Health And Safety · Perspective · Sociology

A Disturbing Number of Teenage Girls Are Asking for This Kind of Plastic Surgery


Labiaplasty — a form of vaginal plastic surgery — is experiencing a spike in popularity among teenage girls. In 2015, 400 girls ages 18 and younger had a labiaplasty, an 80 percent increase from 222 procedures the previous year, the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery reported, according to The New York Times.

The surge prompted the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to release new guidelines for gynecologists on how to address concerns from teenage patients seeking labial surgery.

Lead author Julie Strickland, MD, MPH, and the chair of ACOG’s Adolescent Health Care Committee, stressed that OBGYNs should take into account that young patients’ desires to undergo plastic surgery might be rooted in body image issues rather than medical problems.

“Variety in the shape, size, appearance and symmetry of labia can have particularly distressing psychological effects on young women,” Strickland stated in a press release. “It’s one more body part that women are insecure about and it’s our job, as ob-gyns, to reassure our young patients.”

Labiaplasty isn’t a minor surgery.

“There is a wide range of what is considered ‘normal,'” Strickland said. “It’s important for ob-gyns to discuss sexual development and the variability of what breasts and genitalia may look like.” The guidelines also addressed the risks of the procedure — which Strickland emphasized are not minor, and can lead to complications including “pain, painful scarring, dyspareunia, hematoma, edema, and infection.”

She stressed that OBGYNs should screen young women interested in plastic surgery for body dysmorphic disorder and refer them to a mental health professional if necessary.

There’s growing pressure for teens to have a “designer vagina.”

As ATTN: has previously reported, labiaplasty procedures involve modifying the aesthetic of a woman’s vulva so that it appears smaller. There are three popular types of labiaplasty: rim labiaplasty — which involves trimming the labia minora, or small inner folds of the vulva, barbie labiaplasty — where the labia minora are shortened or removed so the vaginal lips are no longer visible, and a labial puff — injecting the labia majora to increase their size and hide inner vaginal lips.


Though the procedure’s spike in popularity with teenagers is alarming, it isn’t news that the labiaplasty has become increasingly popular in recent years. Labiaplasties jumped 49 percent from 2013 to 2014, according to the American Society for Aesthetic Surgery.

While some vaginal surgeries are not cosmetic, a 2011 study found that 87 percent of women who underwent these surgeries did so for aesthetic reasons, rather than due to pain or vaginal function.

Plastic surgery is ‘trending’ with the teen crowd.

As ATTN: has previously reported, nearly 64,000 teens get plastic surgery each year according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Summer can be a particularly popular time to go under the knife, according to a New York Daily News report on the rising number of teens getting surgery on their ears, noses, breasts, and acne scars so they could return to school the following year with a drastic ‘new look.’

Teenagers’ bodies change rapidly during puberty, which can lead young women and men to seek out cosmetic surgeries to “fix” changes that occur due to normal hormonal shifts.

“This can lead an adolescent to question whether her body is normal and to express occasional dissatisfaction with her body’s appearance, size, symmetry, or function,” the ACOG observed. “There has been increasing patient interest in surgical modification of breast and genital tissues during the adolescent period.”

While some women seek vaginal plastic surgery due to pain during sex or exercise, the ACOG cautioned doctors to pay attention to whether patients’ desires were fueled primarily by body image issues, and to discourage young women from hastily going under the knife for these reasons alone.


Experience · Health And Safety · Perspective

What Happens When You Stop Masturbating


Many people first discover their sexual desires through masturbation, which is also an easy and safe way to release sexual tension during dry spells. But what happens when you decide to give up solo play for a while? Many people have been vocal about their masturbation sabbaticals and oftentimes, they cite positive results for taking a break.

The NoFap Community

People in Reddit’s NoFap community experiment with breaks from masturbation to see how it impacts them. Because masturbation is still highly stigmatized in our culture, it can be difficult to talk about, so the anonymity of the group enables people to freely share their experiences without worrying about judgment or social shaming.


Alexander Rhodes, a web developer, created the group in 2011 to share his experiences with quitting masturbation after regularly getting off to pornography 10 times a day. Rhodes recently told UpVoted that he would rush to the bathroom anytime he felt the urge to masturbate and even experienced heart palpitations when he wouldn’t do it.

But when he stopped solo play entirely, Rhodes became more focused, energetic and productive.

“I gained an energy that can be applied to every area of life,” he told UpVoted. “It is hard to explain in words.”

Last year, Vice U.K. writer Ed Smith reported experiencing a similar productivity increase after quitting.

“I got work done, I kept my house clean, I finished off personal projects that procrastination had always forbid me from finishing,” Smith wrote. “I realized that a self-enforced period of blue balls can actually be a lot better for the mind, body and soul that I’d first assumed.”

Why people masturbate compulsively and how porn plays a role in it.

When Rhodes created NoFap, he found that many people in the community felt they suffered from porn addiction. Three years ago, Cambridge University researchers conducted a study on NoFap members and found that the brain activity of compulsive porn consumers was similar to the brain activity of people addicted to drugs. Though neuroscientist Matthew Johnson told Upvoted that he doesn’t believe watching porn can reprogram the brain, he said it’s likely that compulsive porn consumers are likely predisposed to addiction. In other words, a person might masturbate more frequently as a result of being predisposed to addictive habits.


A recent video created by The School of Life reports that there are indeed neurological factors at play with compulsive porn watching habits.

“The problem of porn is identical with that of food,” the video says. “Brains that were geared to take quick advantage of the occasional presence of a few berries are now defenseless before the vats of artificial sweetness turned out by our remorseless technologies.”

How too much masturbation and porn consumption impacts your personal life.

Porn and masturbation can present conflict in certain relationships, and some people consider both of these activities to be cheating. This is part of the reason porn addiction and compulsive masturbation carry a social stigma. Fighting the urge to watch all the time can be challenging for many because it’s difficult to find a comparable high. Porn addiction can also make it difficult for some people to enjoy sex in real life because to them, it might not be as arousing or fun as sex in porn.

People who compulsively view porn may also find themselves watching porn at work: In a recent study, around two-thirds of human resources professionals discovered porn on employee computers and nearly half of them discovered the material on more than one occasion.


In the end, Smith gained a lot from quitting masturbation, but he did admit that this choice can make you sexually frustrated.

“The litany of distractions provided by work and hobbies are helpful, and if you can keep them coming then you might be OK,” he wrote. “However, it makes sense that not masturbating will up your sex drive. Therefore, in my experience, chastity is something best enjoyed – somewhat paradoxically – with a partner.”

Here’s why masturbation is still important.

The point isn’t to quit solo play completely; it’s more about figuring out the place and purpose of masturbation in one’s life.

Jim Pfaus, a psychology professor at Concordia University, told Ed Smith in the Vice article  that giving up on masturbation 100% “will not kill us, but it will deprive us of important self-discovery…[Masturbation] is a great stress reducer – there’s evidence that having sex or masturbating can reduce our resting heart rate for up to 12 hours,” Pfaus said. “Plus, it does our sex lives the world of good to learn our sexual rhythms. We connect [through masturbation] to the types of action that we see in erotic or pornographic visual stimuli. This feeds our sexual fantasies, which is an enrichment of our creative process.”

Taking a brief break from masturbation can actually increase arousal for having sex or masturbating. This hike could lead to more rewarding sex for people when they actually engage in it. Members of the NoFap community reported a host of benefits:

NoFap screenshot

“Holding semen in does not increase the likelihood that any of the constituents will ‘leak’ back into the blood,” Pfaus said. “However, if you are holding it in, that means you are not having sex or masturbating, which could increase your arousal in anticipation of actually having sex. I think this is the ‘energy’ that the purveyors of tantric sex talk about. Learning how to maintain erection and hold off ejaculation makes the orgasm experience more intensely pleasurable. This is true for us and rats. So the increase in ‘energy’ is more psychological and belief-driven than anything else.”

As Women’s Health Magazine writer Kristen Solleen noted in a 2014 piece, masturbation can be even more rewarding than sex in some cases, as sex requires both partners to be in the mood.

“[Y]ou don’t have to shave or dress sexy, and you definitely don’t have to think about anybody else’s needs but your own…masturbating is the gift that keep on giving,” Sollee wrote.




Porn Will Never Show These 3 Things

Science and research have spoken: porn changes the brain and damages relationships. But as important as it is to raise awareness on the false, exploitive, and degrading nature of pornography, it is also important to recognize what porn doesn’t show or teach viewers about sex and relationships.

Porn doesn’t show how much we need healthy relationships in order to be happy.

Relationships are really important for us human beings. As teens and adults, we need a variety of strong, healthy relationships in order to thrive. These includes relationships with friends, parents, siblings, teammates, boyfriends, girlfriends, etc. Healthy relationships build self-esteem, boost mental and emotional health, and help us to live overall healthier lives.[1] Studies have shown that people in committed relationships are generally happier.[2] Now, on the flip side of the coin, counterfeits like porn do the exact opposite. Porn is very damaging to relationships which decreases mental, physical, and emotional health, and is a legitimate cause of depression, anxiety, and loneliness.[3] Porn can’t even compare to the happiness and fulfillment that real love provides. In fact, it’s a straight up unhealthy “substitute.”


Porn doesn’t show or require the sacrifice required to be with somebody.

If you’re watching porn thinking it will teach you something about sex, you’re training for the wrong game. Looking to porn for sex tips is like looking to action-packed car chase movie scenes for driver’s ed. Not only does it portray sex completely unrealistically, it also doesn’t promote healthy safer sex practices like using protection and getting tested for STIs.

And that’s not all. Porn doesn’t portray the realistic give-and-take nature of a partnership. News flash: relationships are hard. They take sacrifice. Just ask anybody in a long-term relationship; relationships require putting the needs of another before your own. John Gottman is a world renowned relationship therapist and in his research on what causes relationships to last, he found kindness and generosity to be the top two factors.[4] Couples who were kind and generous with one another were more likely to stay together and to be happy. Once again, porn is in complete contrast to that ideal. Porn is selfish and often frequently portrays selfish and even violent acts. In fact, when a team of researchers analyzed the most popular porn videos a few years ago, 88% showed physical violence and 49% contained verbal aggression.[5] Viewing physical and verbal aggression for sexual pleasure certainly doesn’t encourage kindness and generosity in a relationship.

While healthy relationships involve trust and communication, porn decreases trust and communication in a relationship and isolates the viewer.[6] It also sells the lie that being with another person does not require the effort of getting to know them, asking them out, devoting time to them, working through arguments, and getting through all of life’s messy moments together.


Porn doesn’t show how incredibly amazing it is to truly love someone.

Yes, relationships are hard work, but porn also misses out on how awesome it is to love someone and be loved by them. Porn will never become anyone’s best friend; it can’t replace someone who loves you and fights for you. In real relationships, you can share your life with the other person. You can be with them and hear them laugh. You can fall in love with their smile, the way they talk, their sense of humor, and more importantly, their heart. Love is an adventure—a chance to take on life with all its challenges and joys with a partner by your side. All porn does is take the physical pleasure of sex and detach it from love. Instead of sex being an awesome and beautiful part of connecting a relationship and bringing two people closer together, it becomes a two-dimensional selfish, hollow act taken from a script.

Bottom line: porn misses out on the fact that while being with a real person is difficult at times, it’s always worth it. Don’t fall for the counterfeit. Porn kills love. And love is something always worth fighting for.




My Review On Facebook Community Standards’ On Nudity

English Translation : Penilaian Saya Terhadap Facebook Community Standard Bahagian Kebogelan

When i study Facebook Community Standards (FCS) on 2017, i found one part regarding encouraging respectful behaviour to keep user in a good manner throughout the usage of social web, Facebook. Among the discussed matter includes the nudity was the first point on this part. When i try to understand the nudity standard, i found that the standard has the loops that cannot be denied or rescued to be tolerated onto it anymore. Why may be not if the enforced standard impacting the merciless towards the others, including myself by the cause of no valid basic? The following are two critical matters which i want to highlight the existence of clutter in Facebook’s policy details :

FCT said :

We restrict the display of nudity because some audiences within our global community may be sensitive to this type of content – particularly because of their cultural background or age. In order to treat people fairly and respond to reports quickly, it is essential that we have policies in place that our global teams can apply uniformly and easily when reviewing content.

My review :

If Facebook treat people fairly, why abandoning the people’s right whom no problem to that material? Even, the Facebook is taking action on it although no report for it and treat merciless toward users with excuse of containing nudity. If there has the report, it is not fair for Facebook taking on side and neglect other side. That’s not all if the image still not concurrence whether it is contain nudity or not. This matter will be clear on the next review and at the same time pointing that Facebook actually has no uniform rule and basics to their action.

If we want to settle the conflict of both sides, then the solution for Facebook is create an option for user to set automatic filter in their Newsfeed or anywhere else within Facebook website from displaying nudity contain, while the postperson is given the option to set the target audiences. At once, these give the fair treat to both side. Not all settled by restriction and then sentence other user barbarously.

FCT said :

We also allow photographs of paintings, sculptures and other art that depicts nude figures. Restrictions on the display of both nudity and sexual activity also apply to digitally created content unless the content is posted for educational, humorous or satirical purposes.

My review :

Here i have three review for this. Firstly, Facebook did not explain the meaning of education, humorous and satire. Is the education refers to the anatomy learning? Is the humorous refers to the image that its origin is not nudity type, but it being muddled up with that element until it becomes something that laughed the people out? Is the satire is sort of the image illustration of someone, by then it muddled up with nudity element and that material makes used of ridicule people? This definition is important so the Facebook has the uniform rule for their action.

For example, sometimes digitally illustration image that contain nudity uploaded and the image free from any element containing explanation on it, but it’s explanation has been made at the written post along with, not at the image itself? In this matter, is this can be considered as permitted nudity? In fact, it is the permitted nudity because it is containing education though the image didn’t has a clear element of education, but it is exist within post that included together according to Facebook’s standard.

Nevertheless, the things that happened is Facebook restricting outright before the user could finish up their stuff so the condition’s cause for restriction would be avoided. If it is not concerning the image is the nudity, it’s notification restriction by the reason of that image is a spam. Even if it is pass from post process, in the course of time, Facebook taking action excusing that it is violating FCS. This is without doubt a turmoil of Facebook on enforcing it’s policy.

Furthermore, the interpretation on nudity may be different by individual. This is the reason Facebook should clear its definition of exemption matter so the restriction context can be observed on the permitted limit in FCS. If not, all the image will be tossed out in the restriction list, whereas the post purpose is not for the other excepted matter. This is the merciless act towards user due to no clear basic for enforced policy.

Secondly, if FCS permitted photographs of painting, sculpture and other art that depicts nude figure, what if the digitally created content is printed, then the material is photographed, after that it is uploaded to Facebook? Is this considered as permitted nudity? In fact, it is also permitted nudity because it is illustration image. Thus, why should differentiate between photography and digitally created image? The different is only on the status of the image, which is one of them digital picture and the other photography image. Therefore, this standard is nonsense and no meaning at all except the Facebook equalize it’s policy action without differing both of them, which is whether they restrict the photograph and digital image or permit both of them. No choice for them except just that only.

Thirdly, Facebook treats such this because of the global community’s sensitivity to it. How the differentiation on sculpture and digital picture having different sensitivity perception of global community to it? What is the proof? Enforce without valid excuse is barbaric. The trace of the barbaric was clear where Facebook restrict outright although no report on it due to excuse of global community sensitive to it, but the sculpture and painting that depicts nudity do not considered as sensitive! It is clear that the sensitive perception depending on individual users themselves.


The best policy for this situation is two choices, either restrict all of nudity material or allow all of them. Such details is chaotic and no benefit of anything in enforcing the policy. This critic not only on it’s detail, even in the action that has no clear basics and extreme causing the restrict limit and context fuzzy and unclear for users. If this mean to overall restriction, hence lying to users by rule that allowing that material is the bright nefarious for them. However, if it the allowance is unclear, then the Facebook must alert to revise the rule of this case.

If something in unclear consideration on allowed and not allowed, can we do it? My answer is all behaviour are not wrong basically as long as it not proved as criminal and sinful manner. Interpretation to it is not bounded by mere individual because one people is not global interpretation to all. Nevertheless, whether that commit is success or not, it is depend by luck. If Facebook definitely want wild action towards someone, then what an unfortunate for them.


This are among the image that restricted by Facebook whereas i am adhere to two criteria. First, i am adhere to criteria which photography of scripture that depicts nudity. Second, i am adhere to criteria which the purpose of uploaded image for educational by attach it along with this article. Thus, how can i be punished for violating Facebook community standards? It is clear that the real problem on the Facebook itself!

This is image considered as spam at first. When i reply to Facebook that this is not a spam, they insist to block it because violating it’s community standard. I wonder why this becomes threat to their standards.
I uploaded this image along with academically writing post for showing some example of related to the topic in non-English language. Really! No jokes here! But as usual, Facebook made a mess to this.

Penilaian Saya Terhadap Facebook Community Standard Bahagian Kebogelan

Ketika menelaah Facebook Community Standards (FCS) pada tahun 2017, saya terjumpa satu bahagian tentang penggalakan perilaku yang dihormati bagi mengekalkan para pengguna agar berada dalam kelakuan yang baik sepanjang penggunaan laman sosial Facebook. Antara perkara yang dibicarakan termasuklah kebogelan yang merupakan awal isi dalam bahagian ini. Ketika saya cuba memahami piawaian kebogelan, saya dapati piawaian itu mempunyai kelompangan yang tidak dapat dinafikan serta tidak diselamatkan lagi untuk bertoleransi terhadapnya. Bagaimana mungkin tidak jikalau piawaian yang dikuatkan itu memberi kesan kezaliman terhadap orang lain, termasuklah diri saya disebabkan dasar yang tidak kukuh? Berikut merupakan dua perkara kritikal yang ingin saya tekankan bahawa wujudnya kecelaruan dalam perincian polisi pihak Facebook :

FCS menyebutkan :

“Kami menyekat paparan kebogelan kerana sebahagian pengguna dalam komuniti global kita mungkin sensitif terhadap kandungan jenis ini, khususnya kerana latar belakang budaya atau umur. Untuk memastikan tindakan yang adil pada pengguna dan merespon aduan dengan pantas, perkara ini penting untuk kami memiliki polisi dalam tempat yang kumpulan global kita dapat diterima secara seragam dan mudah apabila penyemakan semula kandungan”.

Ulasan saya :

Jika pihak Facebook berkata bahawa mereka bertindak adil, mengapa mengabaikan hak orang yang tidak ada masalah terhadap kandungan itu? Bahkan, mereka mengambil tindakan walaupun tiada aduan terhadapnya dan menzalimi pengguna atas alasan kandungan kebogelan. Jika ada aduan sekalipun, maka tidak adil jika pihak Facebook menyebelahi satu pihak sahaja tanpa mahu memberikan ruang kepada orang lain. Itu belum lagi dikira jika gambar itu masih tidak sepakat sama ada gambar itu mengandungi kebogelan ataupun tidak.Perkara ini akan jelas pada ulasan yang seterusnya dan sekaligus menunjukkan bahawa pihak Facebook sebenarnya tiada peraturan seragam dan berdasar terhadap tindakannya.

Jika kita ingin selesaikan konflik dua kelompok ini, maka penyelesaiannya ialah pihak Facebook mencipta pilihan untuk pengguna bagi menetapkan tapisan automatik pada Bekalan Berita (Newsfeed) mereka atau di mana-mana kawasan sekitar laman sesawang Facebook dari paparan kandungan kebogelan. Manakala, pengepos diberi pilihan untuk tetapkan pengguna sasaran sekehendak mereka. Sekaligus memberikan keadilan kepada semua pihak. Bukan semua diselesaikan dengan sekatan dan kemudian menghukum pengguna lain dengan zalim.

FCS menyebutkan :

“Kami juga menyekat fotografi lukisan, ukiran dan seni lain yang menyerupai ketelanjangan. Sekatan terhadap kebogelan dan aktiviti seks juga diaplikasikan pada kandungan rekaan digital melainkan kandungan itu dipos untuk tujuan pendidikan, jenaka dan satira”.

Ulasan saya :

Di sini ada tiga ulasan. Pertama, pihak Facebook tidak menjelaskan makna pendidikan, jenaka dan satira. Adakah pendidikan merujuk kepada pembelajaran anatomi? Adakah jenaka itu merujuk sesuatu gambar yang pada asalnya bukan jenis kebogelan, tetapi dicampuradukkan dengan unsur itu sehingga menjadi sesuatu yang mampu mengetawakan orang lain? Adakah satira itu seperti lukisan gambar seseorang, kemudian dicampuradukkan unsur kebogelan, lalu bahan itu dijadikan sebagai ejekan terhadap orang? Pendefinisian ini penting supaya Facebook mempunyai peraturan yang seragam untuk tindakan mereka.

Misalnya, kadangkala gambar lukisan digital yang mempunyai kandungan kebogelan dimuat naik dan gambar itu kosong dari mana-mana elemen yang mempunyai unsur penerangan, tetapi penerangan itu dijelaskan pada pos yang ditulis, bukan tertera pada gambar itu sendiri. Dalam perkara ini, adakah ini dapat dianggap sebagai kebogelan yang dibenarkan? Hakikatnya, itu ialah kebogelan yang dibenarkan kerana mengandungi pendidikan padanya walaupun gambar itu secara tidak jelas mempunyai elemen pendidikan, tetapi wujud pada pos yang disertakan bersama berdasarkan piawaian pihak Facebook.

Namun, hal yang berlaku ialah pihak Facebook menyekat mentah-mentah sebelum pengguna dapat selesaikan urusannya agar syarat yang menjadi sebab sekatan dapat dielakkan. Kalau bukan disabitkan kandungan itu merupakan unsur kebogelan, pada awal lagi pemakluman sekatan itu atas alasan kandungan itu ialah sarap elektronik (spam). Kalaupun lepas pada proses pengeposan, lama-kelamaan pihak Facebook mengambil tindakan atas alasan melanggar FCS. Ini jelas kecelaruan pihak Facebook dalam menguatkuasakan tindakan terhadap polisinya.

Lagipun, penafsiran tentang kebogelan mungkin berbeza-beza mengikut individu. Sebab itulah pihak Facebook perlu jelas pendenifisian perkara yang dikecualikan itu supaya konteks sekatan itu dapat diperhatikan dengan jelas had yang dibenarkan dalam FCS. Jika tidak, semua gambar itu dibakulsampahkan dalam senarai sekatan sedangkan tujuan pengeposan itu bukan untuk tujuan selain yang dikecualikan. Ini merupakan kezaliman terhadap pengguna akibat tidak ada dasar yang jelas untuk melaksanakan polisinya.

Kedua, jika FCS membenarkan fotografi lukisan, ukiran dan seni lain yang menyerupai kebogelan., bagaimana jikalau kandungan rekaan digital itu dicetak, lantas kandungan yang tercetak itu diambil gambar sebagai fotografi, kemudian dimuat naik ke Facebook? Adakah ini dikira kebogelan? Hakikatnya, itu juga kebogelan yang dibenarkan kerana itu ialah fotografi lukisan. Oleh itu, mengapa perlu membezakan antara fotografi dan gambar yang direka secara digital? Bezanya sekadar kedudukan gambar itu, iaitu salah satunya gambar digital dan yang lain gambar fotografi. Maka, piawaian ini mengarut dan tidak ada makna melainkan pihak Facebook menyamakan tindakan polisinya tanpa membezakan status gambar kedua-dua, iaitu sama ada menyekat fotografi dan gambar digital atau membenarkan kedua-duanya. Tidak ada pilihan lain bagi Facebook melainkan itu sahaja.

Ketiga, pihak Facebook bertindak atas dasar komuniti global sensitif terhadapnya. Bagaimana pembezaan ukiran dan gambar digital mempunyai kelainan persespsi kesensitifan komuniti global terhadap itu? Apakah buktinya? Tindakan tanpa alasan yang sah merupakan kezaliman. Kesan kezaliman telah jelas bahawa pihak Facebook sekat mentah-mentah walaupun tiada aduan padanya atas alasan komuniti global berasa sensitif terhadapnya, tetapi ukiran dan lukisan yang memaparkan keserupaan unsur kebogelan tidak pula dianggap sensitif! Jelaslah, bahawa persepsi sensitif ini bergantung pada individu pengguna itu sendiri.


Polisi yang paling terbaik untuk masalah ini ialah dua pilihan, sama ada sekat semua yang berunsur kebogelan atau terima semua. Perincian seperti ini kalut dan tidak berfaedah dalam penguatkuasaan polisi. Kritikan ini bukan sahaja pada perinciannya, malah tindakan yang tidak mempunyai dasar yang jelas dan keterlaluan sehingga batas dan konteks sekatan kabur dan tidak jelas untuk pengguna. Jika bermaksud sememangnya untuk sekatan secara menyeluruh, maka membohongi pengguna dengan peraturan bolehnya kandungan itu merupakan kejahatan yang terang. Namun, jika yang dibolehkan itu tidak jelas, maka tindakan zalim akan berleluasa dan berterusan. Sebab itulah, perkara ini perlu bagi pihak Facebook untuk mengambil perhatian dalam menyemak semula peraturan kes ini.

Jika berada perkara yang tidak jelas tentang boleh dan ketidakbolehan terhadapnya, adakah kita boleh melakukannya? Jawapan saya adalah semua perilaku tidak salah pada asalnya selagimana belum terbukti jelas jenayahnya atau perbuatan jahatnya. Penafsiran tentang itu bukan terikat pada persepsi individu semata-mata kerana seorang individu bukan penafsiran global untuk semua. Namun, berjaya atau tidak berjaya, itu bergantung pada tuah. Kalau pihak Facebook sememangnya mahu bertindak liar terhadap seseorang, maka malanglah nasib orang itu.

Ini antara gambar yang disekat oleh pihak Facebook. Walhal, saya menepati dua kriteria yang diizinkan untuk mengeposnya. Pertama, saya menepati kriteria bahawa fotografi ukiran yang menyerupai kebogelan. Kedua, saya menepati kriteria bahawa gambar ini bertujuan pendidikan dengan mengepilkan sekali bersama artikel ini.  Lantas, bagaimana saya dihukum kerana melanggar piawaian komuniti Facebook? Jelas, bahawa masalah sebenar pada pihak Facebook sendiri!
Gambar ini pada asalnya dianggap sarap elektronik (spam). Apabila saya membalas kepada mereka bahawa ini bukan sarap elektronik, mereka tetap berkeras untuk mengongkong ini kerana melanggar piawaian komunitinya. Saya tertanya-tanya sebab ini menjadi ancaman terhadap piawaian mereka.
Saya memuat naik gambar ini bersama pos penulisan akademik untuk menunjukkan beberapa contoh yang berkaitan dengan topik dalam bahasa bukan Inggeris. Sungguh! Tiada gurauan di sini! Tetapi, sepertimana biasa, Facebook membuat kacau terhadap ini.

Differenting Child Sexual Abusers


By Dr Michael Davis MAPS, Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Monash University

Forensic psychologists are frequently requested to assess and treat individuals who have been charged or convicted of sexual offences against child victims. This can be a difficult task as child sexual abusers are a very heterogeneous population. Accordingly, an appropriate treatment or management pathway for one offender may be contra-indicated for another. One useful distinction is to determine whether the offending behaviour primarily reflects a deviant sexual interest in children or other motivations.

However, formal DSM-5 and ICD-10 criteria are not particularly useful for this task. Indeed, the DSM-5 criteria for ‘pedophilic disorder’ (APA, 2013) and the ICD-10 criteria for ‘paedophilia’ (WHO, 1992) seemingly depend upon the offender honestly describing their sexual fantasies at interview. But this cannot simply be assumed in forensic assessment. Accordingly, analysis of offence behaviours becomes a crucial source of data.

Typologies of child sexual abusers

While the two formal diagnostic manuals are not particularly helpful in differentiating child sexual abusers, the prepared clinician can draw upon a number of classification systems to assist in developing a detailed formulation. Useful clinically-derived child molester classification systems have been published since the 1960s (see Knight & Prentky, 1990; Prentky & Burgess, 2000). One of the major distinctions in the majority of these typologies has been between fixated or preferential paedophiles who have a genuine sexual interest in children and those who offend for other reasons (Dietz, 1983). This distinction has a strong empirical rationale. Meta-analyses of sexual re-offending have routinely noted that sexual deviance is the most potent risk factor for recidivism (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Mann et al., 2010). Moreover, classification as a fixated offender has been found to significantly discriminate between recidivists and non-recidivists in samples of child molesters (Prentky et al., 1997).

There are a number of typologies and classification systems described in the scholarly literature. Three in particular appear to be especially useful for clinical and applied purposes. These are the Massachusetts Treatment Center: Child Molester Typology (Version 3; MTC:CM3; Knight et al. 1989), the behavioural typology by Canter and colleagues (1998), and the motivational continuum by Lanning (1985, 2010). The latter two were initially developed for use in criminal investigations and thus focus on offence behaviour. There is considerable overlap between these three typologies. Accordingly, due to space constraints this article will focus on the latter, whilst also pointing out some of the overlap with the other two classification systems.

Lanning’s (1985, 2010) typology is a rationally-derived system that initially divided child sexual abusers into four ‘situational’ types and three ‘preferential’ types. However, this evolved over time and the current version of this system envisages child sexual abusers, as well as sexual offenders in general, on a motivational continuum from the situational to the preferential. This acknowledges the fact that behavioural patterns amongst such offenders are not mutually exclusive and there can be multiple motivations for committing such crimes. It is thus particularly useful in applied settings, as individuals can be considered at any point along the continuum.

Situational offences

Those offences towards the situational end of the continuum are thought to reflect basic sexual needs such as lust, or non-sexual needs such as power or anger. Such offenders usually do not have a genuine sexual interest in children, but may molest them for a number of often complex reasons. Their offending is often impulsive and opportunistic. Three major patterns of offence behaviour have been identified at the situational end of the continuum: regressed, morally indiscriminate and inadequate.

The regressed pattern of behaviour involves individuals who do not have a sexual preference for children, but who turn to them as a sexual substitute. This often occurs during times of stress and such offenders tend to have poor coping skills and low self-esteem. Children are chosen due to their availability. Accordingly, incest offenders can often, though certainly not always, be characterised in this fashion.

The morally indiscriminate pattern of behaviour involves the sexual abuse of children as simply another form of antisocial behaviour in the offender’s life. A diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, and elevated levels of psychopathic personality features, are often found in these offenders. Victims are chosen due to vulnerability and opportunity. Force, lures or manipulation may be used and the victims may be abducted. Pubescent children are thought to be particular targets of such offenders. Canter and colleagues (1998) identified a comparable pattern of behaviour that they called the ‘criminal-opportunist’. These offences were characterised by stranger victims, outdoor offences, one-off offences, offender intoxication, offender ejaculation, and vaginal penetration.

Those who engage in the inadequate behaviour pattern include an array of withdrawn and ‘unusual’ individuals such as eccentric personalities, psychotic individuals, or those with an intellectual disability or senility. It is of course important to note that most people with these difficulties will not sexually abuse children. The inadequate offender does not have a sexual preference for children, but targets them because he finds them to be non-threatening. As such, these offenders may also target the elderly as well. Lanning (2010) reported that sexually-motivated child murders profiled by the FBI usually involved either the morally indiscriminate or inadequate patterns of behaviour.

Preferential offences

Those offences at the preferential end of the motivational continuum reflect deviant sexual needs, most obviously a sexual preference for children. Four major patterns of offence behaviour have been identified at the preferential end: seduction, introverted, sadistic and diverse.

As the name suggests, the seduction pattern of behaviour characterises individuals who essentially engage with children by seducing and grooming them with affection, attention and presents. These offenders are able to identify with their victims. They know how to talk and listen to children and often target those who are neglected. Over time they gradually lower the child victim’s sexual inhibitions until they are willing to engage in sexual behaviour because of the benefits that they are receiving. Such offenders may simultaneously abuse multiple victims. If threats or physical violence are used they are likely to be instrumental in nature and are made to avoid identification or disclosure. Such offenders can abuse the same child for lengthy periods of time and may even find it difficult to get the child to leave when they age and become too old for the offender. Canter and colleagues (1998) identified a comparable behavioural pattern that they termed ‘intimate’. This was characterised by the promise of gifts, reassurance of the victim, affection, desensitisation, kissing, and the offender performing oral sex on the victim.

The confronting nature of ‘seduction’ child sexual abusers
Descriptions of any form of child sexual abuse are by their very nature confronting. However, this is especially the case with the seduction pattern of behaviour. The suggestion that children may willingly ‘trade’ sex with their abusers for affection or gifts can be problematic for professionals whose representation of such offending is a child who actively resists being physically forced into unwanted sexual acts. Nonetheless, it is crucial that clinicians remember that “when an adult and child have sex… the adult is always the offender and the child is always the victim” (Lanning, 2010, p. 26). Without being cognisant of this, clinicians can significantly add to the subsequent shame, guilt and embarrassment that victims of these offences can experience later in their lives.

The introverted behavioural pattern characterises offenders who have a sexual preference for children but essentially lack the interpersonal skills required to successfully groom and seduce them. Such offenders are similar to the inadequate situational offender, but they do have deviant sexual preferences. As such, their selection of child victims is more circumscribed and predictable across multiple offences. The lack of interpersonal skills means that these offenders engage in minimal verbal communication with their victims, who are often strangers. Such offenders are more likely to attend playgrounds or other areas where children gather.

The sadistic behavioural pattern involves offences in which the child’s response to the infliction of suffering, humiliation, or pain is sexually arousing. Essentially, these offenders would meet formal diagnostic criteria for both paedophilia and sexual sadism. Thankfully such offenders are rare. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they are more likely than other preferential offenders to abduct and murder their victims.

The diverse behavioural pattern was previously termed ‘sexually indiscriminate’ and was initially thought to be a situational type as such offenders do not have a preferential sexual interest in children. Nonetheless, under the current motivational continuum such offences are situated toward the preferential end because their diverse offending reflects sexual deviance and they may meet criteria for several paraphilic disorders. Indeed, the facetious term ‘try-sexual’ is also used to describe such offenders because they are indiscriminate in their sexual interests and willing to try a wide variety of sexual behaviours. There is some similarity to the morally indiscriminate situational offending pattern, however the diverse offender has deviant sexual interests and is often more discriminating in their non-sexual behaviours.

Given the range of behavioural patterns at either end of the continuum, it is perhaps clear that further dimensions beyond the situational-preferential dimension are needed for a truly comprehensive typological system. To this end, a recently proposed elaboration of the MTC typology (MTC:CM4) involves three dimensions: fixation, social competence and externalising behaviour (Knight & King, 2012). This will undoubtedly be an interesting development.

Applications to clinical practice

Behavioural typologies reflect the heterogeneity of child sexual abusers and provide some useful indications for differentiating between preferential and situational offenders. The notion of a motivational continuum is particularly useful in clinical practice as the need to awkwardly force offenders into discrete categories is removed. Indeed, some offenders can be envisaged in the middle of this continuum with a preferential sexual interest in children as well as an awareness of situational opportunities to offend. This focus on offence behaviour can assist clinicians in understanding how child sexual abusers commit their offences. This knowledge can be very useful in preparing interview strategies, conducting risk assessments, and formulating treatment and management plans. Risk assessment can be aided by a more considered evaluation of sexual deviance and the likely nature, severity or imminence of any future offending. This can flow into appropriate recommendations for treatment and management, and thus provide the most appropriate interventions in the individual case.

The author would like to thank Dr Deb Bennett for her helpful comments.

The author can be contacted at


  • American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th edition). Washington, DC: Author.
  • Canter, D., Hughes, D., & Kirby, S. (1998). Paedophilia: Pathology, criminality, or both? The development of a multivariate model of offence behaviour in child sexual abuse. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 9, 532-555. doi: 10.1080/09585189808405372
  • Dietz, P. E. (1983). Sex offenses: Behavioral aspects. In S. H. Kadish (Ed.), Encyclopedia of crime and justice (pp. 1485-1493). New York: Free Press.
  • Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154
  • Knight, R. A., Carter, D. L., & Prentky R. A. (1989). A system for the classification of child molesters: Reliability and application. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 3-23. doi: 10.1177/088626089004001001
  • Knight, R. A., & King, M. W. (2012). Typologies for child molesters: The generation of a new structural model. In B. K. Schwartz (Ed.), The sex offender: Current trends in policy and treatment practice (pp. 5.1–5.32). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
  • Knight, R. A., & Prentky, R. A. (1990). Classifying sexual offenders: The development and corroboration of taxonomic models. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws, & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 23-52). New York: Plenum Press.
  • Lanning, K. V. (1986). Child molesters: A behavioural analysis. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
  • Lanning, K. V. (2010). Child molesters: A behavioural analysis (5th ed.). Alexandria, VA: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
  • Mann, R. E., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 191-217. doi: 10.1177/1079063210366039
  • Prentky, R. A., & Burgess, A. W. B. (2000). Forensic management of sexual offenders. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
  • Prentky, R. A., Knight, R. A., & Lee, A. F. S. (1997). Risk factors associated with recidivism among extrafamilial child molesters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 141-149. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.65.1.141
  • World Health Organization (1992). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva: Author.

Further reading

  • Douglas, J. E., Burgess, A. W., Burgess, A. G., & Ressler, R. K. (2013). Crime classification manual: A standard system for investigating and classifying violent crime (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  • Napier, M. R. (2010). Behavior, truth and deception: Applying profiling and analysis to the interview process. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  • Oliva, J. R. (2013). Sexually motivated crimes: Understanding the profile of the sex offender and applying theory to practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.


Perspective · Psychology

The Science Of Why Are Some People Attracted To Children


Having worked with police forces in Australia and the United Kingdom identifying those who sexually prey on children, people are always asking me how you can tell a paedophile from everyone else.

Well, I can tell you one thing – they don’t have horns and tails. They look and act like you and me. Except for one key difference: they’re sexually attracted to children.

What Is A Paedophile?

Paedophiles (as defined by the fifth Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) are individuals who are preferentially or solely sexually attracted to prepubescent children, generally 13 years or less.

There are distinct classifications for other attractions to children, depending on the developmental stage the adult is sexually attracted to. Those who find children on the cusp of puberty sexually attractive are known as “hebephiles”. “Ephebophiles” are individuals who are sexually attracted to children who have reached puberty.

Not all paedophiles are child sex offenders, and conversely not all child sex offenders are paedophiles. Some people who sexually abuse children are not preferentially attracted to children at all. The abuse is a matter of opportunity: the child is a sexual surrogate for an unavailable adult or the abuse represents a need to dominate and control another human being.

So, to de-muddy the water, I will restrict this discussion to those with an attraction to children: preferential child sex offenders.

How Do People Access Children?

Almost 90% of sexually abused children are abused by someone they know.

Of the remaining 10%, some are victimised as part of the sex trade, where children are bought and sold for cash. This was brought into the spotlight this week with the news that a Melbourne man allegedly travelled to Los Angeles to purchase a six-year-old boy for sex.

Sadly this is not unusual. INTERPOL (the world police) has noted a recent increase in people who travel abroad to sexually abuse children; a process known as “child sex tourism”.

Sex tourism has become the scourge of the 21st century as a result of increased and cheap world travel, and Australia has its fair share of sex tourists. Many people believe they won’t get caught if they travel to (often) developing countries to abuse children or that Australian laws don’t apply abroad. Wrong.

Any Australian travelling abroad to sexually abuse children will face the same charges as if they offended on home turf. The Federal Police are well aware of this sinister activity and have already successfully prosecuted a number of individuals under Child Sex Tourism laws.

Are They Likely To Re-Offend?

When it comes to preferential – or fixated – child sex offenders, some don’t even realise what they are doing is wrong. They genuinely believe they are showing the children “love”.

Shocking as that may be to those who don’t share their sexual attraction to children, this is why one serial sex offender told me he offends. He understands that society deems what he did was wrong, but he can’t understand why this is the case.

Recidivism rates among child sex offenders are high. Around 17% of child sex offenders are likely to re-offend within two years. Those who truly believe they are not harming children through sexual contact are highly unlikely to be rehabilitated.

Governments have considered “chemical castration” – drugs to reduce the libido – as a sentencing option for judges in Australia. But this is already a voluntary option for offenders and we know it does not work. Often, child sex offenders are driven by a desire to dominate and control, not simply sexual desire.

So Why Do People Sexually Abuse Children?

There are a number of potential reasons.

Some people who have been sexually abused as children will go on to become offenders. Studies suggest anywhere between 33% and 75% of child sexual abuse victims will later become offenders.

The practical application of this information is that preventing child sexual abuse will reduce, but not eradicate, some occurrences later.

Then there are others who have not been abused as children but find children sexually attractive. Research suggests there may be a biological reason for this. Data published in Biology Letters found paedophiles’ brains are, in essence, wired to find immature faces attractive.

Improving our understanding of how paedophiles’ brains work will ultimately help identify those with a sexual interest in children, if not those who are willing and able to act on those urges.

How Many Child Sex Offenders Are Out There?

We have no idea how many people have a sexual preference for children.

One of the only ways we can gauge sexual interest in children is by plotting the ever-increasing number of websites that cater for sex offenders of all types, including child sex offenders, and those caught accessing child sexual abuse material.

To give you an idea, in 2015 INTERPOL’s collaborations with police forces all over the world had led to the arrest of more than 4,000 offenders who had accessed child sexual abuse images.

It is very hard to estimate the proportion of sex offenders in the general population, as few people admit to a sexual interest in children. One clinical researcher based a guestimate of around 2% on a European sample of male volunteers.

There is some hope clinicians may be able to help identify people with these inclinations through an analysis of brain function. Hopefully one day we may be able to understand the causation of inappropriate sexual desires towards children more readily, and prevent the cycle of abuse continuing.



Sex Addiction : A Compulsion That Hurts Partner In A Way That Other Addiction Can

Eight years into her marriage, Rachel started to wonder if her husband had lost interest in sex. “He’d always go to bed later than me and often made excuses when I brought it up,” explains the 41-year-old. “So when he sat me down one day to tell me he was a sex addict, I actually laughed – although I soon stopped when he disclosed night upon night of watching pornography for hours on end and numerous short-lived affairs. My life fell apart.”

Sex addiction hurts partners in a way that no other addiction can, says Paula Hall, who has written a book on the subject. Sex Addiction: The Partner’s Perspective is overdue, Hall believes, with thousands of partners across the UK struggling with something that evokes all the most destructive ingredients of personal pain – betrayal, infidelity, deceit and shame. “Sex addiction feels extremely personal when you’re the partner because it affects the most intimate part of your relationship in a way that, say, alcohol or drugs just don’t,” she explains.

“I could have dealt with a gambling addiction or alcoholism – anything but this,” Rachel confirms. Like most partners, she initially didn’t buy into the concept of sex addiction (“it sounded like a pretty weak excuse for an affair”) and even when she did start to believe that her husband’s behaviour was compulsive, her friends didn’t (“they’d look at me in despair, asking since when had sexual desire became a monster that can’t be controlled”), leaving her feeling isolated.

To be fair on Rachel’s friends, there is some debate about whether the term sex addiction is scientifically accurate, but the field of addiction is changing fast and emphasis is shifting from the substance to the psychological symptoms of addiction. The NHS has a website page dedicated to sex addiction. “It could involve sex with a partner, but it may also mean activities such as viewing pornography, masturbation, visiting prostitutes or using sex chat lines,” it explains, claiming that while for most people such habits don’t cause problems, sex addicts are unable to control these urges and actions.

Causes can of course be more complex, while for some – a fast-growing number, according to Hall – it’s simply opportunity-induced. “The reality of the Western world today means you can find anything you desire easily and anonymously. Indeed, you can find a whole load of stuff you don’t desire, but get hooked nonetheless,” she says.

Traditionally, most partners of sex addicts have been treated as co-dependents, says Hall. “The presumption is that the partner knew at some level what was going on and was ‘enabling’ it, which is frankly an insult. The reality for most partners I see is that they experience phenomenal shock.” The damage to self-esteem, she continues, isn’t just about the sexualised behaviour, such as visits to prostitutes that partners never knew about. It’s the fact that they’ve lived with someone so long and had no idea. “These guys, and it is mostly guys, are on the whole loving husbands, yet they did this right under your nose, leaving you unable to trust your partner, or even your own judgements,” she explains.

No wonder many partners suffer trauma, which can lead to depression, anxiety and panic attacks, rage or utter dissociation. “One confident businesswoman recently told me that the discovery that her husband is a sex addict turned her into a ‘screaming banshee – I’ve become a stranger to myself’,” Hall tells me.

Hall believes these partners need help of their own – hence her book, which is essentially a self-help guide, covering three broad areas: understanding sex addiction and why it hurts partners so much; repairing the damage it has caused to the partner; and finally, helping the partner to work out whether the relationship can survive and, either way, how to move forward.

“Ideally, partners get their own therapy,” says Hall. “The problem is that all the assumptions made by well-meaning friends about sex addiction are also shared by many therapists who are untrained in this area. Some relationship therapists work with the partner’s pain by treating it as an infidelity, for example, but it’s so much more than that – and sometimes it isn’t even that at all, with some people not actually having sex elsewhere, but using porn instead.”

No wonder Hall’s therapeutic practice, which recognises the uniqueness of the partner’s pain, has gone from strength to strength. Also providing a haven of hope is the small, but growing, number of support groups. Joy Rosendale, a sex-addiction therapist specialising in partner work, instigated the first one in the UK back in 2005, following her own experiences. “Although there is usually huge reluctance for partners to seek help, let alone come into a group, because of the privacy and shame, something happens in these groups that liberates these women – and I say women because in my experience, it is usually women who access them,” says Rosendale, who still runs the group at the Marylebone Centre, London.

Rosendale starts each 12-week support group by educating the women about sex addiction. “One of the points of this group is to depersonalise it. Sex addiction for a partner brings up feelings of ‘I’m not good enough’ and ‘He doesn’t want me’, but it’s not about the sex, it’s about the dopamine fix. Once they understand the nature of the addictive drive, sometimes they’re able to move into self-care.”

Rosendale’s anecdotal research reveals that a third of those partners seeking help decide to stay in the relationship, while a further third leave and the final third “remain stuck”.

Couples who make it work generally take a three-pronged approach, says Hall. “First, the addict goes into recovery on their own to work out causes and develop relapse prevention strategies. Second, the partner has to feel stable again, as well as understanding the addiction and working out what they want the relationship to look like in the future. Third, the couple works together on the renegotiation of the boundaries in the relationship.”

While some sex addicts move on, other partners must recognise that they’ll be living with someone in recovery for the rest of their life, says Hall. Nobody is suggesting partners should stay, she stresses. “For some partners, leaving is the right decision. But even then, they need support with rebuilding trust and reclaiming their sexuality.”

Rachel agrees. “Much as my husband tried to stop his behaviours by understanding the nature of sex addiction, he wasn’t willing to delve into the cause. I felt that meant the risk of relapse was too great, so I left. But without help of my own, I wouldn’t have been able to let go and move on with my life.”



GOP Is Adding ‘Porn Addiction’ to Its Platform, But Does It Even Exist?


This week, the Republican Party has officially added the “public health crisis” of porn to its official platform. Pornography is “destroying the life of millions,” the amendment reads. The GOP encourages states to continue fighting the “public menace” of sex videos, and Mary Forrester, the delegate who proposed the amendment, said that it’s in the interest of the nation’s children. “It’s such an insidious epidemic and there are no rules for our children,” she said in an interview. “It seems to be for young people, they do not have the discernment and so they become addicted before they have the maturity to understand the consequences.”

It also seems, if you consider the research on the subject, that “porn addiction” says more about a person’s religious background and less about the intrinsic properties of seeing two people have sex. It’s a common pastime; reportedly, 36 percent (!) of internet content is porn and 25 percent of internet searches are for porn. But is pornography, or as sex researchers like to call it, “visual sexual stimuli,” inherently bad or addictive?

“It’s certainly the case that the people who think it’s bad, it’s bad for them,” says sex researcher Nicole Prause, who’s the principal investigator at the Sexual Psychophysiology and Affective Neuroscience Lab, in Los Angeles. “The actual inherent ‘badness’ there’s very little evidence for. Those who identify with no religious orientation or are agnostic don’t have porn addiction. The label and shaming has grown out of religious values and beliefs in the culture.”

Prause was the co-author on a 2014 review of “pornography addiction” research, in which she and two co-authors found that the theory and research suffered from “poor experimental designs, limited methodological rigor, and lack of model specification,” or being consistent about which variables contribute to an analysis. It would be more useful, they reasoned, if people who reported themselves as having “addictive” behavior were understood through the lenses of gender, sensation-seeking, and libido, with conflicts created by religiosity. Also in 2014, a study of over 500 undergraduates and adults found that religiosity and moral disapproval were the best predictors of perceived addiction to pornography, even when the actual use of pornography was controlled for.

This year, The Journal of Treatment & Prevention came out with a special issue titled “Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity,” with a bunch of research around the notion of religiosity and pornography: One study found that people who identified as religious viewed less sexual content and felt bad about it when they did; a sample of 713 U.S. adults found that “higher certainty in God’s existence was associated with higher levels of perceived addiction”; and a study of 1,070 undergrads found that religiousness was associated with moral disapproval of pornography and perceived addiction to it.

And quite intriguingly, from that same journal issue, an archival analysis of the content of Christianity Today, the magazine whose cause is “beautiful orthodoxy,” found that since its founding, in 1956, to 2014, the discussion of pornography has gone from referring to it as sinful to seeing it as addictive. The magazine, says Idaho State University sociologist Jeremy Thomas, has “communicated messages about pornography that have made it more likely for evangelicals to perceive themselves as being addicted to pornography.” There’s an important lesson here: People interpret their worlds through the messages that are given to them. So if you’re taught that pornography is addictive, there’s a good chance that you’ll identify as being addicted to it. Even if, for someone who isn’t religious, it’s not.


Guide · Perspective

Young Women Aren’t Using Condoms for Totally Bogus Reasons


PSA: Condoms are the only method of contraception that prevent pregnancy and STIs. So when we came across a new study in which none of the participants said they use rubbers regularly, that gave us cause for concern.

The study, published in the Journal of Sex Research, interviewed 25 sexually active women ages 18 to 24, and found that only two of the women said it was important to them to use condoms consistently. Plus, those two didn’t actually use them every time they got down.

The participants also revealed the reasons why they weren’t fans of wrapping it up, and a lot of their excuses aren’t valid. (Sorry to blow up your spot, ladies, but you need to hear this.)

Below, we bust the five misconceptions cited:

Misconception 1: Sex feels better without one. Easy solution: lube. It’ll relieve any dryness or friction during sex, and studies show women report higher levels of satisfaction when they use lube. It’s also possible you need to go beyond the standard condom with some pleasure-enhancing varieties—we’re talking thinner, ribbed, and even heat-activated.

Also, won’t you get off easier knowing that your shag won’t end in pregnancy or a scary rash?

Misconception 2: You can get a UTI from using a condom. There are two main causes of UTIs from sex: tearing and irritation from going too rough without enough lubrication (see above re: lube) or bacteria that hangs around after smushing. None of these are the poor little condom’s fault (as long as you’re properly lubricated), so keep strapping one on.

Misconception 3: Participants said they distrust condoms as a way to prevent pregnancy, which leads to stress during sex. At ease, ladies. Condoms are 98 percent effective when used as the only method of contraception, and the chance of one breaking during sex is less than two percent. Plus, they’re the only method that protects against STIs. In conclusion: They work.

Misconception 4: Participants justified not using condoms because they were in a long-term relationship or had been with the same partner multiple times. At the very least, you shouldn’t stop using one until you and your partner have been tested for STIs. And even if you’re both in the clear, condoms are most effective against pregnancy when used regularly and correctly. That brings us to our next misconception…

Misconception 5: The women said they only used them when they thought they were most likely to get knocked up. Period sex can be super-hot! But ditching the condom because you think you won’t get pregnant during a bloody bang is not a good idea. Even though your peak fertility occurs during ovulation (not during your period), you can still get pregnant if you have unprotected sex outside that ovulation window.

The bottom line: There’s no good excuse not to wrap it up, unless you’re in the market for a baby or a big fat STI.