Since when did it become okay to hate women and girls so publicly and to judge them so mercilessly?
There’s a new page on Facebook. It’s only two weeks old but already has more than a million members. I’m not going to post the link but of course it is easy to find. You don’t have to go far to find online domains where women are held up for ridicule and contempt.
This is a site for anyone who wants to post pictures of girls they have judged to be sluts.
Some girls appear in overtly sexual poses.
Others are doing that common tween pouty thing with their lips and surprised eyes. Which apparently means they are sluts.
Then there’s the young girls of 13, 14 or 15 having fun with their friends, smiling and fooling around as young girls often do and somehow ending up on this site. Because even innocent mucking around with your besties is to be interpreted as sluttish behaviour.
One average normal young woman is standing in a front yard looking relaxed and happy in a long blue summery dress. This girl cops a torrent of abuse on the site. Because girls can’t just look or actually be relaxed and happy. They must be covering up for the fact that they’re really sluts.
Other images are of larger sized girls posted purely to be ridiculed. And they are. Condemned for being alive, though some men comment that despite their obvious hideousness, they could still manage to find some use for them.
There is even a picture of a woman with a bashed face.
It is revealing that the girls whose images have been put up here are either condemned for their whorish ways – or condemned for not deserving the slut title. So they can’t win. Either they are too slutty or not slutty enough.
Each girl or woman is analysed based on her body parts and what she is wearing. The text includes allegations of their prostitute-like ways, describing multiple STD’s, multiple pregnancies to multiple fathers, and all the sexual acts they have ever allegedly performed on multiple men.
Some images are clearly posted for revenge. Often full names are used. What means do these women and girls have to defend themselves? How do they deal with it? What does it mean for them in their daily lives at school or work or at home or anywhere, to be identified to the whole world as a slut?
By allowing this site, Facebook is a conduit for bullying, harassment and abuse.
These are some of the comments. I’ve left out the pornographic ones which means I won’t be citing most of them.
“Tripple ew”, “She’s so ugly”, “Meat”, “Pig”, “Dog”, “Vomit bucket anyone?”
This site is a temple to human cruelty.
One of the pictures of a larger girl looking depressed provokes special attack.
Just yesterday a man calling himself ‘D.j.Stack’ labelled her a “baarbarian” [Sic. But you get the idea]. He also questions whether she really qualifies as slut material:
“and i doute thats slut material because i wouldnt even look at that, nor do i think many would.”
She is a ‘that’, not a real person.
Who is the real barbarian in this picture?
Another image of a larger bodied girl at the beach attracts the comment:
“It looks like someone threw pancake batter against a wall and it slid down”.
So the women whose images are posted on this virtual dartboard are insulted with the label slut. But they are equally insulted if they are seen as slut imposters: pretenders to the slut title.
For example: “She couldn’t be a slut if she wanted to be”.
And: “She’s too f***ing ugly to be a slut. who would f***k that?
Again, she is a that.
In the image of the bashed woman, her eye is swollen and black. Why is she here? Because she’s a slut too and she deserved what she got. That’s what one of the commenters said.
A couple of images of men have been posted on the site. One male helpfully points out that men can’t be sluts “cos only the bitches are sluts”.
And there you have it.
The creator of the site, in a display of faux concern, writes: “’Lots of people have uploaded fan pics of people they know. That’s not cool guys that’s bullying.”
So why have you left them there?
Images of young girls stripped and performing for a webcam have been removed in the last 24 hours. As has an image of a 10-year-old girl.
But it’s not enough. The whole site remains harmful to the mental health of girls whose images have been posted – in many cases most likely against their will or without their prior knowledge.
Its presence is also harmful to girls who may fear their faces could soon appear there any day, meaning they too will wear the virtual scarlet letter.
This site facilitates cyber bullying, cyber stalking and harassment. It puts girls and women in significant danger.
Will Facebook leave it there for ever, until every girl and every woman is labelled a slut?
44 Responses
I looks like the hatred of women is reaching new heights. Whether is it painting young women as ‘sluts’ or old(er) women like Germaine Greer as looking like “a befuddled and exhausted old woman” who reminded the playright Louis Nowra in The Monthly of “my demented grandmother”, ridiculing and (verbally) violating women is given a lot of publicity at the moment. And there is not much that we can do – young and old – because if as a young woman we complain, well then we’re obviously a bore and not slutty enough. As for old(er) women complaining…the reply might range from the suggestion to use Botox (mild) to the suggestion to go jump…
On the home page of Facebook they state; ‘Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life.’
They state elsewhere that ‘facebook is designed to make it easy for you to share your information with anyone you want. You decide how much information you feel comfortable sharing.’
Now ‘you decide how much information you feel comfortable sharing’ is not true is it? Evidently girls (some teens) photos have been placed up there without permission and then a bombardment of disgusting, demeaning and vile comments follow.
It’s astonishing and alarming that this can be allowed. It is shocking that so many followers worldwide feel like this is okay. It’s not okay.
They have made it easy alright, easy to ridicule, demean and torment young girls.
I place the welfare of children and girls extremely high, and they NEED us to continue to speak up, complain, stand up for them.
I have already reported this site to facebook. Below is how you can do it.
You can report any photo that you feel is offensive by using the “Report” link. Facebook will monitor these complaints and remove photos as necessary. All reports will be kept confidential.
http://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=13248
I am sick of Facebook.
I’m a social media junkie, not afraid to say it. And I had previously relied heavily on Facebook to share photos with friends and family far away. But I am seriously considering getting rid of my page. I can’t post a breastfeeding photo because it contravenes Facebook’s ‘obscenity’ guidelines, and yet they allow something like this disgusting page to continue. I have reported this page, as well as several of the individual images and comments. I have reported numerous other pages as well, but many of them haven’t been taken down.
I’m wondering if anyone has some insight into what could be done about the widespread misogyny on Facebook? Or do others feel, like me, that perhaps it’s time to just give up on it and log off?
Or the pix posters and commenter 100% male? Cos if some of them are female, then what’s going on is clearly not just a simple case of mysogyny.
Or are you afraid to criticise a member of your own gender (who, as we politically correct creatures all know, are as ideologically pure as the driven snow).
Face book was once a place that you could connect and reconnect with friends, see where people’s lives are up to and send a little note of thought to someone.
Seemingly of late, it’s getting a place where individual expose their darkest thoughts and obsessions with raw imagery, endangering young girls and causing a fury of nauseating material which men are getting off on.
In the recent study highlighted on this site (Sexualisation of Young People review) Dr Linda Papadopoulous stated that ‘60 per cent of 12 – 15 years olds say they mostly use the internet on their own.
Almost half of children aged 8 – 17 and a quarter of those aged between 8 and 11 have a profile on a social networking site.
While sites set age limits these are not generally enforced.
Dr Linda goes on to suggest that girls for instance, report being under increasing pressure to display themselves in their bra and knickers or bikini’s online. Sexualised self-presentation could also mean that young people are exposing themselves to danger: recently, public attention has focused on the use of social networking sites to sexually solicit underage children and young people.’
Chillingly it is a fact that many girls are having their photos placed on face book without permission. And then the hatred toward them and vicious comments are dirty and degrading.
This concerns me.
I agree with you Melinda, this site does facilitate cyber bullying, cyber stalking and harassment. It does put girls and women in significant danger.
“I’m wondering if anyone has some insight into what could be done about the widespread misogyny on Facebook?”
Well you might like to try eradicating mysogyny in society 1st. Really, what a fricking meaningless statement – you might as well ask “what can be done about eradicating mysogyny in emails?”
This is certainly not a bigoted or gender biased blog although it is most definitely an issue that effects girls greatly.
I believe this is the argument Melinda is putting forth.
I am sure there will be both male and female members of this facebook site, and I am also sure that females will be included in the self hatred toward other females. (it is a society norm unfortunately)
But it does not lessen the reality that girls are being affected immensely.
@eyesweirdopenl Unfotunately misogyny is not a men-only pursuit. Women often take part in order to direct negative attention onto others and away from themselves. I’m not interested in whether people are ‘pure’ – only in if they are humane and respectful of the rights of others to be safe from abuse and objectification. Whatever gender they are.
As for stamping out misogyny on Facebook being a pointless pursuit – I beg to differ. Facebook is run by a corporation, it is not the world at large. It has a code of conduct and the power to remove offensive material and/or ban users. It also relies on many women and girls as it’s costumers. I see no earthly reason – other than lack of care – why it would not be possible to improve the safety and comfort of Facebook users.
I looked at this page again yesterday and some horrific and violent images have now been put there, in amoungst all the girls whose images and names are provided *against their will.* This is criminal behaviour. If I found my photo on a site like this I would go to the police. What I don’t understand is, given that the group facilitates criminal behaviour, why does it still exist?
I’m not going to post the link but of course it is easy to find.
Really? Because I can’t find it. Sorry, but I’m not gonna attack something without seeing it.
Spilt Milk said “As for stamping out misogyny on Facebook being a pointless pursuit […] I see no earthly reason – other than lack of care – why it would not be possible to improve the safety and comfort of Facebook users.”
Well first because it’s user based content that is being put up a rate that no corporation can moderate. It’s practically impossible. I’m not sure what is up with the recent “oh my god, Facebook is horrible!” coverage in the press recently. This is not a new trend. While I’m a little amazed at a corporation not deleting the group straight away, I am not surprised at its existence though. What else can you expect from teenagers who are only after “LOLs” and don’t really care about the consequences of their actions?
Deb malcolm said “Dr Linda goes on to suggest that girls for instance, report being under increasing pressure to display themselves in their bra and knickers or bikini’s online”
It doesn’t mean they do, and hell, most kids just ignore this crap anyway.
Renate said “I looks like the hatred of women is reaching new heights”
What rot. I could find hundreds of anti-Semitic webpages and blogs, yet this does not prove that anti-Semitism is reaching new heights. You went looking for misogyny and found it. Germaine Greer constantly pokes the hornets nest. People have criticised her before, more savagely than that. You cannot expect people not to criticise her, even if they are completely wrong in their assessment of her.
Kay…..
The author posting a link to this page would only further spread the images of women and also at the time *children* further, some were pornographic.
and Matthew W,
the person who found this page wasn’t looking for misogyny, they knew that an ex-boyfriend had joined this group and were concerned that slander and photos of them might be found on a page like this, which was entirely plausible given the abusive history. That person found no slander or photos of herself, but was horrified at the photos and abuse of other people.
good news is i think the group has been taken down because i can’t find it.
It and it’s nasty members are still there Caroline. 🙁
I understand why you chose not to put the link up, but if you dm me a link on Twitter @claireatwaves I’ll report the site – encouraging hate is a motive for getting a site taken down, and this is exactly what it sounds like this site does.
(I couldn’t find it on first 3 pages of Facebook search)
Tomorrow is International Women’s Day – I’d encourage others to take action & do the same.
Claire
How many complaints does it take to have a site removed? Email me the site and I’ll complain too.
Melinda L, he couldn’t have been a really great boyfriend if he joined that group. Anyway crisis averted, Facebook did the right thing as per their guidelines. I think really that people really should expect too much from what is a free service that anyone with an internet connection can join. Sure you can moderate it, but you can’t really pick and choose who uses the service or for what purpose.
Second those who have been defamed have legal options. People have been taken to court and police have taken action, even here in Australia. In fact there was a case here recently where some idiot publicly made a death threat on Facebook. He got six months in gaol. Also I really think that no one has the right NOT to be offended in life. It’s completely unrealistic to think that you have the right not to be offended. It’s pretty much impossible censor the world according to your own tastes.
i couldn’t find it after a long search either. please, if it is still there, let us know the actual group name so more people can find it and report it.
on a brighter note- wonderful opinion piece by germaine greer in the age today, in part answering to nowra’s essay. it’s insightful, to the point and relevant…. and she doesn’t make personal attacks on anyone’s sanity or appearance which is more than i can say for some people!! also a thought provoking piece located below by an aid worker from a rape clinic in papua new guinea- very cleverly placed to remind us that women have a long way to go in their fight for equality (or even just to feel safe in their own homes), especially in developing nations.
peace.
“he couldn’t have been a really great boyfriend if he joined that group.”
Matthew W, understatement of the century. I believe that is why he is now an “ex.” :s
“Anyway crisis averted, Facebook did the right thing as per their guidelines.”
No they haven’t, group is still there.
“I really think that no one has the right NOT to be offended in life. It’s completely unrealistic to think that you have the right not to be offended.”
We have the right not to be publicly defamed and humiliated. It’s not just “offence” Matthew, it’s criminal behaviour. Yes, people can take legal action, but once their photo is on the net – particularly their intimate photos – nothing can be done to remove them. I feel particularly sad for the14 or 15 year old girl who had her naked webcam images posted. They are removed now, but I bet they are already available on some pedophile site.
I think the problem with social networking sites and a great deal of internet is that people assume that it merely reflects socio/cultural reality. Actually it produces reality, as does all discourse. So it’s easy to reduce the meanings generated by groups like these as mere ‘words’. Hence men (and a small proportion of young naive girls) always call forth the freedom of speech argument to conceal one of purposes of this type of ‘othering’ discourse. Women are the largest group that are targeted as the ‘other’ inhuman ‘thing’ through this type of ancient discursive act. But of course ethnic groups and the working classes are also kept in place through these ‘othering’ discourses. This is of course about power. The power to dehumanise comes hand in hand with physical acts of violence. But we know that young women suffer terribly high rates of domestic violence and sexual assault in our cultures. Yes these groups reflect that, but they also produce a cultural climate and language that condones, encourages and applauds the dehumanisation of half of the worlds population. Of course these groups hide behind notions of freedom and the separation of bodily acts and psychological acts, or body and mind, body and speech. But of course these young men and boys (mostly) are passing through their right of passage-their right to dehumanise woman and girls. This is how men bond. It is through the ‘othering’ process that makes them feel that they belong. We need to fight this by creating spaces for young women where they can ‘go’, real and virtual, where they are not used as a symbol of male belonging and bonding. We need to create spaces where woman and girls (especially girls) can create their own embodied and disembodied world realities. But it aint easy…..
Happy Woman’s DayXXXXXXXXXXX
why is it that hate speech is allowed to be published about women under the guise of ‘natural sexual relations / behaviour?’ how much of it is natural and how much of this is a result of the shaping of a particular type of sexual desire due to the reiteration of pornographic images/discourse? (What is the impact of commercialisation?)
is stating something is ‘natural’ just an excuse for saying anything you want about another human being- no matter how degrading?
eg “freshest teen sluts” was a recent headline in a lads mag –
now replace the word ‘sluts’ with the N word.
Melinda said “We have the right not to be publicly defamed and humiliated.”
You’re mixing up what I said here. I was talking about the existence of these groups, not the people being humiliated. I’m offended just about every day at something, but seriously there isn’t a great deal I can do about this. I cannot change people’s values to reflect me own. This group wasn’t mainstream, and anyway Facebook have deleted the group. These men exist and continue to exist. Apart from brainwashing them, there isn’t great deal you can do to change their attitudes.
Melinda said “Yes, people can take legal action, but once their photo is on the net – particularly their intimate photos – nothing can be done to remove them”.
If I went around to my lawyer, I’m pretty sure she’d say otherwise. If it’s hosted somewhere on a server freely available to the public, it can be taken off. One of the things we should be doing more of is telling young people about the consequences (charges of child porn on themselves, could be potentially floating around forever etc) of taking photos of themselves and publishing private info on places like Facebook. But to a degree the teenage brain is purposely built for risk taking, so realistically there’s only so much you can do.
Melinda said “I feel particularly sad for the14 or 15 year old girl who had her naked webcam images posted. They are removed now, but I bet they are already available on some pedophile site”
Uh, Melinda could we stay in reality here rather than making up even worse scenarios that nothing more than pure fiction with no basis in reality?
Lydia Jade Turner said “eg “freshest teen sluts” was a recent headline in a lads mag ”
Sorry, which magazine was this? “Freshest teen niggers”, sounds like sign from a slave market from the 1700’s.
Matthew W,
we might have some misunderstanding here in both directions.
Firstly *THE GROUP IS STILL THERE* not shouting, just want to make that clear. It has over 1, 500 000 members now, so i don’t think we can say it isn’t mainstream.
i took your comment about “the right not to be offended” as meaning that this group is simply about being offended, not about being violated by having your pics on a site where you are publicly defamed. You’re right, there are things that offend me too, but this is more than offence. The purpose of this group is to facilitate defamation.
“If I went around to my lawyer, I’m pretty sure she’d say otherwise. If it’s hosted somewhere on a server freely available to the public, it can be taken off.”
Matthew, once it is copied and copied and swapped, it can be virtually impossible to remove.
“One of the things we should be doing more of is telling young people about the consequences (charges of child porn on themselves, could be potentially floating around forever etc) of taking photos of themselves and publishing private info on places like Facebook. ”
definitely agree with you here Matthew.
“Uh, Melinda could we stay in reality here rather than making up even worse scenarios that nothing more than pure fiction with no basis in reality?”
Matthew, those pictures were there and I think you’re naive if you believe that these pictures no longer exist elsewhere on the internet now. 1, 500 000 members remember?
“orry, which magazine was this? “Freshest teen niggers”, sounds like sign from a slave market from the 1700’s.”
you misunderstood Lydia. She was making the point that “sluts” is allowed, but “n” isn’t. Sexism is acceptable yet racism isn’t.
Melinda said “Firstly *THE GROUP IS STILL THERE* not shouting, just want to make that clear. It has over 1, 500 000 members now, so i don’t think we can say it isn’t mainstream.”
I thought someone above said it had been taken down, so I assumed that was correct. Someone needs to stick a picture woman breastfeeding on there so Facebook takes immediate action /sarcasm. Seriously can’t believe it’s still up there. Also I think the majority of the 1.5 million members are teenage boys there for the “LOLs”, so it’s not exactly representative of society, nor the most reasonable or thoughtful members of society. But seeing as I can’t find this group and am still unable to verify its existence…
Melinda said “Matthew, once it is copied and copied and swapped, it can be virtually impossible to remove.”
You can’t do anything about people swapping the photo privately via email or whatever, but if comments are posted on a public place such as Facebook, the law applies, just as it does in the real physical world. If people keep photos privately, what can you do?
Melinda said “Matthew, those pictures were there and I think you’re naive if you believe that these pictures no longer exist elsewhere on the internet now. 1, 500 000 members remember?”
The pictures may exist, but the comments don’t (if the group does get deleted from Facebook). The problem I see here is the comments. From what I understand the greater majority of the pictures aren’t offensive, only some of them could be (there is some under age nudity as I understand, but I doubt that these would be the bulk of the photos). I don’t think it’s helpful to construct fictitious situations here such as the paedophile one. The fact is the group (apparently) still exists on Facebook. That’s the problem. There’s no need to throw up nonexistent problems. While somebody could have hoarded the photos, what can you do? Once something is out there in public domain, you can’t stop people using it. Sure you could track down those who have visited via their IP address, but that’s problematic.
Melinda said “Sexism is acceptable yet racism isn’t”
Why would sexism be acceptable? Just because the group exists doesn’t mean it’s acceptable. Just because Facebook are too lazy to delete the group doesn’t mean it’s acceptable. You really can’t expect much from a freebie service who’s standards have gone way down.
The site is still there at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Every-time-I-see-you-a-voice-in-my-head-goes-SSLLUUUUUUUUUUTTTTT/335888673152?ref=mf in case anyone wants to log on and complain.
Wow, that is one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen. I reported the site, and whole lot of comments, before I literally burst into tears and logged off. FB really need to pull thier socks up, it’s getting out of hand and there is going to be serious media backlash soon I predict (or hope anyway)
Sorry, but this story is a beat up. The only thing that could be of legitimate concern is the title, in which case there are a lot more titles on FB which are more worthy of our concern than this one. I mean, the word slut isn’t my favourite, but does it really deserve a frenzied blog attack, cross publication at other blocks, and passionate replies?
Most of your complaints are based on the images. The group’s info specifically says:
‘Seriously, stop uploading pics of people you know. It’s weird and it’s bullying. I will delete them.’
When I just checked, there’s 128 pictures up, which given membership is at 1.6 million, is an indication that the administrator of the group is regularly deleting images that are put up there. What more do you expect the administrator to do? It is not his fault–or Facebook’s–if people use the medium in inappropriate or criminal ways.
The problem here is that you expect the group to not exist in the first place. Because this site is all about promoting censorship. Well, that’s a different argument, and you should be more upfront about having it.
@Jodie:
you said: “The only thing that could be of legitimate concern is the title,”
no, what is of legitimate concern is the constant defamation that occurs in this group and how amazingly, the group still exists despite that. The token gesture politely asking people to not post photos, means nothing when the whole group is about hatred to begin with.
“The problem here is that you expect the group to not exist in the first place. Because this site is all about promoting censorship. Well, that’s a different argument, and you should be more upfront about having it.”
You’re right, that is a different argument Jodie, so you should really stick to the issue at hand.
Yes, the group should be taken down as it is hate speech against other women and facilitates bullying and harrassment. The creator did not do anything to remove the photos until they were reported by others, it was after that when this token message was placed on the group. The creator has not removed the offensive accusations and language on the wall, where people they dislike are named.
I wonder how many of the boys and men who construct and patronise these type of pages and groups have grown up on a diet of pornography and online misogyny? According to new research, over 95% of boys in the developed world have seen violent sexual images before they turn 8! We are really seeing a very sad and damaged generation of men emerging whose sexual desires have been shaped through a discourse and culture of sexual violence and misogyny. I recently read an article written by a male therapist who is now treating men in their 20’s with erectile disfunction brought about by an in-ability to achieve arousal through consensual sex with women. Their sexuality is completely shaped through pornography and hate speech to the point where they can nolonger engage with ‘real’ embodied women at all without having ‘intrusive thoughts’ of sexual violence. I feel this new generation is acting out through these new online cultures. They are hurting. Psychological pain is so much more insidious than physical pain. They’re fucked up and they know it. What is sad is that they can’t say it, they’ve got to keep the charade of tough guy masculinity up. It’s seems to be a race to see who is the coldest, meanest and least able to empathise with other human beings. For the men who have the guts to challenge these new online misogynistic cultures, they are ripped to shreds even more than women and girls! If that’s possible. I gotta say, I think it would be hell to have a son born to this generation.
P.S. Thank the Goddesses that feminism and the notion of ‘equality’ came around before the internet!!! Globalism and global communication has not been kind to women. The one positive thing that’s come out of it is that we can talk to each other about just how exploited woman and girls are by corporate multinational porn, business and the sex ‘industry’….
Merryn said “I wonder how many of the boys and men who construct and patronise these type of pages and groups have grown up on a diet of pornography and online misogyny?”
“Online misogyny?” Seriously what the hell is that supposed to mean?
Merryn said “According to new research, over 95% of boys in the developed world have seen violent sexual images before they turn 8! We are really seeing a very sad and damaged generation of men emerging whose sexual desires have been shaped through a discourse and culture of sexual violence and misogyny.”
Sorry, what research? Funny how you keep trying to link “sexual images” with violence when the greater majority of pornography doesn’t involve violence, especially in Australia where a scene of two fighting skeletons was acut of the porn film “Pirates” because it was too violent for an X film.
Merryn said “I recently read an article written by a male therapist who is now treating men in their 20’s with erectile dysfunction brought about by an in-ability to achieve arousal through consensual sex with women. Their sexuality is completely shaped through pornography and hate speech to the point where they can nolonger engage with ‘real’ embodied women at all without having ‘intrusive thoughts’ of sexual violence.”
What a load of nonsense Merryn. Please humour me and provide some evidence this male therapist exists and the his male patients. Methinks they might go to the same church as those who are “addicted to pornography” and watch it for “16 hours a day”, both of which I think are complete fabrications of right wing religious types which have absolutely no basis in reality.
Really, when I look around me in my workplace where more than 75% of colleagues are women, my supervisor is a woman, her supervisor is a woman, the section’s supervisor is a woman, the division’s head is a woman, I can’t see a misogynistic culture around me. And my workplace is made up of about a quarter Gen Y. The Gen Y men have absolutely no issues with women and get along with them well.
Matthew, hmm what can I say… Do your own research. I would start with google scholar or pubmed. I’m sure you won’t find it too difficult. However just this once, I’ve included some pages that might help you get started! Nice of me I know but I always like to be of assistance for those research challenged folk, especially as you seem to get your ideas from the toilet wall darl. I’ve included some articles that list scientific studies in them (as I’m guessing you might like those the best despite your inability to find them yourself). I suggest you cut and paste the names of the scientists featured in the articles into the google search bar and check out their journal articles for yourself (scientists often publish the findings of their research in journals that are now available online). However, academic journals require paid membership to gain access to articles for free, or you will be charged, the articles I refer to above are not available without paying unless you have paid membership. As such, I’ve included articles that you can read for free that feature the names of prominent new exiting scientists that not only fully back my argument but add more points in support of it! Just to keep you up to date with the latest research.
These should get you started: French neuroscientist Serge Stoleru’s work is particularly ground breaking http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1477/27/
Here is something Australian focused for you! Academic Michael Flood is a new and very exiting scientists working with teenage boys and relationships and has delivered a number of really interesting reports. However you would need to pay for the copies. Here are some online articles detailing his work.
http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/45587-surprise-surprise-boys-who-watch-porn-have-rubbish-relationships
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6999874.ece
For a really interesting discussion from a growing number of men ‘coming out’ about the influence of pornography on their lives see this amazon page and associated links.
http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Off-Pornography-End-Masculinity/dp/089608776X/ref=pd_sim_b_14
I’m afraid your going to have to get used to this growing discourse Matthew as more and more men come forward about the psychological illnesses and suffering they’ve incurred as a direct result of watching pornography. I wonder why it’s so hard to fathom that we are shaped by out culture and by language. I really really feel for the men that are completely silenced by other men because they dare to speak out about their experiences and shatter the myth that pornography is harmless. But I feel worse for the boys who are left alone to navigate their way through degradation that this constructed as healthy sexuality within society. I feel terrible for the girls who are now left alone to content with these screwed up boys and their demanding monkey see monkey do sexualities. I think we are heading for a ‘real’ men’s movement here that hopefully will challenge the current dominance of predatory masculinities currently available as identity positions for young men and boys to take up.
As for the term Online misogyny: misogyny is a noun-check out this site if you need a definition and a how to guide about using nouns. You often find that people are fond of shifting and changing words, hence the fact that language is ever changing http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny
Merryn first of all, you made the claims. The onus is on you to come up with the goods. It’s no good telling me I should research your own claims which were incredibly vague to begin with, with no details or clues as to who the male therapist was. You don’t win an argument by ask other to verify your claims. It doesn’t work that way. Hope you’re not a scientist or judge.
Anyway Judith A. Reisman’s quote from Serge Stoleru is quite vague and meaningless. On Reisman’s work at looking at the images contained in many mainstream men’s magazines, American feminist Avedon Carol said “It was a scientific disaster, riddled with researcher bias and baseless assumptions. The American University (AU), where Reisman’s study had been academically based, actually refused to publish it when she released it, after their independent academic auditor reported on it. Dr Robert Figlio of the University of Pennsylvania told AU that, ‘The term child used in the aggregate sense in this report is so inclusive and general as to be meaningless.’ Figlio told the press, ‘I wondered what kind of mind would consider the love scene from Romeo and Juliet to be child porn’”. Reisman also claimed Kinsey was a paedophile which has absolutely no basis at all in truth.
I am very familiar with Michael Flood’s work. Merryn, did you know that Flood said “It’s well-documented that children and young people, who are exposed to sexual content, in advertising and other mainstream media and in porn, develop more liberal attitudes. They are more likely to think that other people are having sex. They are more likely to think that pre-marital and non-marital sex is OK, they are more likely to think that homosexuality is OK (I think that’s a good thing) and so on.” [‘Net Nanny’ Advocate Does Back Flip – New Matilda 5 June 2009], and in the same article “In case there is any confusion, Flood clarifies that he is pro-choice when it comes to porn. “In the report that Clive Hamilton and I authored in 2003,” he pointed out, “we said that adults should continue to have access to porn, in X-rated videos and DVDs and we wanted to transfer the system of classification to the net [so that] materials … would pass the Office of Film and Literature classifications standards — so not violence, not child porn.” And also that “we say that 16 and 17 year olds can have consenting sex, why can’t they look at pictures of other people having consenting sex?”.
Merryn, I’m going to need some real evidence that “more and more men come forward about the psychological illnesses and suffering they’ve incurred as a direct result of watching pornography” other than a link to book on Amazon. The only “evidence” I’ve found is material created by or selectively used by right wing Christian groups such XXXchurch.com. Hardly an unbiased source. One thing I don’t understand is we’ve had commercial pornography in the mainstream since the 1950’s, yet only in the last couple of years we have begun to hear about “addictions”. I call shenanigans big time here. If porn had some massive destructive force, we would have seen it by now. Yet as I look out my window I see that society hasn’t fallen apart. Hey, we have a lot of problems, but we’re mostly doing OK.
I think the problem here Merryn is you are putting all men and all pornography in the one basket. It’s not as simple as that. I believe Flood is right about one thing; sex education. I know mine was shoddy. Instead of force fitting porn into the role of all of society’s problems, how about we educate young men and women about sex properly (unlike what I got) and that men and women (surprise, surprise) want different things out of a relationship and think differently.
Merryn, I’ve done a bit more research. Seeing as you seem to know a lot about psychology, can you please tell me why the current discussion on the contents of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-V) does not contain a single mention about “Pornography Addiction”. I see they’re looking at adding Pathological Gambling and there is a heated debate about adding Internet Addiction, but no Pornography Addiction. And it’s not in the DSM-IV either. Seeing as this is THE psychologist bible that practically every phycologist and psychiatrist uses and refers to, and the fact you’re telling me Pornography Addiction, especially with the forthcoming “Impotence Pandemic”, why haven’t the American Psychiatric Association included it for the DSM-V?
Also about Serge Stoleru. How odd that I cannot find anything about his work about helping men with “erectile dysfunction brought about by an in-ability to achieve arousal through consensual sex with women” due to porn. No papers or anything. Methinks Dr. Judith Reisman’s one liner about his work is completely fabricated. The only piece of work I can find regarding the matter is one he did back in the 1990’s mapping sexual arousal in the male brain showing a group of men a number of short film . In it he found; “testosterone level rose very strongly during the sexually explicit film; it also increased slightly during the comedy sequence”. Methinks this research was the basis of Reisman’s one liner. If you can tell me the name of the paper that Stoleru did about erectile dysfunction and porn, please tell me the name of it.
Matthew W, you aren’t “unbiased” does that mean we should dismiss everything you say?
Regarding porn addiction, just because psychological societies have been unable to define it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Would you say that before depression was widely recognised, it didn’t exist? What about when homosexuality was considered a mental illness, was it actually a mental illness back then Matthew?
My point is – people are saying they are addicted to pornography, that it is a compulsion for them, that they can’t stop thinking about it, that it is having a negative impact on their lives. They are entitled to speak about their own experiences. You are claiming that this is all made up.
Regarding one of your other comments:
“One thing I don’t understand is we’ve had commercial pornography in the mainstream since the 1950’s, yet only in the last couple of years we have begun to hear about “addictions”.”
that’s because of something called “the internet” which makes pornography so easy to access, with little or no evidence of it’s use. It can be easily hidden from partners or parents and can be accessed as often as one has access to a computer.
Grace said “Matthew W, you aren’t “unbiased” does that mean we should dismiss everything you say?”
Because unlike some here, I have clearly referenced psychologists, the American Psychiatric Association, Michael Flood etc. Are these people and organisations biased? If people here are going to make fantastic claims, they better have the evidence to back it up. Using a Christian organisation as a reference isn’t an unbiased source (or even remotely scientific). Using Judith A. Reisman work as a source, who has had a documented history of bias, completely invalidates that source as “proof”.
Grace said “My point is – people are saying they are addicted to pornography, that it is a compulsion for them, that they can’t stop thinking about it, that it is having a negative impact on their lives”.
Sigh, OK, I’ll ask again; where is the proof? Please don’t point to Church groups or dodgy doctors like Reisman, they’ve both been discredited. If it is an addiction why haven’t the American Psychiatric Association included it for the DSM V? Every other addiction is in the DSM V, but oddly not pornography addiction. Why? People are certainly entitled to speak about their own experiences, but no credible psychologist seems to have documented this or thinks it’s a large enough problem to be included in the DSM V.
Grace said “that’s because of something called “the internet” which makes pornography so easy to access, with little or no evidence of it’s use. It can be easily hidden from partners or parents”
What rot. So you can’t hide magazines or videos? Addiction has nothing to do with ease of access. Don’t blame technology for social problems. “No evidence of its use”? I beg to differ. Go to your browsing history, or you can actually install tracking programs/key loggers without anyone knowing.
Hi Matthew,
You ask “where is the proof?” People are entitled to speak of their own experiences. If I say I have been addicted to pornography, or am addicted then that is my experience, that is my proof. You have no right to tell me what I do and don’t feel or experience.
Regarding your comments about hiding evidence – there are easy ways to hide browsing history. You can even find instructions on the net, much easier than hiding mags and videos. Unless a person’s wife or partner is computer savvy enough to know that key logging technology exists, or suspects their partner is using porn, they are not going to use this.
Again you reference the DSM. Again I ask you, if the DSM is the source of all truth and wisdom, can you tell me whether depression or schitzophrenia only came to exist once it’s symptoms were listed in the DSM? Or did it exist before it was recognised?
Similarly with homosexuality – once considered a mental illness. So was it a mental illness back then Matthew because the DSM said so?
Grace said “You ask “where is the proof?” People are entitled to speak of their own experiences. If I say I have been addicted to pornography, or am addicted then that is my experience, that is my proof. You have no right to tell me what I do and don’t feel or experience.”
Grace, just because you experience something makes it “proof”, does it? That doesn’t form the basis of science, does it? What you have ignored here is the undeniable fact that you still cannot point to one peer reviewed paper that actually has tested if pornography addiction exists and if it does how it is a burden on society. The original claim was that a group of men had erectile dysfunction because of an inability to achieve arousal through consensual sex with women and this was due to pornography and “hate speech” and this group of men had “intrusive thoughts of sexual violence”. But guess what? Nobody could come up with any evidence. No peer reviewed papers. Nothing.
So again, please tell me why after 50 years of commercial pornography, suddenly we are hearing about addictions? Addiction has got nothing to do with availability. Magazines have been available in newsagents since at least the 1970’s in Australia, longer in the US and other countries. Videos have been available in Australia since the 1980’s. Stop blaming the technology. So again I ask, can please, please have some evidence? Not hearsay or right wing Christian nonsense, but real studies.
Grace said “Similarly with homosexuality – once considered a mental illness. So was it a mental illness back then Matthew because the DSM said so?”
Yes. Homosexuality was removed in 1973 for the DSM III. I think what truly disturbs me here is that you accept vague statements or blatant misrepresentations of data from people with an axe to grind like Reisman, yet you ignore scientific manuals like the DSM which are used almost unanimously by those who are in the psychiatric field across the world for the last 60 years. You seem to be unable to understand that I would find it rather difficult to accept that someone like Reisman, who has a long history of bias, or those linked to right wing Christian groups, would be unacceptable to me a sources of proof. I’m assuming you believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that climate change is lie? You seem to swallow any old story instead of actually investigating the truth of dubious claims.
Hi again Matthew W,
I think you’ve again missed my point. But I will address some of your claims again.
Firstly, if someone fronts up to a psychologist and says “i’m addicted to pornography” the psychologist is not going to say “no you’re not” and tap the DSM. They will try to help that person. I know this from first hand experience.
Is it a burden on society? It’s a burden on the individuals who say they suffer from sex addiction/porn addiction/compulsion, whatever you want to call it.
“Addiction has got nothing to do with availability. ”
Since we are now in the realm of demanding essay standard responses from one another, can you verify this claim with any research of your own Matthew?
Matthew, as to your last paragraph regarding Reisman, you are confusing me with another poster here, I have not referenced Reisman, indeed I do not know who he/she is.
However, if you are after journal articles, Here are a couple. Presently there is debate as to whether sexual addiction can be listed in the DSM ie. how to define it and the concerns by professionals that it will be seen as an excuse for adultery. It is not yet in the DSM, but sex addiction – which frequently mentions internet pornography use – is certainly mentioned in research. Just because it cannot be defined for the DSM, which is a diagnostic manual, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Cybersex: High tech sex addiction
Author: David L. Delmonico
Published in: Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, Volume 4, Issue 2 April 1997 , pages 159 – 167
“Cybersex is an area in which sexual addicts increasingly act out. This article explores the various forms of cybersex that are available to clients. Three basic forms of cybersex are presented: (1) online pornography exchange, (b) real time sexual exchanges, and (c) multimedia software. Each of these areas is explored and explained. Finally, this article explores possible explanations for the power of cybersex among sexual addicts. Four basic explanations are explored: (a) isolation, (b) fantasy, (c) anonymity, and (d) low cost. Suggestions for future research in the area of cybersex addiction are presented. ”
Couple recovery from sexual addiction / co addiction: Results of a survey of 88 marriages
Authors: Jennifer P. Schneider; Burton H. Schneider
Published in: Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, Volume 3, Issue 2 April 1996 , pages 111 – 126
Abstract
Results of a survey of 142 married sex addicts and coaddicts suggest that for couples in crisis because of multiple affairs, use of pornography and masturbation in preference to relational sex, visits to prostitutes, arrests for voyeurism or exibitionism, or other compulsive sexual behaviors, survival of the relationship can be enhanced when both members identify themselves as “addict” and “coaddict,” attend individual and joint 12-step meetings and counseling, seek feedback from other couples, and commit to ongoing work on individual problems and on the relationship.
An empirical investigation of hypersexuality
Authors: Nicole J. Rinehart a; Marita P. McCabe a
Published in: Sexual and Relationship Therapy, Volume 13, Issue 4 November 1998 , pages 369 – 384
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the nature of hypersexuality and the personality factors associated with the desire for and experience of high frequency sexual behavior. Participants in the study were 69 male and 93 female university students. Respondents reported on their desire for and experience of masturbation, oral sex, sexual intercourse, pornography, indecent phone calls or letters, prostitution, exhibitionism, voyeurism, as well as providing self-report measures which evaluated their levels of state and trait anxiety, depression, obsessive and compulsive symptoms and fear of intimacy. The results demonstrated that subjects who engaged in high-frequency voyeurism were more depressed than low-frequency voyeurs. Respondents in the high-frequency sexual deviant desire and behavior groups appeared to have more obsessive-compulsive symptoms in comparison to the low-frequency deviant sexual behavior and desire groups. Increased psychopathology was not associated with high-frequency non-deviant sexual behaviors and desires. This finding raised the question of whether labels such as sexual compulsion and addiction are merely pathologizing illegal sexual behavior.”
So back to my question about homosexuality which you still haven’t answered.
You said:
“Yes. Homosexuality was removed in 1973 for the DSM III. ”
Right! Here are your options Matthew.
a) Homosexuality literally changed from being a mental illness to a normal human identity over night, or –
b) The DSM had it wrong and was changed in accordance with our new understanding of homosexuality as being a normal part of being human and homosexuality was never a mental illness.
which is it Matthew?
Grace said “Firstly, if someone fronts up to a psychologist and says “i’m addicted to pornography” the psychologist is not going to say “no you’re not” and tap the DSM. They will try to help that person. I know this from first hand experience.”
No, of course they don’t. But they just don’t accept the person’s self diagnosis, do they? They don’t begin to treat them based up upon what the patient THINKS they have. The psychologist finds out what the problem is and treats the person accordingly.
Grace, I answered your question “So was it a mental illness back then Matthew because the DSM said so?”. The answer is still yes. It was a disorder in the DSM I and II. Second, the DSM didn’t have it “wrong”. Every 15 years or so, psychologists review and discuss emerging trends and research and stuff gets taken out and put in. Hundreds of items are up for inclusion or exclusion. Some items may get merged into other existing categories or may be granted their own.
What you seem to be misunderstanding here is my point that if indeed “pornography addiction” was a terrible blight on society, why isn’t up for review for the DSM V? It’s not there is it Grace? So this would mean that most psychologists don’t see it as a real problem. Just because one researcher thinks it is a problem or a concern doesn’t mean it is. This may change in the future, but that’s really hard to believe when as I’ve said before we’ve had over 50 years of commercial pornography with very few negative outcomes for society. That’s at least two generations (X and Y) who grew up with it, yet there doesn’t seem to be real problems (I may suggest here that sex education REALLY needs to be a whole better and really need to educate the two sexes that they ARE different from each other and generally want different things in a relationship).
What gets me here is people are trying to link porn with social or psychological problems and things aren’t fitting together. Generally the two don’t link nice and neatly and a whole other factors have to be included. Rarely when X happens it will equal Y. I also find it rather disturbing that people can find nudity or sex “disgusting”. It may be presented as a fantasy or unrealistically, but still sex and nudity are quite natural things.