I'm seeing a lot of this kind of thing about these days - alarming assertions that access to online grot is turning The Kids into a pack of depraved sex fiends, or at least the male half of The Kids at any rate.
The author's contention is that young men are now making all manner of outrageous sexual demands that they wouldn't have done without porno giving them big ideas, which I think is perfectly possible. When things become mainstream after all, they tend to be normalised.
Nonetheless, the sizeable lacuna in all this is surely who's missing from this rollcall of young male depravity, and that's gay guys.
Now, I don't have any more interest in what gay guys are doing with their nuts than I do in what straight ones are, but I'd say that we have a pretty good control group there, since the biology and psychology are surely either similar or identical. (Please forgive/ignore my scientific ignorance on this point).
I'm no expert in the world of gay smut, but I'm willing to bet that it's no more edifying than its heterosexual equivalent. The anatomy might differ, but I doubt the gangbangs are delivered with any more respect or affection and I'm fairly sure that the recipients are more likely to be degraded than exalted.
So do we know what effect this is having on young guys in their relationships? Are their partners following up that first chaste kiss with demands for instantaneous, arse-spraying mayhem? Do we have a thousand tales of spunk-splattered youngsters complaining that their porn-addled boyfriends treat them like sex slaves?
And if this is some wholly new phenomenon, can we measure the extent of it? Can we establish its effect and potential harm?
I wouldn't particularly want anyone jamming a boner into my ear unexpectedly, but how destructive is that kind of thing in a sexual relationship between consenting humans?* Is it harmful enough to require state intervention? Because if we can measure all this, is the government's long, scaly proboscis the correct organ to be ramming into the issue?
I mean, look, I'm all for sex education, but all I'll say about it as a panacea for porn-prompted golden showers is that the mandated drug chats they gave us at school did a wonderful job of making up pupils' minds on which pills and powders would be most suitable for them.
Maybe sex is now like that mind-crushing Altered States strain of grass that the papers tell me you can buy these days - weaponised beyond our fragile and wrinkled oldster understanding and buckled out of all recognition. Who knows - maybe the world has changed in the long years since my adolescence and Kids These Days would be far more receptive to awkward lessons involving diagrams of naked ladies with arrows pointing out Acceptable Spunking Zones.
Or, more likely, not. It seems to me that kids already get a lot of sex ed along the lines of Your body is yours and you don't have to do anything you don't want to do, and that this is probably the correct teaching method.
And while this will annoy folk who would find it morally better to hector the guys who are demanding reverse exploding bumsex after a first date, it seems to me that it's probably more likely to have a positive real-world effect.
And this is before we get onto the seagulling**.
*The point there being the "consent" part, because if we're not talking about consent, then we're really describing a very different issue. I suspect that consent is being elided with force in that Graun column, not least because of the following passage:
** Seagulling: "We need sex education because of a practice called "seagulling", a
boarding school import... that has spread to some university
halls of residence. It involves a group of guys standing outside a
mate's door while he has sex with a girl, and then bursting in and
ejaculating over her, all at once".
In spite of the bits that strike me as credible, it's assertions like this that incline me towards filing the whole piece in the Bullshit Drawer. I'd usually believe anything of public schoolboys, but anyone in the audience who's ever met any young men might like to consider how likely it is that this is even a vanishingly rare occurrance.