I posted in here instead of one of the "Scarleteen-specific-stuff" forums so that if any other users want to comment, they can - I know I've written this kind of like I'm marking an essay (habit! Sorry) but I don't mean it as a ticklist of things that are wrong, just a discussion of the bits of the article that I think are (sometimes very very slightly) problematic... so I'm totally happy to hear other people's opinions on that.
To begin with, I think a few individual phrases just rubbed me the wrong way - things like "any kind of sexual desire that people can feel from tender, intimate, and emotional to raw, urgent, and heartless, and anywhere in between.", because it's a very stereotyped distinction which I'm not sure actually corresponds to reality, half as much as it does to false dichotomies of moral sex/immoral sex, feminine sex/masculine sex, loving sex/lustful sex and so on; and I also know that a lot of my friends would take serious issue with the idea that "raw and urgent" and "intimate and emotional" are opposite ends of a spectrum, even when it comes to just one sexual event. The next paragraph also has mentions of "raging hormones" which, again, is not any kind of serious issue in itself, but maybe it just seemed sufficiently jarring with the kind of language and approach that's usual on Scarleteen that it set me to expecting the worst.
I think as regards the problems with porn section, all the points it makes are good ones, and I wouldn't change anything about the content. The tone seems quite negative, though - perhaps I've just been ruined by the amount of careful diplomacy involved in my other moderating job
- but it sort of seems like the article has lined up a row of assumption-ducks to shoot down - I'd probably phrase things in the reverse, e.g. rather than"The biggest problem that people often have with using pornography is that they sometimes start to expect their own actual sex lives to be just like the pornography they use and enjoy. This is really pretty ridiculous and unreasonable!"
I'd go for something like
"It's important to bear in mind that most pornography is very unrealistic; no-one should expect their real sexual life to really resemble what they see or read in porn."
Which comes across generally as less judgmental, and also has the bonus of not accusing any readers who do believe that real sex is/should be like porn of being ridiculous and unreasonable.
Also, I originally worded that little substitute in second person (using "you") and then rewrote it because I figured it would be a bad idea to assume that the reader would expect real sex to be like porn - and a lot of Scarleteen's users are a lot more sexually wise than the stereotype of a teenager - and then I came across this a couple of paragraphs down, which does exactly what I has just decided to avoid doing; "What you see in porn movies, in magazines, and what you read in stories is NOT real life." Which is absolutely true, but it comes across a bit condescending to me, especially with the NOT; and with the fact that every paragraph there ends in a differently-worded, but always quite forceful, assertion that porn isn't real - it kind of comes across like "Porn isn't like reality! Stop thinking porn is like reality! Why do you think porn is like reality?!".
Another part of what makes the article feel unbalanced to me is that the introduction promises a discussion of the pros and cons of porn, but in fact only the cons materialise - there's brief mention of what people use porn for (masturbation, partnered sex, solo fantasies etc.) - but no real "Porn can be good/helpful/positive when...". I realise that's a difficult thing to write about, and I understand that it just might not be practical to include it, but I do think the absence of it makes the article seem anti-porn on balance.
Part of that is maybe also the fact that in the earlier sections - the why and who of porn - the wording is "Some people use porn in this way/because...", whereas the problems section, for the most part, is "If you use porn then you might see this/not see that/encounter this problem...", which just kind of reminds me of that old trick that people use when explaining beliefs they disagree with to children - "SOME people think that gay marriage is just like normal marriage. What do WE think?". I'm not sure about this one, because reading the article from start to finish I definitely get that impression, but just reading the problems section on its own, I really don't get that impression at all.
The "Is it okay to like pornography" section could use a do-over, in my opinion. The answer to "Is it okay to like pornography?" isn't "No-one can decide but you if it's okay to like pornography." The answer is "Yes, it's okay to like pornography. No-one but you can decide whether or not you should use pornography, or what kinds or how." I'd also drop the "really", because it conveys a certain sense of disbelief about the possibility that it might be okay to like porn, which I know is not the intention.
Also... if I was writing the article, I would include something about sexism and misogyny in porn, just because it's important - the sidebar bit is excellent, but I'd move it to the main post, basically.
I would also add something a bit more explicit about diversity in porn, tacked onto that: that actually, although a lot of mainstream porn (including written porn) is quite problematic, there is also feminist, queer, amateur, and kinky porn out there which is very very different. I wish I'd known that when I was a teenager, really wanting to watch porn but finding that most of the stuff I stumbled across was just... really gross in my eyes. Nowadays, having as I do a social circle full of strippers and erotic models and photographers, I'm pretty sure I could find alternative porn in the blink of an eye; but a few years ago I didn't know it existed, so I couldn't even start to look for it. And that would maybe also emphasise the "ethical shopping" thing, which is a really good point.I guess also, it might be worthwhile to integrate something about home-made porn, which is more an issue for young people now than it was 14 years ago. There's lots of overlap with sexting etc. though, and I wouldn't try to suggest merging those issues into one behemoth article; there's a reason why I haven't read War & Peace.
There was something else I wanted to suggest too, but I have completely forgotten what it was. If I remember, I'll make a note...