Married men and porn

Addiction, wrong expectations, habitual masturbation ...

Men - in the last 3 months, have you willingly sought or viewed porn?

I have not viewed any porn.
205
18%
I have slipped a few times. My wife knows.
132
12%
I have slipped a few times. My wife does not know.
207
18%
I have slipped many times. My wife knows.
106
9%
I have slipped many times. My wife does not know.
149
13%
I am addicted. My wife knows.
97
9%
I am addicted. My wife does not know.
68
6%
I look at porn, but I don't think it's wrong. My wife knows.
50
4%
I look at porn, but I don't think it's wrong. My wife does not know.
33
3%
My wife and I look at it together occasionally.
62
5%
My wife and I look at it together regularly.
23
2%
 
Total votes: 1132

MarkS

Postby MarkS » Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:15 pm

amf wrote:OK, folks. I'm now convinced that there is little hope for women living in a world like this. If men are getting aroused by cartoons and mudflaps, then I totally GIVE UP!!!


Ha! It surely sounds silly, doesn't it? ;)

But to adolescent boys for whom Sports Illustrated & the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders are forbidden (as they were in my home), cartoons can be mighty appealing!

In all seriousness, though, I think that - as much as we try to understand each other here - many women may not appreciate how the mere shape and figure of *woman* (not *a* specific woman) is more than enough for healthy men! (Is this an example of how different we are?)

That, of course, does not imply that a cartoon is most desirable...or a suitable substitute! It's an icon.

Men love the heroines in "comic books" for more reasons than the "storyline." (They read them for more than the "articles.") And have you ever seen some of the early "pinup illustration"? (Many women find it appealing and appreciate it as art as well as erotic symbol, but the fact that it's abstract - no particular woman - doesn't make men less apt to find it arousing. It shouts - or in some cases, more subtly says - "I am the essence of, the epitome of, *woman*; adore me, admire me, gaze upon these curves, enjoy the difference between us, bask in your imagination!")

I once had a female artist (friend of ours) do an abstract pinup pencil illustration of my dear wife. It's beautiful, it contains no pimples, and, frankly, it's so abstract that it might be any woman of a range of figures and hair colors. *I* know it's her, but I wouldn't blame any man here if a similar one turned up at auction and his wife bought it for him because she fancied herself a suitable subject for it. (IOW, she thought the illustration looked enough like her.)

Does that mean I sleep with 1,001 woman every time I look at it admiringly?

And to those who fret about "body image," I will leave unanswered the worthy question, "Would you rather jerk off to this perfect illustration in intense fantasy or have even the tamest playtime with your imperfect wife, who sports a pimple on her back?"

luvinher

Postby luvinher » Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:25 pm

or...have even the tamest playtime with your imperfect wife, who sports a pimple on her back?"


Well and to be honest, some wives present their H's TONS of trouble, day in and day out. Like, while physical imperfections or bedroom limitiations can be appreciated or ignored, sometimes the grief getting to the bedroom OR the grief outside the bedroom (I guess) makes porn somewhat more appealing. More than airbrushed beauty, maybe it can be the lack of real-life sh!t which appeals. Anyway, this may be a side topic (maybe not). See my post a couple below for my current view. :)

Edit: fixed word 'OR' above.
Last edited by luvinher on Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:04 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Devoted2Dearling
King bed
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:08 pm

Postby Devoted2Dearling » Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:34 pm

Defining porn is infamously difficult, though many would agree with one Supreme Court judge, who said "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

Another definition, which I like very much, comes from an unlikely source. D. H. Lawrence, who wrote "Lady Chatterly's Lover," said of porn, "[It is] anything that does dirt to sex." Actually, I think that's a fine definition.

A few more potential identifiers:
* Magazines such as Playboy, Hustler, Oui, Penthouse, ad nauseum, which sell primarily because of their sexual content.
* Any story / book / movie with the main aim of arousal, and which does not have any plot other than one driven by one or more sexual encounters between the characters. Non-pornographic example: Lady Chatterly's Lover, just mentioned, is an adulterous story with some intense sexual content. But it is also a story attacking anti-sexual English morality and the industrial revolution's devaluation of human beings. It fails the Christianity test, but is a serious work of literature. I tried to think of a pornographic example, but other than the magazines mentioned earlier, can't think of novelish example.
* A story purchased to masturbate to (duh!?).


Blessings,
d2w
See: http://www.cbeinternational.org
"Because you're mine / I walk the line" - Johnny Cash

MarkS

Postby MarkS » Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:48 pm

luvinher wrote:Well and to be honest, some wives present their H's TONS of trouble, day in and day out. Like, while physical imperfections or bedroom limitiations can be appreciated or ignored, sometimes the grief getting to the bedroom of the grief outside the bedroom (I guess) makes porn all the more appealing. More than airbrushed beauty, maybe it can be the lack of real-life sh!t which appeals.

Well said. And may I broaden your point to unpack 2 applications?

First, environment can discourage a real personal, sexual interaction (e.g., work stress, couples' conflict, money trials). In that case, a man may turn to media because he just doesn't want to spend 20+ minutes focusing on his wife's delight. IOW, he's too tired to be unselfish. :(

Second, his wife herself may discourage a real, personal, sexual interaction. This is harder to deal with, unless one likes "angry sex." And it tempts men to resort to media not just out of "need" (or desparation)...but also out of outright anger or hatred. This is especially dangerous.

I sympathize more with the second, although (once again) my sympathies have little to do with what is *right.*

But, ultimately, I DO think many women exaggerate the effects of "unreal" airbrushing on men. Men want the real thing - complete with sagging breasts - but they don't want sagging spirits! Women who own and present themselves unashamedly - as women - to men get good responses (the exceptions are tragic). While men still like art, and reality does not automatically replace imagination, it remains that "real men prefer [real women]." So long as those women are (or act) "alive."

Ironically (given our male-idealized culture), it's women who often make more of raw physical beauty than men! And it's men who want "communication" more than physique. What do "those women" have that you don't? Perhaps it's not the silicone so much as the "sign language."

We should not let Hollywood's (or Rembrandt's) infatuation with beauty mislead us. As to beauty and emotional depth, I would rather look at my grandfather's idealized portrait than his acne'd face, but I'd rather have him really with me for our rocking-chair chats.

Mark

amf

Postby amf » Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:26 pm

In all seriousness, though, I think that - as much as we try to understand each other here - many women may not appreciate how the mere shape and figure of *woman* (not *a* specific woman) is more than enough for healthy men! (Is this an example of how different we are?)


Ironically (given our male-idealized culture), it's women who often make more of raw physical beauty than men! And it's men who want "communication" more than physique.


Now I'm really confused. Does anyone see an inconsistency here? I've found them in several of the porn discussions on this board.

Back to lurking...

MarkS

Postby MarkS » Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:54 pm

amf wrote:Now I'm really confused. Does anyone see an inconsistency here? I've found them in several of the porn discussions on this board.


I think I see where there might appear to be an inconsistency, but I'm unsure of what you're seeing... After you give others a bit of a chance, would you mind spelling it out? The one that I've seen only "appears" to be, but is not, inconsistent in my view. This may help...

Men prefer "real" women, with pimples, who act "alive," over, say, Betty Boop. However, Betty Boop, symbolic of *womanhood,* will suffice to arouse a man.

Now, as to *raw* physical beauty, "sign language" wins over silicone. It's the sexual posturing. Yes, silicone supports an "ideal," but the real *communication* is deeper than "skin deep." It's that communication (the sexual "intent") that I was referring to. It's what men want most. (Otherwise, our fantasies would be necrophiliac.)

But compare a cartoon - portrayed as "playful," "vivacious" or "sultry" (i.e., "alive" and seething with "energy") with a real woman who doesn't even pretend to be "lively" - who neither lives out nor play-acts her sensuality/sexuality with confidence or abandon - many men would prefer the "idealized cartoon." So, speaking of Betty...

Whenever, in adolescence, I caught sight of a girl bending over in a mini, polka-dotted red dress with wide, innocent eyes catching my gaze - looking shy but not correcting her pose - I stayed, rapt with attention, wondering what she was trying to tell me, wondering if it would be uncouth to peek for more. Never once did I leave for a "Betty fix" or to pull out my newspaper to compare her to the "real" idealized Betty Boop! ;) And, if I had gotten closer - and seen uneven skin in that display of "raw" physique - would I have strayed?

Make no mistake, mine is no rallying cry, "Back to Betty!" As much as we love beauty, we prefer the blemished living over the unblemished fiction. But we also prefer the unblemished fantasy over a dull, drab, and stiff reality (wives who are visually disinterested, blemished or not).

Fortunately, many wives invest themselves in *communicating* visually with their husbands, some as often as their loving husbands caress them. Bless you all! (And a special blessing to my dear wife, who has truly invested herself in studying male desire & becoming visually sensational to me. Ooh-la-la!)

(That said, unfortunately, there are exceptions, there are addictions, and there are fetishes. In God's good Graces, that doesn't change basic reality.)
Last edited by MarkS on Mon Jan 02, 2006 6:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Devoted2Dearling
King bed
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:08 pm

Postby Devoted2Dearling » Mon Jan 02, 2006 5:14 pm

luvinher wrote:d2w, the "assertion" has some backup (as I alluded too) in another discussion: here. Hopefully you will not say after reading this that God's word was taken lightly, even if you disagree.


Ugh, me and my too-quick fingers. I don't like it that I implied you took God's word lightly -- sheesh!! -- and apologize. :oops:

Blessings,
d2w
See: http://www.cbeinternational.org

"Because you're mine / I walk the line" - Johnny Cash

luvinher

Postby luvinher » Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:20 pm

D2w, it's okay. :) let me add: Taking "God's Word lightly" can also be said of people who read anything they want into it, and I say we (myself included) need to watch out for that. However, I was thinking you might have meant it the other way, which is dismissing without thinking. :roll:

MarkS, it's interesting we may have been on a similar wavelength. The thing I think is important for the women to hear, is that we desire our wives, particularly our wives who are freely giving of themselves. Next up, discussing porn and why men might use it, borders on justifying it, and also maybe even blaming the women. With very very rare exceptions, that is not the point being made.

And to reiterate, since it's so delicious, I'll take the real, saggy and beautiful-to-me wife who desires ME over the media-fantasy or 20something/teen who dresses provactively . (And yes she's in a receptive mode these months - it just builds and reinforces the positives in our relationship.) ::luv ::luv2

User avatar
Devoted2Dearling
King bed
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:08 pm

Postby Devoted2Dearling » Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:55 pm

Heh... yeah, the whole "perfect body" thing visually vs. actual loving of one's wife less than Hollywood airbrushed perfection body... proves one thing.

The sense of touch trumps the sense of sight in the end... every time.

Blessings,
d2w
See: http://www.cbeinternational.org

"Because you're mine / I walk the line" - Johnny Cash

User avatar
beekeeper
California King
Posts: 859
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:34 am
Date of your marriage (past or future): December 12th, 1981
Gender: Male
Location: Forests of Maine
Contact:

Postby beekeeper » Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:35 pm

I don't think men have ever needed perfect women's bodies, nor friendly attitudes, nor white teeth even. But rather occasional willingness, or freely-giving, or a sensual/sexual participant.

My familiarity with porn has been predominately in the context of living environments where women are not present, for months at a time.

Though I have used porn also when on the surface, when DW has been refusing me.

It is difficult to imagine why a man would use porn, if he had a friendly, willing freely-giving and sensual/sexual wife available.

MarkS

Postby MarkS » Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:41 pm

beekeeper wrote:It is difficult to imagine why a man would use porn, if he had a friendly, willing freely-giving and sensual/sexual wife available.

I agree with most of what you said. And I appreciate that some men are less affected by visual media. Just as with the rest of us (who might find other visuals alluring even when thoroughly pleased with our wives), these things are likely affected by our environment, our habits, and our natures (sinful, designed, & individual).

One thing your statement above doesn't address is situations where there is a modal mismatch - that is, one is visual- and the other auditory- (or kinesthetic/feeling-) oriented.

For instance, the wife may give...and give...and give...sensually & sexually in a language the man doesn't appreciate. She touches, tickles, dances "dirty" against him, caresses, strokes, pumps, and triple-tongues (as a pro trombonist). ;) All good! But he wants flashes, peeks, seductive looks, flirtatious glances, and seductive wiggles (as an artist specializing in Spanish gypsy art). ;) They talk past one another.

Of course, this goes both ways! So often, men try to woo women in the wrong language(s). (Despite my disagreement with some on the "nature" of men vs. women, I DO agree we should strive to speak the language of our particular spouse!) We benefit (our spouses) by seeking diligently to understand our spouses, as gender AND as individual.

I guarantee most healthy men could be brought to orgasm with a minimum of fuss - and in the dark, wife in flannel pajamas - but pity the woman for whom this is the goal! And most prefer teeth, I think. :lol:

Humans have an aesthetic sense too, and paying smart attention to the visual enhances sex (especially for most men). But forget sex for a moment, it enhances the sensual...and romance in general.

But not all care for romance...

User avatar
beekeeper
California King
Posts: 859
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:34 am
Date of your marriage (past or future): December 12th, 1981
Gender: Male
Location: Forests of Maine
Contact:

Postby beekeeper » Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:08 pm

MarkS wrote:...
One thing your statement above doesn't address is situations where there is a modal mismatch - that is, one is visual- and the other auditory- (or kinesthetic/feeling-) oriented.

For instance, the wife may give...and give...and give...sensually & sexually in a language the man doesn't appreciate. She touches, tickles, dances "dirty" against him, caresses, strokes, and pumps. All good! But he wants flashes, peeks, seductive looks, flirtatious glances, and seductive wiggles. They talk past one another.


I can see the idea that one people may well be speaking in different languages. but languages can be learned.

but you see, in reading through what you said, to me both he and she were saying and doing the same things. ie, touches, tickles, dances "dirty", caresses, strokes, pumps, flashes, peeks, seductive looks, flirtatious glances, and seductive wiggles.

They were both being sensual and sexual with each other.

If your both involved with each other, in a sexual relationship, then why would porn ever be in the house?

It would seem that a female is within 100 miles of you, and that she sounds 'willing' [in that she is teasing and foreplaying with you].



I guarantee most healthy men could be brought to orgasm with a minimum of fuss - and in the dark, in flannel pajamas - but pity the woman for whom this is the goal!


In our household, this is the mode of sex, with the added exception that it is begrudingly done.



... But not all care for romance...


Well said, some are 'asexual'

MarkS

Postby MarkS » Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:44 pm

beekeeper wrote:I can see the idea that one people may well be speaking in different languages. but languages can be learned.

I strongly agree.

but you see, in reading through what you said, to me both he and she were saying and doing the same things. [snip] They were both being sensual and sexual with each other.

That's not what I meant, but I DO believe that multi-sensory sex is best! (Not that every encounter should involve equal parts or modalities.)

If your both involved with each other, in a sexual relationship, then why would porn ever be in the house?

That is the mystery. But I think you've brought us back to the original question. If you read my tediously long answers (back a few pages), you'll see that I tried to offer reasons that (apparently) aren't very appealing. Basically, there is an aesthetic sense that is not fulfilled if women are not enjoyed in their visual beauty, and porn has catered to that sense better than many real women. (But it depends on your tastes and your context. In cold climates, a man will promise to keep the lights off for 40 nights if only his woman will give him some pleasure.)

This is a sad way to live.

In our household, this [a minimum of fuss in the dark in flannels] is the mode of sex, with the added exception that it is begrudingly done.

I'm sorry. This is so hard for some. Like speechmaking for many. Hey! you're not going to die if you stumble over a few words. And, hey! God made you to enjoy each other. But it's so hard for so many to put one foot in front of the other.

I'm convinced many wallow in darkness because they never take the first step. Full-bodied sexuality does involve risk, and our sinful natures...honed by sinful environments...and compressed by peculiar personalities...do their dirty work to make us lousy lovers who prefer "cleanliness" to godliness.

We need to go for the gusto, like the real Puritans - "Get down and get dirty!" [See Leland Ryken's enlightening book -- "Worldly Saints: The Puritans As They Really Were"] (Although they probably wouldn't have approved of oral sex & contraception, they were a randy bunch!)

User avatar
beekeeper
California King
Posts: 859
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:34 am
Date of your marriage (past or future): December 12th, 1981
Gender: Male
Location: Forests of Maine
Contact:

Postby beekeeper » Tue Jan 03, 2006 6:19 am

MarkS wrote:
... In cold climates, a man will promise to keep the lights off for 40 nights if only his woman will give him some pleasure.


I had not heard of this, does it work?

I don't see the purpose of limiting it to 40 nights though, if this was something that a wife desired.

:)

Vanna

Postby Vanna » Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:52 am

"But compare a cartoon - portrayed as "playful," "vivacious" or "sultry" (i.e., "alive" and seething with "energy") with a real woman who doesn't even pretend to be "lively" - who neither lives out nor play-acts her sensuality/sexuality with confidence or abandon - many men would prefer the "idealized cartoon." So, speaking of Betty... "

I wish I could believe that men only look at porn because they long for a confident woman... sorry...

Yep, any woman with any success in the dating field knows that confidence can overcome some of the most obvious physical detractors on her person. Men are drawn to confident women, and when men are chasing you it is easy to feel confident. A gal learns early on that needy girls get dumped for more confident models.

So where does the confidence go after marriage??

My own father had the final say on my mom's wardrobe, and he always kept her rather covered up. She would have been willing to dress more playfully/sultry and as a result she would have felt more attactive in that way, but he wouldn't allow it. When I was young, she kept a stash of lingerie, silky lacy teddy stuff, as a kid the shiny fabric had raccoon appeal, but as years passed by I look back and realize that at some point she ceased to have those too. I think that the porn and the lack of affectionate gestures killed her drive to try and her inner belief in her own special appeal. :(

Our neighbor had a sexy wife, some of the outfits she wore out and about made me cringe... his closet was full of porn movies. He was a selfprofessed woman "watcher/appreciator". His wife was what most woman recognize as a "hottie", but it still wasn't enough for him. He had no problem talking about other women's attributes in front of her, my heart broke for her, it was embarrassing as a woman to watch him strip her value in front of neighbors, and she just sat there taking it all. Sad. The marriage went downhill from there as they fell further from the Lord. It was no surprise to me when I heard she had an affair. So sad. :(

I know you are going to read this and see that I'm talking about clothes and you are talking about actions- I do recognize that. What I also know is that an outfit or make-up can act as a magnifying glass for whatever feeling a woman is trying to get across. It takes a really secure wife to feel ultra sexy in flannels... lol... it can happen but only with a woman who has no doubt that her hubby thinks she is hot in anything from coveralls to webgear... :D (But he can't expect her to blossom if he is sending mixed signals by looking at other women. It doesn't make her want to try harder, it makes her withdraw to nurse her wounds.)

A husband's reaction to an outfit or look makes or breaks the mood, no reaction at all makes her wonder why she bothered, if she has to ask how it looks or she gets a lame "that's nice" it is sometimes worse than no reaction, a "Wow!" with a grin or some other tasteful variant can actually go a long way to bringing that sultry behavior to light especially if hubby makes a few more compliments over the course of the day... you know you are thinking it but if you put words to it or appreciative facial expressions most women will bloom under the attention.

She isn't likely going to go from Sandra D. to Debbie does Dallas... but if you overlook her smaller efforts she certainly won't want to experiment beyond that point because she's not about to expose herself for a lukewarm reception... :oops:

In many ways a woman is a painting, and her husband the artist. With each splash of paint the picture changes, each hug, kiss, compliment... each pat, smile, and shared dream, is a splash of color which enhances how she sees herself.

Yes the painting of your wife was started before you got there, but it is in your hands now and you pick the colors and strokes that go on it from marriage onward. A wife who is loved will style their hair for you, pick makeup from your favorites, buy clothes and undies with you in mind, they will wear your favorite perfumes, favorite boots, favorite nail polish, fix your favorite foods, do your favorite bedroom things... maybe not everyday, but your influence is stamped all over them... and that can be a good thing or a bad thing...

(this may unfortunately be much less obvious in wives who have already decided the marriage is unfixable, it takes much more at that point and she has to want to try to fix it anyway...)

User avatar
Devoted2Dearling
King bed
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:08 pm

Postby Devoted2Dearling » Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:36 am

Vanna, you wrote (as part of a wonderful post, by the way), "In many ways a woman is a painting, and her husband the artist. With each splash of paint the picture changes, each hug, kiss, compliment... each pat, smile, and shared dream, is a splash of color which enhances how she sees herself."

I believe that, but as an egalitarian would take it one more step. In marriage, we paint one another with either beauty or ugliness, love or hate or (worst of all) indifference. That is the thing most wonderful and most terrifying about marriage. The "one flesh" relationship means that we have tremendous effects upon our marital partner.... each of us thrive, or suffer, at the hands of our spouse.

Again, beautiful post. And re porn, I have to agree with you. Porn doesn't function as an option/replacement for a cold spouse anymore than cocaine functions as an option for a lack of food.

Blessings,
d2w
See: http://www.cbeinternational.org

"Because you're mine / I walk the line" - Johnny Cash

amf

Postby amf » Tue Jan 03, 2006 2:59 pm

Vanna, you are right on target here. If a man loves and appreciates his wife, but decides to indulge in some visual fantasy on the side, this is likely what he'll get as a result:

"But he can't expect her to blossom if he is sending mixed signals by looking at other women. It doesn't make her want to try harder, it makes her withdraw to nurse her wounds."

And in the worse case scenario (e.g. your neighbors), this is what he may get as well.:

"It was no surprise to me when I heard she had an affair. So sad."

A woman can only take so much.

User avatar
beekeeper
California King
Posts: 859
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:34 am
Date of your marriage (past or future): December 12th, 1981
Gender: Male
Location: Forests of Maine
Contact:

Postby beekeeper » Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:26 pm

MarkS wrote:... That's not what I meant, but I DO believe that multi-sensory sex is best! (Not that every encounter should involve equal parts or modalities.)

... Basically, there is an aesthetic sense that is not fulfilled if women are not enjoyed in their visual beauty, and porn has catered to that sense better than many real women.


I guess that maybe if we perfect singular-sensory sex, than we may move on to the multi-sensory kind.

It would seem to me, to be very 'mean' to treat a woman in any manner that left her feeling that her beauty was not enjoyed or appreciated.

luvinher

Postby luvinher » Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:49 pm

beekeeper wrote:It would seem to me, to be very 'mean' to treat a woman in any manner that left her feeling that her beauty was not enjoyed or appreciated.


Profound, bee man. That's a keeper.

User avatar
beekeeper
California King
Posts: 859
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:34 am
Date of your marriage (past or future): December 12th, 1981
Gender: Male
Location: Forests of Maine
Contact:

Postby beekeeper » Sun Jan 08, 2006 6:26 pm

Vanna wrote:...I wish I could believe that men only look at porn because they long for a confident woman... sorry...

Yep, any woman with any success in the dating field knows that confidence can overcome some of the most obvious physical detractors on her person. Men are drawn to confident women, and when men are chasing you it is easy to feel confident. A gal learns early on that needy girls get dumped for more confident models. ...


Confidence may well have something to do with females when dating.

However in the context of: 'marriage and porn', I truly dont think that confidence has much to do with anything [outside of perhaps the circumstances which envolve abusers].

I dont really think that most married men go toward porn if there is an available female around.

Not a confident female.

But rather breathing, warm, soft and 'willing' to be with a guy.

I would say 'sensual' but that might well be going too far. Guys are happy with a girl in flannels and curlers.

:)


Return to “Pornography”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users