriage, Family and Community
http://www.wifamilyaction.org/files/trya.campaigntoolbox.org/downloads/FRC_PornStudy_0.pdf
 

Mary Eberstadt  Mary Anne Layden 
THE SOCIAL COSTS OF PORNOGRAPHY
http://www.internetsafety101.org/upload/file/Social%20Costs%20of%20Pornography%20Report.pdf

Dr. Victor B. Cline:  
Pornography’s Effects On Adults and Children
http://www.stop.org.za/Victor%20Cline%27s%20Study.pdf

Ana J. Bridges 
Pornography's Effects on Interpersonal Relationships
http://www.socialcostsofpornography.com//Bridges_Pornographys_Effect_on_Interpersonal_Relationships.pdf
 

Jackson Katz: 
Pornography And Men's Consciousness
http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/genderandmedia/assignments/katz001.pdf

Rebecca Whisnant: 
Confronting pornography:  Some conceptual basics.
http://stoppornculture.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Whisnant-Confronting-Pornography.pdf