| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The UK case had a 17 year old girl be punished and registered as a sex offender for pictures of herself THAT SHE HAD IN HER OWN MOBILE PHONE... Talk about insanity when a law has that kind of result. To my thinking, a society that even comes close to accepting such vomit is completely deranged. Cheers.
I beg you to please hold back your understandable and withering fury for just a moment to consider that there has been a rather exteme technological jump with respect to the time period that such laws were written and our modern world. The laws need to be updated as a result, but that doesn't mean that the people wrote them with malice in their hearts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right. If you're one of the crusaders who happen to write such a law, to REALLY PROTECT THE CHILDREN (tm), one VERY OBVIOUS thought that they should all have had at some point is "What happens to someone who has photos of THEMSELVES and happens to be a kid?"
I am fully convinced they did, too.
Only, not only did they not care. Breaking eggs only goes so far.
They specifically DID NOT WANT to make such an exception, because that would mean that the law said: "Hey, a kid has the right to take photos of her own body." And that was not part of their plan.
Stop making excuses for evil old laws, thejeff.
WHEN WORKING AS INTENDED
... but that's the thing. I don't think that's working as intended, but working as a side-effect. It's meant to be (i.e. intended) a defense against exploitation.
It is instead written poorly.
The intent is good.
The execution is not.
This is the difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral - Neutral goes with the letter (in an attempt at 'the greater good'), but Good goes with the spirit (insomuch as the spirit is good).
In that case, it's clearly against the spirit of the law.
The problem is that English - like any language - isn't infinitely precise, especially when it comes to people and their intents and ideas. There is always wiggle room and room for interpretation.
This is the essence of what discretion is for.
"Oops - when folk were writing the law, they couldn't possibly conceive of this situation." is a perfectly valid thing... so long as it's followed by, "so in this case, as none are being harmed, we can let it pass, however, due to the severity of how it could accidentally hurt others, we rule that the offending material be removed." which is fair, as those in place have no way of knowing if the adult in question will make good choices with it or not.
The system is flawed. I'm not going to argue that.
I am going to argue that such laws are meant for protection and, due to being written by necessarily finite people, there will be instances in which they could not have predicted in which the law will go against the common (or individual) good. The purpose of the law is always supposed to be for both of those things (personal in all things that are viable, and common when common and personal conflict).
Sometimes, however, people just look at the text, see something that implies difference from the intent, and read their own take instead of the intended one. That happens.
The game we play is absolutely no different.
We have rules. They are meant to cover as many situations as possible. They can't. Instead, we have an arbiter - called a Game Master - who's job is to interpret the intent of the rules (or the best take based on the local, individual moment) and either enforce them or not.
Government... is more complicated. We have one set to build the laws and one set to enforce them. And a looooooooot of people in between.
This is a necessary part of governance, as, unlike a game, one person having all the power is toxic to the good of all. But the same principal is at work - one group creates the laws and another group (or individual) interprets and applies them as best as possible for their local community and situation. It... doesn't always work out, as threads on these boards can attest, and as shocking legal battles do as well.
Side effect? Considering how easy it would have been to put in an exception, it's nothing of the kind. The only price for that exception would have been giving kids the right to take photos of themselves... but that was exactly what they wanted to discourage. A few ruined lives is a very small price to pay for PROTECTING THE CHILDREN (tm).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and by the way, don't defend the s%%@ laws in the area to me. Do it to the girl who got her life ruined for it. I hear she'll be out of prison in some ten years now. Of course, then there's the sex offender registration to consider... Explain how what was done to her wasn't malicious, but meant to protect, okay?
HRMPH. I am getting too worked up over this. I hate it when people are discarded. When nobody cares, because shiny laws everyone has to respect. When the police shot someone who happened to be psychotic and they couldn't be bothered to try to calm things down and shooting was easier. When... Blah.
Signing off this discussion. Out of respect for these boards and the moderation staff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know nothing of the court case you're talking about Sissyl. I think the woman should be released, from what you described. This would be a very reasonable exception to a lot of rules and laws.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right. If you're one of the crusaders who happen to write such a law, to REALLY PROTECT THE CHILDREN (tm), one VERY OBVIOUS thought that they should all have had at some point is "What happens to someone who has photos of THEMSELVES and happens to be a kid?"
I am fully convinced they did, too.
Only, not only did they not care. Breaking eggs only goes so far.
They specifically DID NOT WANT to make such an exception, because that would mean that the law said: "Hey, a kid has the right to take photos of her own body." And that was not part of their plan.
Stop making excuses for evil old laws, thejeff.
The addage not confuse malice with incompetence goes triply for politicians.
When nobody cares, because shiny laws everyone has to respect.
What? I don't think anyone is saying the law was "correct" - I think we're in agreement that she had something terrible done to her.
Instead, what I'm saying, is that what happened clearly violated the intent.
NO ONE could have guessed at the social, technological, and cultural change that would have occurred in the last ten years, much less whenever those things were written (at least here in the 'States).
Yes, she should be cleared of charges. Done, agreed. This is literally what we're saying - in the same way GMs are encouraged to change the rules to fit the situation that they are in, the legal teams are expected (even needed) to figure out whether the law is supposed to apply in this situation or not.
It sounds like a situation where the law in question should come under review, be sent up for revision, and altered. It makes sense. That's what is supposed to happen when a law is written that doesn't take into account change. Most don't - they can't - because the writers simply couldn't predict the future or see outside of the prevailing cultural ideals accurately enough.
Exactly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay... it seems it's so common that children get sex offender status due to sexting (!!!) and similar stuff that finding the case in question is not happening off a short goggling. Sorry about that. I remember reading about it in the newspaper, about a UK story. The woman was 17 when it happened, and had photos of herself in her phone, without talk about her spreading anything.
Here is something I found that was interesting. Link
This story is about a 15-year old, who spread the photos... but notice what it says: Ohio specifically has no exception for possession when it's about pictures of the child who has them.
I also liked the story about the woman who became a sex offender for breast feeding...
Now good luck with the rest of the debate here. I will have to see if I feel up to even thinking about this kind of evil again for an internet thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay... it seems it's so common that children get sex offender status due to sexting (!!!)
Really? How many times has it happened?
Okay... it seems it's so common that children get sex offender status due to sexting (!!!)Really? How many times has it happened?
I, too, am horrified and fascinated. What are the statistics about this? I mean, bypassing juvenile delinquency straight to sex offender for sexting?
I'd be very morbidly fascinated to see statistics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should child pornography be allowed if the child consents? I understand not punishing children to the same degree as an adult but no punishment seems like it would open a very big loophole.
Should child pornography be allowed if the child consents? I understand not punishing children to the same degree as an adult but no punishment seems like it would open a very big loophole.
I actually do agree with you.
(I would personally tend to suggest that the most likely thing would be counseling with the child or parents, perhaps restrictions on electronic media access for a time, or something similar - worked out with the parents or other guardians who did not commit problematic activities, and go on from there. Learning experiences, not life-destroying ones.)
My only point is that labeling a child a sex offender for taking and keeping pictures of themselves (when acting on their own) is... I don't really have the vocabulary for a singular encompassing word, but both weird and terrible.
I vaguely recall the 80s picture scandals too - ludicrous things, really, brought about by overzealous individuals who simply went too far. Most unfortunate.
It also seems pretty clear that the 'evil' person in question from your link, Sissyl, is, in fact, the prosecutor for targeting this girl in specific... :/
That's pretty terrible.
EDIT: Thanks, thejeff. Good to know.
In the US, though, many "children" (read: minors) can consent. Age of consent laws vary from state to state. It is not, in fact, a universal 18 year old thing. Not all states with under 18 consent laws have Romeo laws either. Plainly, in some states a 16 year old can hook up with a 40 year old, and it's perfectly legal. The same is true in Canada, though, I don't know of consent laws are different from province to province. However, as a minor, they still can't enter into contracts so they couldn't form a business.
Society has come a long way but it has a long way to go. One of those things that needs to be understood legally as well as socially (which, in practice, most people do recognize this) is that there isn't just a divide between "child" and "adult." There's that adolescent part where you're neither. Even bona fide pedophilia requires the minor to be a certain age or younger, and I want to say that age is like 13 or younger or something else thereabouts. I've honestly not come across many parents with a hard line "my child can't do x" stance on many things from drinking to having sex. There's more often than not the simple stated desire for safety which the law tries to accomplish however hamfisted that may be.
I'm personally of the belief that people are going to do what they're going to do. The very best scenario in any practical sense is to regulate instead of trying to ban behaviors. The political reality to what that means in many of these apparently unpleasant topics is that to advocate such basically gets you smeared so the laws and policies tend to wax draconian. This doesn't stop parents from letting their kids drink, smoke, or bring home lovers often even with the other parent's knowledge. I've also only lived in the midwest where things are very "as long as the community as a whole is safe, have fun." I get the impression things are much more strict and people tend to soapbox much more readily on the coasts and large cities.
But, as I understand it, the laws regarding pornography are federal, or at least consistent. You may be able to legally consent to sex under 18 (or 16 or even younger, depending on your partner and the state laws), but you can't legally take pictures of it. Doing so, even for your private use is child pornography and can get you in real serious trouble.
That's my understanding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leaving the sexting/child porn argument aside for the nonce, how does the original question change if we consider just written or drawn pornography? So that there isn't the question of exploitation or harm in the creation of the stuff.
Simulations are explicitly legal. Though, iirc, it was made so through courts and not actual law.
Leaving the sexting/child porn argument aside for the nonce, how does the original question change if we consider just written or drawn pornography? So that there isn't the question of exploitation or harm in the creation of the stuff.Simulations are explicitly legal. Though, iirc, it was made so through courts and not actual law.
Not child pornography (in the US, at least).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leaving the sexting/child porn argument aside for the nonce, how does the original question change if we consider just written or drawn pornography? So that there isn't the question of exploitation or harm in the creation of the stuff.
Art that goes straight from the mind of the creator to the audience is much more ideal in some ways, as, as you said, there isn't the potential for exploitation or harm of adult film actors.
At that point the effect is mostly just on the audience. Some brutally extreme fantasies can be indulged without them actually having to be done to a real person.
The ED effect on some men may still happen with overindulgence, not sure.
So yeah, at that point mostly you are just looking at what influence it has over its audience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not child pornography (in the US, at least).Leaving the sexting/child porn argument aside for the nonce, how does the original question change if we consider just written or drawn pornography? So that there isn't the question of exploitation or harm in the creation of the stuff.Simulations are explicitly legal. Though, iirc, it was made so through courts and not actual law.
It's not child pornography if there are no children involved (i.e. a wholly simulated scene).
The Supreme Court ruled it was fine in a 6-3 majority.
In Germany it was tried to even have porn showing adults dressing like minors to be treated as child pornography and people who watch it as pedophiles.
And that included drawn porn.
Someone I know stopped reading Harry Potter fanfiction because it often includes sex scenes between minor and adult fictional persons. And the person in question was afraid to be sued for being pedophile for downloading and reading that stuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still, pornography has been shown to have some influence in causing a few issues. Younger viewers often have their expectations of sexuality influenced by pornography (Is my body suppose to be look like that? Is that the most pleasurable way to have sex? What the hell is this 'foreplay' real women are expecting me to do? Am I suppose to do what those women in the videos do?)
I would like to see some real evidence of that from a legitimate study. My understanding is that this is little more than anecdotal, Oprah-style pseudo psychology. I have never seen a genuine medical study that correlated a real connection between porn and body image, and I wouldn't expect to see one.
Kids generally get their body image problems from peers, from the locker room, from parents, etc. Those are REAL influences that act upon a person's psyche day after day after day, representing data from people who actually matter to us. There's no comparison. As for being clumsy at sex... how many of us were the Greatest of Lovers right out the gate on our first dates? Why blame that on porn? That's just part of growing up.
I have seen a legitimate study from Johns Hopkins, no less, that correlated a possible decline - yes, DECLINE - in reported violent sexual offenses in areas where porn was more readily available.
As with all things that are fun, I think porn needs to be taken in moderation. As the father of a friend once said when we were randy teens, "you don't want to skin the derby."
Have you gone looking for any?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still, pornography has been shown to have some influence in causing a few issues. Younger viewers often have their expectations of sexuality influenced by pornography (Is my body suppose to be look like that? Is that the most pleasurable way to have sex? What the hell is this 'foreplay' real women are expecting me to do? Am I suppose to do what those women in the videos do?)
I would like to see some real evidence of that from a legitimate study. My understanding is that this is little more than anecdotal, Oprah-style pseudo psychology. I have never seen a genuine medical study that correlated a real connection between porn and body image, and I wouldn't expect to see one.
Kids generally get their body image problems from peers, from the locker room, from parents, etc. Those are REAL influences that act upon a person's psyche day after day after day, representing data from people who actually matter to us. There's no comparison. As for being clumsy at sex... how many of us were the Greatest of Lovers right out the gate on our first dates? Why blame that on porn? That's just part of growing up.
I have seen a legitimate study from Johns Hopkins, no less, that correlated a possible decline - yes, DECLINE - in reported violent sexual offenses in areas where porn was more readily available.
As with all things that are fun, I think porn needs to be taken in moderation. As the father of a friend once said when we were randy teens, "you don't want to skin the derby."
I have no problem with people calling b!%!&++# on my claims, especially because, like always, I am too lazy to hunt for links to support them and am simply making them from memory of things I read and conversations I've had in the past.
I can tell you though (anecdotal evidence, not worth much)that my own expectations of sex and body image were heavily influenced by porn when I was younger and I essentially copied some porn scenes with equally clueless partners as if it were a manual(a really, really bad manual). I never coerced anyone, but it was pretty bad sometimes.
Growing up in a heavily religious area porn was pretty much all my peer group had to go on and it is for me hard to deny it was an influence(though not the sole influence).
Though perhaps I was the stupidest kid ever and my experience was unique. *shrug* Even now I notice media of all types has an influence on me.
I understand too that proper education would have solved many of my problems and that is not porn's fault and it isn't porn's fault when people under 18 consume it either because it is specifically designed for adults.
I have never claimed porn causes violent sexual offenses, it wouldn't surprise me if it lessened it, it prolly has an effect similar to TV in calming people down.
Leaving aside the discussion about registering kids as sex offenders, which really makes me too angry to productively participate in...
Porn is a classic donkey. I.e. Something people blame for anything they can think of. Other classic donkeys are failing economy, wars, education and so on. Usually, these things get blamed for loose if any reason. Many people don't like porn, so they attribute the evils of the world to it.
Porn is an industry. If you have any expectation of what it will do for you as a customer or an actor, beyond a very few basics, it will disappoint you. Remembering that will help you relate to it better.
Of the evils it is blamed for, the two most common are bad body image among youths and bad sex lives of adults. Someone once said that the difference between women with porn bodies and fashion bodies is that the former have boobs. Certainly, the body image problem exists, but porn seems to me to be at least a tick more forgiving than fashion. Considering the comparative levels consumed of porn and fashion among young women (this may be a bad assumption, I dunno), I would hesitate to primarily blame porn, though. Also, amateur porn shows a far larger body spectrum.
For the sex lives of adults... Oh my. It really isn't just sex, is it now? More than half of marriages end in divorce. Couple therapy is swelling as an industry. Women are getting far more equal to men in regards to addiction and violence. Children are put off until later and later. Let's just say that there are many who would love nothing better than to blame porn for this. The truth is, many adults these days are frequently pathologically self-absorbed and see no meaning, hope or principles in life. A bad sexual life shouldn't come as a surprise to someone where everything else in life is bad.
Oh, If this is what you are referencing Bruunwald:
Some brutally extreme fantasies can be indulged without them actually having to be done to a real person.
I meant having them done to a real person in porn, not that the viewer was the one doing it. i.e. you can observe a beating and a rape with drawings of characters in a book instead of an adult film star acting them out which, even in entirely consensual play acting, can be rough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@-Sissyl, There is a difference between scapegoating something and acknowledging something has an effect on you.
Porn is often a scapegoat in our society, does that automatically mean it can't have any kind of effect on a person, positive or negative?
As to the sex life part what I was referring to was when I was 15-16 and the bad sex part was referring to how I made my partners feel; worthless and degraded. (though it sucked in all other aspects too)
I'm not demonizing porn, I never was.
I watch porn and enjoy it.
I am not blaming porn for anything either, only speaking to what I see as some issues around it, including that I believe it can influence perceptions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Certainly, it could have an effect. But one thing you can be absolutely certain of, is that IF the porn haters had some kind of real scientific evidence that it is harmful, everyone everywhere would know about it. Harmful media effects have been a watchword since a long, long while back now, and to my knowledge there is nothing conclusive to show for all the research done.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I generally don't link stuff that isn't music or comedy because I am lazy but here is a study of interest. (full text downloaded on the right)
It generally agrees with your conclusions, but I am fair so I'll post it.
I still maintain media has influence over us(though maybe I should make it more clear that influence isn't mind control or brain washing, just naturally leading your thoughts down certain avenues and possibly changing your perceptions)
Edit: Well, I guess the study agrees with me on that to an extent, but the kids are able to deal with it in a healthy manner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something worth noting is what the research tells you about the effect of porn on viewers.
It essentially leaves you wanting to do what you see. So if porn showing people just having sex leaves you interested in sex.
This sounds fine but one of the causes of partner rape is wanting to get the woman to do things the man has seen in porn she doesn't want to do. If you know what is in a lot of hard core porn you can easily see how this can happen.
I think it also means the law in Australia is sensible. You can show sex but not sex with violence or abuse. This is in contrast to Japan where rape is a big theme in porn and other media. Worse, rape where the woman loves it in the end.
Do you have links to this? Because such a powerful statement, if backed up by hard numbers, is a really big deal.
Note - I'm not denying or challenging this. Pornography definitively triggers the Pavalovian response, which is perfect for conditioning.
I'm just curious about sources, and how much solid evidence for "I see, must do" actually exists as a link between them in pornographic material. Is the response "Yeah, I want that kind of thing in real life!" or "Yeah, I wanna see more of that kind of thing on the tv! ... ew, never in real life!" (as I know that there are certainly elements of my own fantasy worlds that contradict my preferences in the real world).
I am sorry I don't have a source off-hand for you. The source for the effect of porn was a radio documentary referencing research as I recall.
I read some studies online about rape by partners. The one thing I can't recall is if the study made a link with porn, which is actually very important.
I know this isn't a satisfactory answer. There are a lot of assertions about porn and its effects. And I imagine people pushing a viewpoint claim scientific support.
And I thought I was being moderate. Porn leads to you wanting to have sex, not rape et al.
Thank you. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something worth noting is what the research tells you about the effect of porn on viewers.
It essentially leaves you wanting to do what you see. So if porn showing people just having sex leaves you interested in sex.
This sounds fine but one of the causes of partner rape is wanting to get the woman to do things the man has seen in porn she doesn't want to do. If you know what is in a lot of hard core porn you can easily see how this can happen.
I think it also means the law in Australia is sensible. You can show sex but not sex with violence or abuse. This is in contrast to Japan where rape is a big theme in porn and other media. Worse, rape where the woman loves it in the end.
Do you have links to this? Because such a powerful statement, if backed up by hard numbers, is a really big deal.
Note - I'm not denying or challenging this. Pornography definitively triggers the Pavalovian response, which is perfect for conditioning.
I'm just curious about sources, and how much solid evidence for "I see, must do" actually exists as a link between them in pornographic material. Is the response "Yeah, I want that kind of thing in real life!" or "Yeah, I wanna see more of that kind of thing on the tv! ... ew, never in real life!" (as I know that there are certainly elements of my own fantasy worlds that contradict my preferences in the real world).
I am sorry I don't have a source off-hand for you. The source for the effect of porn was a radio documentary referencing research as I recall.
I read some studies online about rape by partners. The one thing I can't recall is if the study made a link with porn, which is actually very important.
I know this isn't a satisfactory answer. There are a lot of assertions about porn and its effects. And I imagine people pushing a viewpoint claim scientific support.
And I thought I was being moderate. Porn leads to you wanting to have sex, not rape et al.
I am always skeptical of anecdotal stories backed by studies or not regarding the type of sex one watches and the type of sex they desire or have. I watch and read tons of sex that I am not interested in or just isnt my thing and it has yet to have an effect on my sex life. I worry that a lot of it is based on fears of "spreading the gay" or "recruitment" fears/fantasies some people cling to regarding all sorts of sexual activity. In my experience sex just doesn't work that way.
Although, if I remember right the study I linked above does contain interviews with girls who say how porn makes them think and feel about things and it's somewhat in line with my OP. (Can't remember clearly though, only read the study once a long time ago. Also, too lazy to reread!)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, I have been up for thirty six hours and my blessed sleep still isn't here to relieve me, my brain has been getting progressively more incoherent the last 12 hours so it's time to go post in less serious threads!
I will say the idea that porn affects body image negatively seems pretty foolish this day and age, at least for females. If you're female and you have a body, there's a girl out there on camera with the same shape getting paid to put that body through some very sexual acts for money, whether she's large, small, curvy, stick like, or anything in between. There's porn out there for every body type. Where a plus sized model still looks pretty damn thin compared to the average American, a plus sized porn actress is quite visibly plus sized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still, pornography has been shown to have some influence in causing a few issues. Younger viewers often have their expectations of sexuality influenced by pornography (Is my body suppose to be look like that? Is that the most pleasurable way to have sex? What the hell is this 'foreplay' real women are expecting me to do? Am I suppose to do what those women in the videos do?)
I would like to see some real evidence of that from a legitimate study. My understanding is that this is little more than anecdotal, Oprah-style pseudo psychology. I have never seen a genuine medical study that correlated a real connection between porn and body image, and I wouldn't expect to see one.
Kids generally get their body image problems from peers, from the locker room, from parents, etc. Those are REAL influences that act upon a person's psyche day after day after day, representing data from people who actually matter to us. There's no comparison. As for being clumsy at sex... how many of us were the Greatest of Lovers right out the gate on our first dates? Why blame that on porn? That's just part of growing up.
I have seen a legitimate study from Johns Hopkins, no less, that correlated a possible decline - yes, DECLINE - in reported violent sexual offenses in areas where porn was more readily available.
As with all things that are fun, I think porn needs to be taken in moderation. As the father of a friend once said when we were randy teens, "you don't want to skin the derby."
I will say the idea that porn affects body image negatively seems pretty foolish this day and age, at least for females. If you're female and you have a body, there's a girl out there on camera with the same shape getting paid to put that body through some very sexual acts for money, whether she's large, small, curvy, stick like, or anything in between. There's porn out there for every body type. Where a plus sized model still looks pretty damn thin compared to the average American, a plus sized porn actress is quite visibly plus sized.
I am not so sure about this.
Porn might be one reason why certain beauty surgeries (if there is one I don't know the right term) involving the female private parts are becoming more and more popular. Not speaking about breasts.| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
If porn gets lambasted for setting unrealistic expectations that are ultimately harmful can we level the same charge at romantic comedies?
I think a girl trading sex for pizza is a heck of a lot more realistic than finding a man that is young but has had time to amass a large amount of wealth, gets paid a lot but still has all the time in the world to hit the gym AND devote to you, handles a high stress job but doesn't lose his hair, is caring and sensitive but still knows how to fight and yet is STILL not inexplicably unmarried but also attracted to a woman only because of how special they are, not because they're beautiful.
Heck, I think guardians of the galaxy might rate as more likely than that.....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although, if I remember right the study I linked above does contain interviews with girls who say how porn makes them think and feel about things and it's somewhat in line with my OP. (Can't remember clearly though, only read the study once a long time ago. Also, too lazy to reread!)
I'm sure the study was quite good, and moreover not only are you entitled to your opinion, I don't necessarily disagree. I was more making an observation than anything else, posting out loud.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still awake, so I've stumbled back.
If porn gets lambasted for setting unrealistic expectations that are ultimately harmful can we level the same charge at romantic comedies?
I think a girl trading sex for pizza is a heck of a lot more realistic than finding a man that is young but has had time to amass a large amount of wealth, gets paid a lot but still has all the time in the world to hit the gym AND devote to you, handles a high stress job but doesn't lose his hair, is caring and sensitive but still knows how to fight and yet is STILL not inexplicably unmarried but also attracted to a woman only because of how special they are, not because they're beautiful.
Heck, I think guardians of the galaxy might rate as more likely than that.....
I agree with this actually, I do think media can do a lot to set up expectations, influencing how we see things. Porn just has a lot of other issues too. Not that something needs to be done about either.