|
|
Post by csl on Mar 13, 2017 12:35:36 GMT -5
Porn isn't benign nor normal. It may be the current "average", but it isn't normal. Gary Wilson's TEDTalk demonstrates the fact that it isn't benign. Try applying everything he said about porn to junk food, or normal food even, and see where you land. If what you are saying is true, then people who watch a lot of porn would not want to have sex with their spouses. Do you think that's a reasonable assertion to make on this board? Oh, did they do brain scans on people eating junk food? Are there studies about the dopamine surges of junk food, or the effect of Delta-FosB on the brains of junk food consumers? Please, cite your experts on these questions raised by Wilson. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 13, 2017 12:44:43 GMT -5
Is it good communication though? And is it a warranted statement to say that good communication will result in the restoration of sexual desire for one's spouse? I can say from experience, .... Your experience is your experience, no one else's. Your one marriage, your one divorce, etc., are not normative for everyone else. Sometimes, I repeat to myself, "I'm not the cure, I'm the patient." Try it. Actually csl , asking my family counselor, an expert in the field - was part of my experience that I articulated. I'm not clear on your intention on snipping that part from the post, to then assert something about my experience being unique and thus not applicable. Even if it were true, why would you even participate on a forum created for the purpose of sharing and helping? This was a psychiatrist with clinical practice number in the thousands. He indicated clearly that "good communication" and restoring or creating effective relationship skills in individuals and couples does NOT frequently, or even normally, result in the restoration of sexual desire or an increase in sex between those couples. So it can't be argued that the interpersonal relationship skills, life coping skills, empathy etc are all improved - and that this necessarily this leads to a restoration of a sexual relationship. It doesn't normally follow that sex is restored. In my other research with Dr. David Schnarch's crucible therapy - he also throws a brick through family practice psychiatry on this subject - noting the abysmal failure rate on this topic. And again - thousands. On this board, there are many examples of couples who took the measures and improved their communication - did all the things and felt they were making progress by any reasonable measure, but it didn't produce sexual expression as the product of that progress, and the marriages ultimately failed. That's in addition to my own personal experience. I think it's important - and so bloody difficult - to challenge the easy assumptions we have in going in to fix such an imbalance, that set people on an ineffective path. Like, "I'll save my marriage if I have better communication." Wrong. Or "I'll save my marriage if I can find the reason she she says doesn't want to fuck me and fix it." Wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 13, 2017 12:47:55 GMT -5
Try applying everything he said about porn to junk food, or normal food even, and see where you land. If what you are saying is true, then people who watch a lot of porn would not want to have sex with their spouses. Do you think that's a reasonable assertion to make on this board? Oh, did they do brain scans on people eating junk food? Are there studies about the dopamine surges of junk food, or the effect of Delta-FosB on the brains of junk food consumers? Please, cite your experts on these questions raised by Wilson. Yes, actually. Here's one: bfy.tw/AbTiI trust that's a good start. It goes into the chemical and evolutionary processes that are hacked by easy access to ingredients that our bodies are hardwired to prioritize - the reasons we crave them. Our appetites and general impulses are generally wired to produce behaviors so that we do those behaviors. Things like sex, eating, caring for a baby, defending ourselves against enemies etc - are hardwired programming that produce certain responses. Taken to an extreme, they can have a negative effect. |
|
|
|
Post by McRoomMate on Mar 13, 2017 14:22:02 GMT -5
Oh, did they do brain scans on people eating junk food? Are there studies about the dopamine surges of junk food, or the effect of Delta-FosB on the brains of junk food consumers? Please, cite your experts on these questions raised by Wilson. Yes, actually. Here's one: bfy.tw/AbTiI trust that's a good start. It goes into the chemical and evolutionary processes that are hacked by easy access to ingredients that our bodies are hardwired to prioritize - the reasons we crave them. Our appetites and general impulses are generally wired to produce behaviors so that we do those behaviors. Things like sex, eating, caring for a baby, defending ourselves against enemies etc - are hardwired programming that produce certain responses. Taken to an extreme, they can have a negative effect. Sorry I am going to get a bit philosophical. The problem and it is an unavoidable problem with the "science" of psychology is that we are dealing with the Human Psyche who goes so deep an unfathomable to our neolithic and even further genetic ancestor map. And nothing is more deep and unfathomable the human romantic and sexual / intimacy relations. Sure there are general tendencies which can be mostly explained by evolution and culture as well as DNA and chemicals . . . but NOT ALL. There rests an unavoidable mystery never to be solved. A "moth to a flame" is the archetypal example of instincts and natural impulses turned self-destructive. Lord knows I have a collection of them. The fundamental fallacy many of the"Professionals" might believe is that the human being's brain is simply a complex hydraulic mechanism which can be manipulated and fine tuned to be adjusted to "normal behavior" by chemicals / therapy / behaviorial adjustments / etc. End of philosophical rant. Thank-you for your patience. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 13, 2017 16:05:42 GMT -5
Sorry I am going to get a bit philosophical. The problem and it is an unavoidable problem with the "science" of psychology is that we are dealing with the Human Psyche [...] End of philosophical rant. Thank-you for your patience. I'm not sure I grasp what you are saying. My reply to CSL was to supply a citation that discussed the behaviour-affecting chemicals and likely results from pleasurable stimuli, rather than just porn. It was intended to place the alarming fascination with porn and the effects watching it has on the brain, as discussed in the TedTalk, alongside other pleasurable activities. Those activities could simply include sex, btw, which becomes a somewhat self-defeating argument on this board, if the lack of sex is a problem. And I'd warrant that a lot of the people diddling themselves while looking at porn here, would vastly prefer to be diddled by their partners who refuse to diddle them. So there's a lot of stuff in the "look to the porn!" argument that doesn't really add up, and it's why I think it's likely a distraction and a symptom - not a cause. |
|
|
|
Post by McRoomMate on Mar 13, 2017 17:05:42 GMT -5
Sorry I am going to get a bit philosophical. The problem and it is an unavoidable problem with the "science" of psychology is that we are dealing with the Human Psyche [...] End of philosophical rant. Thank-you for your patience. I'm not sure I grasp what you are saying. My reply to CSL was to supply a citation that discussed the behaviour-affecting chemicals and likely results from pleasurable stimuli, rather than just porn. It was intended to place the alarming fascination with porn and the effects watching it has on the brain, as discussed in the TedTalk, alongside other pleasurable activities. Those activities could simply include sex, btw, which becomes a somewhat self-defeating argument on this board, if the lack of sex is a problem. And I'd warrant that a lot of the people diddling themselves while looking at porn here, would vastly prefer to be diddled by their partners who refuse to diddle them. So there's a lot of stuff in the "look to the porn!" argument that doesn't really add up, and it's why I think it's likely a distraction and a symptom - not a cause. Sorry sometimes I am not a good listener . . . I think it was just a general misplaced rant and the Marriage Counselors, the psychologists, and the psychiatrists all trying to make people fit in the "normal" category. Very misplaced rant not at all aimed at your specific points. I will watch the Ted Talk lecture for starters. Yes you make all very good points. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 13, 2017 18:54:14 GMT -5
I'm not sure I grasp what you are saying. My reply to CSL was to supply a citation that discussed the behaviour-affecting chemicals and likely results from pleasurable stimuli, rather than just porn. It was intended to place the alarming fascination with porn and the effects watching it has on the brain, as discussed in the TedTalk, alongside other pleasurable activities. Those activities could simply include sex, btw, which becomes a somewhat self-defeating argument on this board, if the lack of sex is a problem. And I'd warrant that a lot of the people diddling themselves while looking at porn here, would vastly prefer to be diddled by their partners who refuse to diddle them. So there's a lot of stuff in the "look to the porn!" argument that doesn't really add up, and it's why I think it's likely a distraction and a symptom - not a cause. Sorry sometimes I am not a good listener . . . I think it was just a general misplaced rant and the Marriage Counselors, the psychologists, and the psychiatrists all trying to make people fit in the "normal" category. Very misplaced rant not at all aimed at your specific points. I will watch the Ted Talk lecture for starters. Yes you make all very good points. Well. The Tedtalk wasn't really my point. Mine was simply to say that I did not really think that fixating on an intimacy-averse husband's use of porn was going to do anything to improve the situation at home. |
|
|
|
Post by baza on Mar 13, 2017 19:43:22 GMT -5
I think that hetero-sexuality is a perfectly valid preference to have.
Likewise, I think homo-sexuality is a perfectly valid preference to have too.
Same for bi-sexuality.
Asexuality is as valid as any of the above.
Solo sex (with or without the porn variant) is a perfectly valid preference also.
I can't see why any of the above are less (or more) valid than another.
As a demographic, the hetero-sexuals have the numbers, but that numerical superiority doesn't make it "right" for all.
If someonnes sexual preference is to whack off solo (with or without the porn variant), then knock yourself out at that activity I reckon.
But, if you are hetero-sexual, don't hook up with a homo-sexual, a bi-sexual, an asexual, or a solo-sexual.
And, if you are homo-sexual, don't hook up with a hetero-sexual, a bi-sexual, an asexual, or a solo-sexual.
And, if you are bi-sexual, don't hook up with a hetero-sexual, a homo-sexual, an asexual, or a solo-sexual.
And, if you are asexual, don't hook up with a hetero-sexual, a homo-sexual, a bi-sexual, or a solo-sexual.
And, if you are solo-sexual, don't hook up with a hetero-sexual, a homo-sexual, a bi-sexual, or an asexual.
*If* you have chosen badly (because you didn't do your due diligence properly, or were outwitted by a "bait and switch" ploy) then it falls on YOU to "un-choose".
You ain't going to change anyones sexual preference. Or your own sexual preference for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by McRoomMate on Mar 14, 2017 1:01:29 GMT -5
Apocrypha Sorry sometimes I am not a good listener . . . I think it was just a general misplaced rant and the Marriage Counselors, the psychologists, and the psychiatrists all trying to make people fit in the "normal" category. Very misplaced rant not at all aimed at your specific points. I will watch the Ted Talk lecture for starters. Yes you make all very good points. Well. The Tedtalk wasn't really my point. Mine was simply to say that I did not really think that fixating on an intimacy-averse husband's use of porn was going to do anything to improve the situation at home. Yes, I get it now. Agreed. Particularly, I remember and duly noted your comment a few days ago that SM can be an act of "ANTIPATHY" towards the H or W. In SM where it is "Specific" against the Spouse that seems entirely the heart of the matter. TY for letting me off the hook on the porn TedTalk. Whew. |
|
