'In fact why not prevent men in a relationship from masturbating at all?'

Well, that's really the main game isn't it. Sure porn isn't necessary, but neither are women's sex aids, which one could say reduce men to just a penis. No arguments about women feeling 'entitled' to a penis because they happen to use a phallic object to get off. I wager that if it was found that men in relationships felt threatened by vibes and dildos the feminist reaction would be 'oh the poor dears really need to grow up', and 'stop controlling women's sexuality!'.

Lets face it, the whole debate IS all about control. The feminist line is about 'entitlement' to women's bodies, but I see it more as about 'entitlement' of men to express their own sexuality, engage in sexual fantasy independent of their partner, or to have a sexual outlet not controlled by their partner.

'When this changes the baseline of expectation for what women (should) look like and do'

Yet there is no concern about the romantic expectations on men based on women's fiction and movies?

'intractable (though important) questions such as: "Will it turn him into a rapist?"'

Nice!

'men who are running from sex – sex that is conducted in the context of respectful, egalitarian relationships with women who know what they want, and enjoy intimacy and orgasm'

If anything I would say there is a desire from men for more sexually assertive and adventurous women, and porn provides this fantasy. Men like watching women get off.

Perhaps it is intimacy of a respectful partner the men are missing, but they value the vows they made and wont cheat. My point is why is it assumed that generally we have a respectful, egalitarian women capable and interested in intimacy in the first place. It is assumed the women are ready and capable to engage in this 'healthy' (ie. fulfilling all female romantic needs) relationship, but the men are lacking (feeling 'entitled' to having some of their relationship needs met).

finally a bit truth spoken. Thanks Petra. Sexual abuse of kids is also a price paid so that people have be self gratified by being perverts. No doubt there will be many in denial.

Hi Runner
I think you are right and a lot of those in denial have already posted. They seem to have no idea about what the article was about. It is interesting this desire to dominate and objectify women by men afraid of losing their "entitlement" to be heartless gits - oops "real men." I've always noted the weakness of macho men. Living in Portugal in the 70's made me realise this. They are afraid of being themselves and have to ruthlessly destroy any semblance of "softness" as it is feminine and therefore weak. Instead I find the really attractive men are not obsessed with themselves and their "rights" but are people who are funny, brave, caring, strong, compassionate and great to share life with. I think the porn culture is really detrimental to men and women. Both men and women enjoy sex and it should not be about men's fear of themselves and the other turning into cruelty and harshness. The increasing global use of women and children to satisfy men's appetites shows how parasitic and disgusting these so called red blooded men are.

Humans are deviant, lustful creatures at the best of times. Porn fills their minds with more temptation, more titillation, more evil.

The effect on the fragile, male-female relationship called marriage is disastrous. Porn gives us new horizons, ones that will eventually destroy us.

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

If it is true that the porn industry generates billions of dollars in annual profit, could the author please indicate how much of that income comes from women watching porn?

' Porn gives us new horizons'

So if there was no porn, people wouldn't fantasise about anything other than making love missionary by candle light.

Human sexuality is diverse, and fantasy is fantasy, and most people are happy for their fantasies to remain just that.

This whole business of 'objectifying' is bunkum. When people look at an image, they are looking at a representation of a woman. An object. The author concedes this when she talks about 'real women', and 'real life' women. You cant objectify a representation of a person, it is already an object. It has zip to do with men's relations with actual women they encounter in their lives.

Similarly porn actors aren't objectified any more than other actors. They are playing a character in fantasy.

The whole porn argument here is misandric in that it assumes men incapable of distinguishing fantasy from reality, but assumes women are capable of deciphering that romantic fiction and romantic movies are not like real life. Any guy who takes his lady friend to a romantic movie will know how women respond in the bedroom that night. If she's thinking of Brad Pitt sometimes does it really matter?

I'm not a particularly macho man, no interest in cars for a start, and haven't done a hard days physical work in my life. I have no desire to 'dominate' or 'objectify' anyone. But I like porn. What's not to like? Who doesn't want to see beautiful women naked and engaged in sexual activity? My partner enjoys it too. In the end its just sex, what's so bad about the depiction of sexual activity?

We live in the most voyeuristic society where fat people have mental breakdowns on TV every night, people stick cameras in front of distraught mother's who've just lost their child, we televise funerals, but filming two people enjoying sex is somehow Bad Voyeurism?