Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday May 10 2015, @08:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-all-might-be-in-trouble dept.

The Independent reports:

Psychologist and professor emeritus at Stanford University Phillip Zimbardo (who led the team of researchers who conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment) has made the warnings, which form a major part of his latest book, Man (Dis)Connected.

Zimbardo says (in this TED talk) there is a "crisis" amongst young men, a high number of whom are experiencing a "new form of addiction" to excessive use of pornography and video games. Citing the research he and his team conducted for the book, he says: "It begins to change brain function. It begins to change the reward centre of the brain, and produces a kind of excitement and addiction."

An article from Psychology Today, however, argues that there are no demonstrable scientific links between porn consumption and the disputed phenomenon called 'Porn-Induced Erectile Dysfunction.'

Could this problem be manifesting itself as the rise of the Hikikomori?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by naubol on Monday May 11 2015, @04:35AM

    by naubol (1918) on Monday May 11 2015, @04:35AM (#181356)

    Looking at a bunch of replies, it seems pretty clear that a fair number of people got the impression that the OP is a bit angsty. Probably not a winning argument to try to quantify a person's emotional angst relative to another for the purposes of determining who is right. Bias doesn't make you wrong.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @03:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @03:50PM (#181503)

    Reality by consensus and bias being acceptable only in people you already agree with is not a productive nor accurate position to hold.

    • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday May 12 2015, @02:21AM

      by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Tuesday May 12 2015, @02:21AM (#181758) Journal

      Here, let me help if you're still watching this thread for replies.

      I used to be borderline insane, probably neurotic. Like I'd stalk and harass girl after girl, get rejected, and switch to some other girl. Wash rinse repeat. I never got anywhere with any of them, and eventually I realized it was because I wasn't being sincere.

      It was only after I realized that the two girls I was the most “infatuated” with were very masculine (one was/is a part-time trans man—that story's complicated—, and the other eventually transitioned to living as a man full time) that I realized the problem was with me, not them. We've since reconciled. Well, there was one other macho girl now that I think about it, except she became a raging bitch and none of us really want much to do with her anymore.

      The trouble was that I wasn't being honest with myself about my sexuality. YMMV, but hear me out. I'm not saying you're homosexual.

      Actually, I guess this is more about that raging bitch now that I think about it. See, here's the problem. Feminism has made it a-ok for women to be utterly sexist shitlords. I feel there are many women who are put off by the shitlordy-ness of feminism. Some of them prefer traditional gender roles, and others call themselves feminists but do really believe in gender equality. Oddly, a lot of these cisfemale shitlords do not call themselves feminists. It's just that feminism has made it a-ok.

      I'm down the hall from the break room at work, and just today I overheard the most infuriating conversation among a few of the OLs (I'm sure there's another term in English but I apologize I don't know it yet and OL seems to fit the bill). I mean, the break room is like 50 meters down the hall and this conversation was being shouted out loud enough I could make it out, and I don't even have that good of hearing! It was all about “my girls are all so well behaved” and “My boys are such troublemakers!” I mean, these OLs don't have husbands—they collect child support and welfare and just work a minimum wage job so they can list it on the paperwork—but who the fuck raised the boys to be troublemakers. Oh, I know! I've got this one! Maybe it was the lack of a husband, a father, a male role model, that caused them to become troublemakers. Maybe it was our shitlord gynocentric culture that disaffected them to the point of being troublemakers!

      Like I've said before, and I'm not trying to excuse the kind of person I used to be, but maybe this is just karma. I know I used to chase after girl after girl just because I was so confused and under so much pressure to conform, to at least be a lesbian even if I was trans.

      You've got to do some digging. There are girls out there who will respond to you. One guy who's an internet penpal to me basically must have dated over a hundred girls. You know what? Eventually in the end, he got laid. Not only did he get laid, but according to what he's told me the girl is a nympho! Not that I disapprove! To each her own, but now he has sex about 4 or 5 times per week.

      While I think feminism is a disease that hurts both men and women, there may yet be love out there for you. Don't give up hope! Fill the sky with pretty pink letters! Oh wait, that was the old me. You get the drift.

      Search your soul and discover what you really want. It can be had. Even if you're MikeeUSA, it can be had (to quote Spock: I'm not attempting to evaluate the moral implications). Perhaps it can't. But that's the entire point of the article, right? When it cannot be had, we shouldn't hold an entire demographic responsible; we should accept reality as it is. Yet, we should not feel guilty for seeking our own happiness. If it's with a virtual woman, why the fuck should some shitlord come along and wreck our day?

      Gah, this is the get off my lawn part. I remember being intrigued by the possibilities MOOs and MUDs opened up. They're there yet if you look, and much of the original sociology based on those experiences is valid imo. I just don't understand why we have generals and feminists and other shitlords attempting to detract from fantasy experiences, especially in the case of MOOs, MUCKs, and MUDs, that are more fulfilling than anything we could experience in meatspace. I suppose I'd be a Cypherite.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @09:33AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @09:33AM (#181884)

        >Search your soul and discover what you really want.

        I did. Cute, sweet, young girls.

        I used to think I just wanted "nice" "petiet" "women".
        I realized that all the things I actually like, including personality, are attributes of young girls, not women.

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:46PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:46PM (#181936)

        While I think feminism is a disease that hurts both men and women

        See, that's not what I've experienced at all.

        Those self-described feminists that I've dated or gotten to know were the ones least likely to expect me to pay their bills, do all the yard work or home repairs, have no relationship with any children in the picture, or put them on a pedestal. They didn't try to play mind games with me either, because in their worldview they didn't have to. And they were more fun in bed, because they didn't think their role was to "lie back and think of England".

        Feminism didn't create women living off of handouts and baby-daddies - they've been with us since time immemorial. It did, however, create women who will prefer to make it on their own rather than put up with a lousy man (i.e. unemployed, criminal, addicted to something, abusive, etc). As bad as being the child of a single parent can be, it's usually much less bad than being the child of a bad parent.

        Feminism also means that the fathers I know who enjoy focusing on taking care of their kids can do that while their high-powered career-oriented wives go to work. That would not have been really possible for them to do 50 years ago.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday May 12 2015, @10:18PM

          by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Tuesday May 12 2015, @10:18PM (#182110) Journal

          You are as usual 100% correct. My apologies.

          There seems to be two kinds of feminism running around. There's the kind with the many benefits you've enumerated. While I haven't run into many of these folks, when I do, it's a breath of fresh air. As you noted, these are the kinds of feminists I have to thank for being able to have a career.

          Then there's this other kind, at which my rants are directed. That kind, as far as I can tell, is hopelessly homophobic, transphobic, and misandrist—and misogynist! They're sexist cauvinists to the core that make some of the worst “male pigs” I've run into look quaint. Sure, some sarcasm there.

          For the word feminism to have any meaning, I think one of these two ideologies is not feminism. Perhaps it would make the most sense to call the former feminism and the latter something else.

          I've heard terms like female supremacist or SJW but those are both problematic. I can call them what they are, sexists and chauvinists, but that tends to make what I'm trying to say unclear. They call themselves feminists, but clearly referring to them as feminists is unclear also! Maybe just gender lunatic will suffice.