The legendary football coach Joe Paterno was laid to rest this past week, with his passing reigniting the recent debate over whether he could or should have done more to protect young boys from sexual abuse. Despite the fact that it’s his former assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, facing over 50 counts of child sexual abuse, the public’s venomous wrath has focused on Paterno. The few comments he made about the situation, before succumbing to lung cancer January 22, have been ridiculed as seeming incredulous.

As a sexuality educator, I have not been surprised by Paterno’s explanations about his reactions to Sandusky’s alleged activities and how he fulfilled his legal obligations of reporting what he learned to his superiors. Like it or not, his statements are reflective of how most individuals, including his critics, would respond.

“He didn’t want to get specific.”

In an interview with the Washington Post, Paterno explained how assistant coach, Mike McQueary, had come to his home one Saturday evening in 2002 to inform him that he’d seen what looked like inappropriate touching or fondling between Sandusky and a young boy in the shower at Penn State’s Lasch Football Building. Many have criticized Paterno and McQueary for not discussing the details of what McQueary saw.

Reality check: How easy would it be for you to talk about sex with your superior or employee, especially when there’s a 50-year age difference and power dynamic involved? Despite rampant popular press discussions about sex, it’s still hard for individuals of all ages to talk about sex. Whether it’s two lovers, a parent and child, teacher and students… most people do not have the comfortability and language to effectively communicate about sexuality, especially when it involves a matter causing anxiety and distress, and accusations against people that you know and respect.

So it should come as no shocker that these full grown men did not get into the nitty gritty of what took place, especially since Paterno described McQueary as having been upset. Like it or not, their lack of discourse is the norm. Often starved of sexuality education, let alone any forum in which to learn about sex communication, most people don’t have the lingo, confidence, or ability to have sex conversations. The end results: miscommunication and a failure to adequately address problems. 

“To be frank with you I didn’t know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man. “

It has only been recently that people, namely younger generations who are fortunate enough to get a taste of sexual assault prevention education, have become aware that males can be raped. Consider that it is only in the last month that the FBI changed its definition of rape, announcing that it will include the rapes of men and statutory rape in its official statistics (for its annual Uniform Crime Reports). Until now, it only counted the “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”

Given the generation that Paterno is from, it’s understandable that any rape awareness he might’ve been exposed to only focused on women. Regardless of age, both males and females have a hard time grasping how a male can be raped since he doesn’t have a vagina. Add to this the fact that a successful child sexual predator is characterized as clever, secretive, charming, pleasant, engaging, skilled at reassuring that nothing is wrong, an expert at giving a convincing façade… and many end up getting duped on who can do what to whom.

“I didn’t know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn’t work out that way.”

Ever hear of the PLISSIT model? Used by therapists and healthcare practitioners to assess and manage clients’ sexuality, this assessment is grounded in professionals making referrals when they’re out of their league in handling a situation. Failure to refer, let alone try to address a matter where one has no training, background, or expertise, would be considered unethical.

So why is Paterno being faulted for the fact that he didn’t follow up more aggressively with his superiors or the police about Sandusky’s alleged activities? Like so many other professionals in so many other fields, he did the right thing, trusting that his superiors would be better able to handle the situation than he could. It’s not his fault that they didn’t.

“So I sat around. It was a Saturday. Waited till Sunday because I wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing. And then I called my superiors… I had never had to deal with something like that. And I didn’t feel adequate."

Many have thrown harsh criticism at Paterno for not acting right away. While a heroic, Superman response would’ve been ideal, it’s just that – a fantasy. And maybe it should stay so given that levying sexual abuse charges against somebody is a huge deal. Any misstep could end up ruining innocent lives if the accused isn’t guilty.

Between processing the shock of the situation, the wave of emotions unleashed, and a plan of action, it was right of Paterno to “sleep on it.” Isn’t it Proverbs 19:2 that reads: “Enthusiasm without knowledge is no good; Haste makes mistakes”?

“In hindsight, I wish that I had done more.”

This statement doesn’t incriminate Paterno any more than it should anyone else. When it comes to sexual assault of any kind against anybody, almost everybody could say the same. Everyone should be saying they could’ve done more to prevent sexual abuse.

“I don’t want to walk away from this thing bitter. I want to be helpful.”

Despite the fact that Paterno was terminated via phone after over 60 years of service at Penn State, he and his wife, Sue, continued their generous philanthropy, donating another $100,000 to the school in December. In spite of people brutally questioning a life he’d defined with honor, academics, and sportsmanship, he chose to be positive. How many people could say that?

The factoid that males think about sex every 7 seconds has long been claimed, but is it actually true? Never sourced, this supposed stat seems like an impossibility given it amounts to an individual having about 8,000 sex thoughts in a 16-hour waking period.

According to the Kinsey Report Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 54% of men think about sex daily or a few times per day, and 43% report think about it several times a week or month. Re-read the second half of that last sentence. More than 4 out of 10 guys don’t even think about sex once in a day, let alone every 7 seconds!

Data out of Ohio State University, published in a recent issue of The Journal of Sex Research, further challenges the ‘7-seconds’ notion. The 120 male college students reported thinking about sex anywhere from 1 to 388 times per day, making for a median (middle number) of almost 19 sex thoughts every day. Investigators also found that participants thought about sex no more than they thought about food and sleep, nearly 18 and 11 times per day respectively.

So, counter to the 7-second claim, it can be safely said that the vast majority of men are not “obsessed” with sex – at least no more than the women.

In asking 163 women to also track their sleep, food, or sexual thoughts, researchers found that the median for number of times the ladies thought about sex was 10 times per day. Medians calculated for sleep and food were 8.5 and 15 times per day respectively.

For both genders, participants who scored higher on an erotophilia measurement, examining their comfort with their sexuality, were the individuals who were likeliest to be thinking about sex. Women scoring high on the desire to be socially acceptable were the ones likelier to report thinking less frequently about sex.

Researchers concluded that one’s emotional orientation towards sex is going to be a much better predictor than being male or female when it comes to how often a person thinks about sex. They further emphasized that there’s no real basis for the belief that men think about sex so much more than women. If anything, men spend just a tad more time thinking about their basic human needs.

They’re just harmless fun, right? Saturated with sultry images, seductive headlines, and tongue-in-cheek lifestyle guidance, lads’ mags have been hailed as every guy’s monthly James Bond-esque fix. But new research out of Middlesex University and the University of Surrey suggests that these magazines could be justifying hostile, sexist attitudes, ultimately influencing young men to mirror the attitudes of convicted rapists.

When psychologists presented study participants with descriptions of women that were quoted straight from the men’s mags, like FHM and Loaded, as well as comments convicted rapists have made about women in the book “The Rapist Files,” most could not differentiate the source of the quotes. Here’s a taste of what subjects were exposed to:

• “There’s a certain way you can tell that a girl wants to have sex… The way they dress, they flaunt themselves.”
• “A girl may like anal sex because it makes her feel incredibly naughty and she likes feeling like a dirty slut. If this is the case, you can try all sorts of humiliating acts to help live out her filthy fantasy.”
• “Filthy talk can be such a turn on for a girl… no one wants to be shagged by a mouse… A few compliments won’t do any harm either… ‘I bet you want it from behind you dirty whore’...”

Equally disturbing was the fact that male study participants, ages 18 to 46, identified themselves with the language stated by convicted rapists more than that of the magazines. As explained in an upcoming issue of the British Journal of Psychology, researchers actually led the men to believe that the rapists’ quotes, like those suggesting that women lead men on or want sex even when they say “no,” were drawn from the male magazines.

Investigators further presented men and women, ages 19 to 30, with a list of quotes, asking them to rank them according to how derogatory they were deemed, plus identify the source of the quotes. Both genders rated the men’s magazine quotes as somewhat more derogatory, proving themselves a bit savvier in categorizing the quotes by source than by chance. Investigators concluded that lad magazines may normalize hostile sexism, in part, because what’s said in a popular press magazine is regarded as more acceptable.

So what now? What is a society to do with magazines that legitimize sexist attitudes and behaviors? Should they be banned altogether or become a “controlled substance”?

Earlier this year, citing concerns about their content, many major gas stations and supermarket chains in the United Kingdom moved lads’ mags to the top shelf, some installing modesty boards to hide the front cover. Yet such moves do nothing to stop the impact of such reads on readers. And unless more is done in responsibly depicting women in the media, these mags will continue to indicate that sexism and the portrayal of females as sex object are both okay and totally normal.

Until the lad mag industry does more to regulate its content so that it doesn’t support violence against women and gender discrimination, readers need to start boycotting such reads. The public needs to get active in putting pressure on these publications to stop sounding like rapists. Politicians and schools need to be bombarded with calls to support comprehensive sexuality education programs.

Lad magazines should not be a male’s primary source of education. But the way sex education currently stands in most countries, they have become a default resource. With young people receiving little formal schooling on human sexuality, let alone navigating its many issues, chances to challenge views that normalize the language of sex offenders are being missed.

Quality sex education, advocacy and awareness are the only surefire ways to enlighten consumers as to the messages they’re receiving, and to inspire them to oppose publications that cast women as sex objects. 

Like every Penn Stater, I’m absolutely heartbroken by the child sexual abuse charges being levied against former football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. I am sickened and disgusted by the perjury charges being faced by the university’s athletic director, Tim Curley, and vice president for finance and business, Gary Schultz, both of whom are accused of failing to alert police of sexual abuse allegations.

This weekend’s initial shock and anger has been replaced by a deep sadness and a sense of betrayal. As an alumni and somebody who spent her formative years (10 to 21-years-old) in State College, this is very personal. My seemingly idyllic community has been tarnished; my cherished football team is being shamed and disgraced; and my alma mater’s slogan of “Success with honor” is being mocked.

Yet, worst of all, all indicators are that at least eight boys were violated over 15 years by Sandusky, with the system, at every level, failing to protect them. An outraged community and nation want answers and justice. The debate has just begun as far as who is guilty for what they did, or rather what they did not do in preventing more abuse.

While we may not be able to right any wrongs, in addition to letting the judicial system run its due course, there’s a lot that can be done in combating future incidences of child sexual abuse. There’s plenty that can be done in positively moving forward, and beginning the process of healing.  

Donate to an organization that seeks to end childhood sexual abuse via awareness, education, and advocacy, e.g., the National Association to Prevent Sexual Abuse of Children. Don’t overlook supporting groups that assist victims of all ages, of all types of sexual violence, like RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network).

Talk to your children. If you’re a parent or caregiver, take the time to educate your child about good touch/bad touch, people who make them uncomfortable, people who give them special gifts, and times that it’s not okay to keep a secret, even if they’ve made a promise to do such. Take advantage of the fact that troubling headliners offer teachable moments. Whether or not you realize it, your children are not immune to what they’re seeing and hearing about this scandal, especially if it involves their heroes. They want and need your guidance, and they need to learn how to effectively communicate about sex and inappropriate sexual advances.

Support comprehensive sexuality education programs. The lesson plans of such curricula often include informing youth that no one else is to see or touch their private parts. Workshops also encourage them to report sexual abuse to a trusted adult.

Become an advocate. Learn what you can do to assist those who have been sexually abused by contacting local or national groups that seek to protect children. (See the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Child Welfare Information Gateway website in getting started.)

If you’re a Penn Stater, stay proud. Yes, this is one of the university’s darkest moments, and the actions of a few have brought dishonor upon us all. But the bad apples in the bunch should not take away from the many things we have to be proud of in saying “We are Penn State.” We are a community that does not and will not tolerate sexual wrongdoings of any kind. We are also a community that contributes positively to society in so many ways, like Dance Marathon, which raises millions of dollars ever year to fight pediatric cancer.

If you’re not a Penn Stater, don’t judge. Sadly, you need to do no more than look in your own backyard to find that the same wrongs are being committed against other children. According to the National Resource Council, at least 20-24% of the U.S. population has been sexually abused. It’s an issue affecting every community, and more needs to be done about it everywhere.

Support the victims. People who have shared with me that they were sexually abused as children have also stated that others’ reactions are sometimes as bad as the violation itself. Failure to withhold one’s shock, horror, and repulsion can leave a survivor feeling guilty, dirty, and, as an adult, undesirable. So keep how appalled you are in check and strive to provide assistance.

Continue to stand behind PSU students and athletes. They are not at fault. They have done nothing wrong. Whether studying for their next big exam, acting as a student ambassador, or preparing for their next major sporting event this weekend, those currently at the university and representing it need your support more than ever.

Practice compassion. While it’s hard not to get caught up in the lynch mob wanting to hold people accountable for what they could’ve, should’ve done, it’s important to remember that – guilty or not – people’s lives are being ruined. Family members of those involved are being branded with a scarlet letter as well. A lot of good people who have done no wrong are hurting and need your empathy.

Resist publicly charging anyone as guilty until it’s proven so by a court. From opinion columns to blogs to Facebook conversations, there are a lot of strong opinions out there about this scandal amidst misinformation and speculation. And while everyone is certainly entitled to give their two-cents’ worth, let’s not forget that reputations are on the line– ones like JoePa’s, which have proven themselves exemplary until this story broke.

Become legally informed. Learn not only what the law in your state requires when it comes to reporting suspected abuse, but also know who to contact and how, e.g., a ChildLine Service, should you ever learn of a potential or definite violation. Inaction is often bred by ignorance.   

Take care of yourself. Sexual abuse is an emotionally charged, incredibly difficult travesty to process and deal with. There is no shame in finding somebody to talk to, whether a religious leader, counselor, or support group.

With swimming being my sanity and writing my way of dealing with all of this, the two are helping to keep the tears at bay. Hopefully, every one of you can find ways to constructively handle this situation. Doing something positive, in the face of adversity, can ultimately have all of us doing our part in protecting our children.

They must be right. They’re based at Princeton! How often have academics been taken for their word simply because they namedrop their university, even when what they have to say is complete garbage? Spouting their values instead of research data, professors have been known to do their damage in claiming authority on a subject matter simply because of where they teach – and not because of what they teach or their area of expertise.

In a recent editorial to the New York Times, Robert George and Melissa Moschella incorrectly warn parents that students in comprehensive sexuality education are “encouraged to disregard what you told him about sex.” They falsely claim that classes sexualize children in a “values free” environment as teachers push their own sexual ideology. They liken mandated sex ed efforts to those of “forcing Muslim parents to send their children to a Catholic Mass.”

Any lay reader is going to, understandably, find all of this absolutely horrific. Even those (the majority) who want and support comprehensive sex education for their children are going to question such tactics, especially when they’re cited by the Ivy League. Given the Princeton affiliation, parents are likelier to believe all of the aforementioned warped information than they are to dispute its validity, let alone if the writers truly have the credentials to be commenting on this topic.

Most parents aren’t going to question that George, a politics professor, and Moschella, a political theory doctoral student, have no background in human sexuality. Many will disregard that George is, in fact, founder of the American Principles Project, a right-wing, conservative organization, which fights efforts like same-sex marriage. Many won’t wonder why the writers use zero data, let alone evidence-based research, to back their claims. The Princeton creds override it all.

As any comprehensive sexuality education expert will attest, efforts involve working with the family’s sexual attitudes, values and beliefs, and how these play into responsible decision-making. Lessons seek to support the parents’ sexual ideology while equipping youth with the information needed for health maintenance. Proof of such can be found in examining the curricula. The positive results of implementation can be confirmed in reviewing the abundant research data proving the effectiveness of comprehensive sex education.

In spite of such, George and Moschella’s editorial holds weight because they’ve signed themselves as affiliated with Princeton University. Given the power such a relationship holds, people should seriously question if any academic should be allowed to name their university affiliation when pushing a personal, values-laden agenda.

Are they? Will they? Oh. (Sigh.) They didn’t. Such was the anticipation – and let down – for many viewing the first-ever sex toy ad, which aired on British television earlier this month. While Lovehoney, the U.K.’s largest sex toy retailer, made its mark as the first of its kind to advertise on UK tellies, its 30-second plug didn’t once show any of the products it sells.

Talk about a “buzzkill.” Featuring a fully-clothed, married couple making out as the man is about to leave for work, the ad does come off as steamy, racy, and frisky. But what it’s selling is largely left to the imagination. One has to really read into the voiceover at the end stating: “Lovehoney.co.uk. The sexual happiness people.”

In its defense, Halo Media, the ad agency who placed the 10:15am plug during a segment of the American reality show “The Real Housewives of New York,” has really had its hands tied in promoting Lovehoney. While sexuality saturates nearly all forms of advertising media, they’ve had to keep things tame and covert.

London Transit, for example, has had Halo Media jumping over one hurdle after the next, refusing to allow billboard copies of Lovehoney ads involving a couple kissing on a London subway train. It only agreed to run a billboard ad of a couple kissing in a supermarket after the man’s hand could no longer be seen on his partner’s waist. The adverts also had to replace “sex toys” with “adult toys.”  

The hypocrisy should have every consumer’s blood boiling. Why is it taboo to have sex sell a sex toy ad, but perfectly okay for other products to plug themselves with totally sex-charged adverts? Why must we be subjected to often painfully lame advertising attempts using sex to sell anything from motor oil to phone books, but not be sexually enticed by products meant to help our sexual well being? And on a related note, why is it okay for a music video to feature rock stars engaging in bondage, simulated group sex, and other explicit acts, but featuring a sex toy ad is deemed “dirty”?

It makes sense to have sexy ads sell sex products. It doesn’t make sense that non-sex product ads are allowed to be much more provocative in their efforts. Whether it’s jeans, liquor, or a sexual enhancement product being sold, the same rules need to apply across the board. As consumers, we need to demand such. 

How young is too young with it comes to educating children about sexual abuse? Such is a hotly contested issue, with some saying the earlier the better when it comes to prevention, while others argue that youngsters shouldn’t be exposed to such sex issues.

Now, recent research out of Australia can help to finally settle this debate, providing parents and educators with a solid answer on an appropriate age at which to start tackling the issue. An analysis of over 500 clients, conducted by Bravehearts, found that educating children about sexual assault is one of the most effective ways of identifying such harm.

The anti-child sexual abuse organization found a direct link between its school education program and a sharp increase in the number of reports it gets concerning children being sexually assaulted. The organization’s conclusion: going into schools and educating youth about sexual assault can make a huge difference in minimizing the damage done. The age range Bravehearts’s education program targets using live musical performances: children 3- to 8-years-old.

Outreach efforts involve repeating a simple, age-appropriate message about one’s private parts: ‘no-one else to touch, no-one else to see, they belong to me’. To date, thousands of primary school kids across Australia have been exposed to the program, with many of those who have been violated willing to disclose the abuse, even when the offender is well known, trusted, and loved.

Such educational efforts, along with prevention efforts targeting adults, are seen as vital in reducing the incidence of child sexual assault. Such work ultimately also impacts youth overall well being, reducing the incidence rates of a number of issues, like alcoholism, suicide, depression, and drug abuse.

Talking to children, in a language they can understand, about medically accurate information that is appropriate for their developmental level can only do more good than harm when it comes to dealing with sexual abuse. And this goes for practically any sexuality-related topic – no matter what the age group.   

Should you be obligated to have sex with your spouse? A judge in Nice, France thinks so. He fined a 51-year-old man 8,500 pounds for not having sex with his now ex-wife. The judge’s decision was based on French civil code article 215, which holds that married couples must agree to a “shared communal life.” In the judge’s eyes, this means: “sexual relations must form part of a marriage.”

In an age when countries’ legal systems are finally changing their books to recognize spousal rape and sexual assault as crimes, this interpretation should be considered alarming.

While people typically marry with the expectation that sexual activity will be a part of “’til death do us part,” if even just for procreation, sex isn’t necessarily a guarantee. It’s not a contractual obligation. It’s certainly not part of the vows people declare on their wedding day. So to be faulted for failing to have sex with your husband or wife seems not only antiquated, but also barbaric, especially when you consider sexuality throughout the lifespan.

People’s sexual interest and desire can wane at any point for a number of physical, emotional, mental, relational reasons. (The husband who just got sued claimed “tiredness and health problems” for his lack of libido.) People’s intentions going into a marriage can change as well, with sex no longer a priority.

The French judge’s decision, and justifying comment that, “By getting married, couples agree to sharing their life and this clearly implies they will have sex with each other” is disturbing. His ruling and rationale echo that of Michael Hale, a 17^th century Chief Justice in England, who pronounced that a husband could not be found guilty of raping his wife “for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto the husband which she cannot retract.

These quotes basically indicate that you have no choice when it comes to sex in your marriage. You have no right to say “no.” You have no protections when it comes to your spouse potentially sexually assaulting or raping you. In fact, now you can be sued!

It’s easy to sympathize with the woman who sought divorce on the grounds that there was a lack of sex over the course of their 21-year marriage.  To withhold such bonding, affection, and touch can, in many ways, be seen as a form of emotional abuse, especially when one’s sexual needs have been explicitly expressed.

At the same time, being able to successfully sue a former partner for withholding sex should be unfathomable and considered criminal. Whether married for two years or twenty, husbands and wives have the right to control their bodies, including abstaining.  

You can rest easy, gals. Turns out there’s nothing “wrong” with your vulva after all. A study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology has declared that most women seeking genital cosmetic surgery to reduce the size of their inner lips do not have oversized or misshapen labia minora.

Such findings feel liberating until you consider that the researchers themselves may be perpetuating the designer vulva problem. While the investigators determined that 30 of the 33 women had labia with dimensions within the normal published limits, the other 3 women’s vaginal lips were sized up as having “significant asymmetry,” as in a mean (SD) of 26.9 (12.8) mm on the right side of the vulva and 24.8 (13.1) mm on the left side.

This gave them the green light for NHS-covered surgery at the University College London hospital clinic, where the research was based. The clinic can only perform surgeries on females whose genitalia measure outside of what’s considered normal. 

Yet what is meant by “normal”?

Dr. Sarah Creighton, gynecologist and the study’s lead investigator, is quoted as saying “there is little information about what is normal,” with her team encouraging the publication of more large-scale data on normal labial measurements. Such commentary indicates that, as depicted in pornography and advertisements, vulvas are indeed supposed to have a certain look. Anything outside of a range would, otherwise, be considered abnormal.  

The fact of that matter is that, when it comes to genitalia – or one’s breasts or one’s testicles - what’s normal is to have a wide range of sizes. What’s normal is for one side of a person’s body to be anywhere from a bit to a lot bigger, longer, fatter, smaller… than the other side. Asymmetry is the norm when it comes to people’s body parts!

The main concern with genital cosmetic surgery isn’t determining who should and shouldn’t be eligible for such services; it’s the need to counter the misperceptions of what is normal that ultimately cause distress.

In helping to quell women’s aesthetic concerns about their vulva, we need to start by educating them about the human body and the influence of cultural expectations and appeal on what’s supposedly desirable. We need to continue the campaign being waged by women around the world that diversity is beauty. And we need to target females when they’re young.

The average age of the 33 aforementioned participants was 23, with one-quarter 16 or younger, and the youngest a mere 11-years-old. Forty percent wanted smaller labia “to improve appearance,” a stat made even more unnerving when you consider that all participants were referred by general practitioners who felt that surgery was appropriate treatment. Now just how “normal” is that?

What if porn isn’t the problem and the problem is you? Research out of Utah State University should have anybody asking this question, having found that the impact porn has on a person all boils down to the individual. In asking 299 undergraduates if they consider their pornography consumption problematic, researchers found that the more participants tried to repress their sexual thoughts and desires, the likelier they were to regard porn as a problem.

Such data should seemingly help to settle the long-standing, heated debate on the positive versus negative effects of porn. For decades, proponents and opponents of this form of erotica have fought over whether pornography harms women, makes users more sexually aggressive, hurts relationships, and promotes sexism.

Those for porn use claim that it empowers lovers with ideas, enhances self-pleasuring, and even reduces the desire to sexually assault another in providing a safe escape for deviant fantasies. Those against porn consumption say such visuals create and raise unrealistic sexual expectations, turn lovers off to one another, and incite violence.

Pornography consumption is, by far, one of the most complicated realms of sexual pleasuring and expression, especially when one’s use becomes more than moderate or the imagery involves violence. Yet the answers to questions around porn use, often fielded by sexologists, like “Is it okay to enjoy?” “How often is too often?” “What kind of porn makes me a pervert?” and “Is pornography consumption problem-inducing?” all come down to the person.

The potential problems that can come out of porn use are largely manifested by one’s own personal values and views about different types of erotica, intimacy, and sexual enjoyment. It’s your intrusive thoughts around what’s positive and good versus bad and wrong that influence your pleasuring.

What the Utah State University research indicates is that porn’s probability of becoming problematic is first and foremost directly due to one’s repression reaction. It’s this suppression of the desire to look at porn that boosts one’s longing for it. And this becomes complicated for the individual when processed against one’s personal morals system, including religious influences. It’s the conflicting feelings that arise that often ultimately lead to sexual problems.