Article Misogynistic Article: "Porn Didn’t Destroy This Marriage—Her Porn Phobia Could"
Article Misogynistic Article: "Porn Didn’t Destroy This Marriage—Her Porn Phobia Could"
This is, obviously, insane. Saying, "If she'd been fine with his porn, the marriage would have been fine," is like saying, "If she'd been fine with his affair, the marriage would have been fine."
She had a boundary against porn in the relationship, he agreed to it, and then he chose to cross it. All the fallout is from his deliberate choice to cross her boundary and deceive her. The author blames her for destroying the marriage because she reacted to his betrayal. But she is not obligated to forgive his boundary violation because the marriage was "otherwise fine," any more than you're obligated to forgive a partner who was outwardly loving but secretly having an affair.
When you learn someone has been lying to you, changing your opinion of them is the logical response. You're not "destroying a good relationship," because that good relationship never truly existed.
If someone is a vegan, they find a partner who claims to also be vegan, and then they learn that the partner has secretly been eating meat the whole time, the vegan has a right to feel betrayed and end the relationship. It doesn't matter what your personal thoughts on veganism are. The problem is the deception.
By claiming to have the same ethics as someone when you secretly don't, you're denying them the autonomy to choose a partner who shares their values. You're saying, "My right to benefit from this relationship is more important than your right to know the truth." It is a fundamentally selfish behavior.
Also, "porn phobia" is a disgusting term. It reduces a principled objection to a misogynistic, exploitive industry, to an irrational emotional response. Men always characterize women's negative view of porn as "jealousy," because attacking women is much easier than actually addressing the ethical objections to porn.
I feel bad for the gaslighting any female patients of this "therapist" have had to experience. He is using a position of authority to tell women that their healthy aversion to seeing their sex degraded is wrong, and they should suppress their feelings of discomfort. Porn is just a "fantasy," after all—who cares that the "fantasy" involves recordings of real women engaged in real actions, popularizes dangerous and demeaning sex acts, and is shown to reinforce misogynistic attitudes? You're just a controlling harpy if you think about all that.
I found this article lately, and it is a perfect example of how men will attack and pathologize women to deflect from their own behavior. This "sex therapist" recounts a story of a man who told his wife he doesn't watch porn, then watched it in secret (therefore repeatedly deceiving her). The author frames the woman as a villian who was "too rigid," essentially suggesting she "forced" him to lie by having strict ethics (the horror of having ethics!). He accuses her of destroying the marriage over some "lousy porn."
This is, obviously, insane. Saying, "If she'd been fine with his porn, the marriage would have been fine," is like saying, "If she'd been fine with his affair, the marriage would have been fine."
She had a boundary against porn in the relationship, he agreed to it, and then he chose to cross it. All the fallout is from his deliberate choice to cross her boundary and deceive her. The author blames her for destroying the marriage because she reacted to his betrayal. But she is not obligated to forgive his boundary violation because the marriage was "otherwise fine," any more than you're obligated to forgive a partner who was outwardly loving but secretly having an affair.
When you learn someone has been lying to you, changing your opinion of them is the logical response. You're not "destroying a good relationship," because that good relationship never truly existed.
If someone is a vegan, they find a partner who claims to also be vegan, and then they learn that the partner has secretly been eating meat the whole time, the vegan has a right to feel betrayed and end the relationship. It doesn't matter what your personal thoughts on veganism are. The problem is the deception.
By claiming to have the same ethics as someone when you secretly don't, you're denying them the autonomy to choose a partner who shares their values. You're saying, "My right to benefit from this relationship is more important than your right to know the truth." It is a fundamentally selfish behavior.
Also, "porn phobia" is a disgusting term. It reduces a principled objection to a misogynistic, exploitive industry, to an irrational emotional response. Men always characterize women's negative view of porn as "jealousy," because attacking women is much easier than actually addressing the ethical objections to porn.
I feel bad for the gaslighting any female patients of this "therapist" have had to experience. He is using a position of authority to tell women that their healthy aversion to seeing their sex degraded is wrong, and they should suppress their feelings of discomfort. Porn is just a "fantasy," after all—who cares that the "fantasy" involves recordings of real women engaged in real actions, popularizes dangerous and demeaning sex acts, and is shown to reinforce misogynistic attitudes? You're just a controlling harpy if you think about all that.
