Why do girls consume relatively lesser pornographic content. Here's my take
So this is going to be a long long post. So read it when you think you have the time for it.
It will indulge in history, sociology, modesty, and plausible speculation of the writer, which is yours truly, me, Overall slice.
Starting: The linking of the word Lust with the feminine beauty is actually a very recent phenomenon.
This started when the early turkic rulers came into India as invaders, we actually practiced a form of clothing, which was driven not out of conformity to current ideas of modesty and obscenity, rather just basic functionality, like protection from heat, etc.
For eg, take a look at the 1st image. This is from 1911 and the lady here is a princess, gifting some earrings to a little brahmin boy.
Just to give a more accurate representation of how the day to day life would have looked like, So it would just be common for children of both genders to look at their mother's curvy breasts just like they'd see their father's hairy chest.
And of course the key element to see here is that, there were no thoughts of lust and other negative emotions attached to the sight of breasts, as it would even extend to an adolescent boy.
The existence of the current code of morality, was 1st imposed by turkic invaders not by laws but as an adaptation to the barbaric acts of violence they'd commit, giving rise to practices like Johar, Sati and Ghunghat.
A little detail into these 3.
Johar, was to protect their bodies and it's remains from widespread necrophilia which the early invaders were known for, right from the 1st invasions of Sindh.
Sati, is partly attributed by some recent historians, to fight against female slave trade, and thus it's prevalence in rajasthan and Bengal. In this trade, zamidars would trap hordes of windows and other women and girls and sell them off to the bazars of kabul.
Ghunghat, was just to protect from the usual evil they'd have to encounnter when living under turkic rule, thus gained popularity in present day Rajasthan. The 2nd painting which is from late 1800s, shows several women, bathing on the banks of a lake, near a priest, and some even interracting with him in similar clothes where their chest is uncovered. A sight like this stands in complete opposition to today, where a married woman is strongly expected to cover her face with ghunghat, i myself am from a town called bhiwadi, in Rajasthan near gurgaon.
Later the British solidified the already novel views of feminine morality by the imposition of the Victorian code of 1858.
You'd suspect that they'd have faced atleast some opposition in the south, since atleast the north had some reason to go with it. And yes they did face opposition, especially in Kerala, where women of even the most educated households didn't cover their chests even till early 20th century, you can find several photos of this.
All of this historical context only to say that, the present view of the physical perspective of female beauty, like breast, is ridden with negative emotions like lust and obscienity, which wasn't the case earlier.
The present worldview, is at least partly unnatural and offcourse has had it's tremendous negative psychological impacts on both genders, and has heavily hampered the mental development of people of both genders in their own ways.
Young females feel detached from their inherent femininity, and ending up seeing it as some form of inherent weakness, i myself am struggling with this part of my being right now, and while typing this my eyes are watery and fingers are shaking a bit, this is quite an intimate topic for me, and also for my mother (To get more detail on this you should read my post on askindia about femininty, I'm telling you you'll love it, and especially read the conversations with Ms.Ostrich and Ms.silkyvagina, i know, wierd names)
And finally coming to how this has affected boys, now I want to very clear, I have immense sympathy for boys too, and i feel that the downterm effects of this unnatural change (which has actually taken place in practice only within the last 3 generation for the majority population) has been the most overt and clear on boys.
And this effect is porn addictions.
And this is where my analysis gets into the speculative realm.
So proceed with a spoonfull of salt from this point on, becz I'm trying to connect some dots here which experts might disagree with.
So this is my conjecture: And i will put it in points so that it's easy for everyone to read it.
I think that there is always fantacisation involved with whatever is behind the curtain of societal taboo, even if this fantacisation is disproportionately so. (Why i call it disproportionate is something that is a long post worthy in itself, so let's keep it simple right now, since it doesn't take away from the present topic.)
And naturally when the hormones are raging, and there is societal taboo around such a normal topic like boobs, it just so happens that, the only outlet of having any exposure to this common body part, is filled up by porn websites.
This is actually a big big folley of human civilization at large and again deserves another long long post just to discover all the issues this poses not only for young boys, but also ends up leading to unfulfilled marriages later on.
What this ends up doing is creating a link of 1st. visual stimulation by seeing the curves of just anyone, say a classmate, and then fatacising about it in ways which are influenced by those very porn websites, which is ridden of sexualisation and lust.
And when masturbation gets into the picture, it just goes out of hand, even for many well meaning kids, they end up making neurological connections of a porn-dopamine link, with the stimulant to pathway being the sight of just any attractive female body.
Ending up in a situation where the relative exposure males tend to be having with anything pornographic, being very high, that too to an unnatural degree.
Why is it low for girls, basically that, why females tend to have a relatively lesser amount of, say, watchtime for anything pornographic, be it smut even?
Well tbh, the stimulants for sexual thoughts, is just very little, i mean, even in the mind, it's related either to self pleasure, or just romantic fantacisation with someone who they might find hot.
Therefore it comes down to, what are number of stimulants are for a both genders, which decides their propensity to go ahead and watch pom, and get addicted to it after making neurological link of porn and dopamine hits that comes with orgasm..
And in the current state of worldview of female modesty, it's clear that the number of stimulants for males is directly attached to how many representations of sexually attractive females can be there, and in age of internet that's just unlimited.
Now, here's are some expected common questions, so allow me to answer them.
- How is it that, the practice of even the ideal view of modesty would/could help with this?
Ans: I think like we saw, when it was just the usual way of life, even a son would see his mother like this, so clearly it wasn't a turn on them. So i think, that, if anything, the older model, could actually work like a hypothetical vaccination towards the lust, atleast for the most common forms of it. By common forms, I mean, whichever is coming from a place of Unanswered or Supressed Curiosity, and not actually twisted sexual fantasies.
- Do I think, that even if the ideal worldview would hypothetically be in place, the amount of pom consumption would be equal for both genders?
Ans: Tbh, maybe, but what I am sure about is that, it would be well within a range where it would be much more manageable for both genders. I say both genders, Because, if we hypothetically offcourse remove the ideas like lust and other negative emotions from sexuality as a whole, then this will make it more normalised for females, because in my opinion, it's artificially low in the current state. (I know i couldn't elaborate on this right now)
- (I think I will update this if there is any common question in the comments)
Signing off Ask me anything Keep it respectful