NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by another thread...
Do you think it's bad for children to watch porn? And I'm not talking about illegal - I know it is. Tell me your opinions.

Personally, I don't think it's bad. They might not understand fully if it's not explained to them but after that I think it's okay.
I think watching violence (which is much more present on the TV, news, etc.) is far worse. They will one day be able to enjoy sex and there will be nothing wrong with it. However killing is always wrong!

I'd say it varies in case by case

for instance though buying your kids drink so they get drunk at home under your supervision is good if my mom ever supervised porn I can assure you that I would be damaged

However killing is always wrong!

What if it is killing to defend yourself? Or others?

And COP, I think it would be more damaging for kids to watch porn with their parents, than by themselves..

yes its bad for children to watch porn.

just as its bad for children to watch violent movies and tv shows.

depending, of course, on just what you mean by children.

It's a part of growing up.

It varies case by case. The age of the child, the developmental stage, and the kind of porn.


5 years olds watching S&M for example is probably a bad idea.

What if it is killing to defend yourself? Or others?

a necessary evil is not necessarily good though is it necessarily?

a necessary evil is not necessarily good though is it necessarily?

Good and Evil are relative. For example, I am evil compared to Gandi, but compared to say Stalin, or Po Pot I am good.

Can we get a definition of "children"?

If you mean 15-16 years old and older.......probably not "harmful" so much as not a good use of time, and possibly addictive. (which is also true for adults)

If you are talking about 3 year olds, yes. 6 year olds, yes. 9 year olds, yes.

It's harmful.

Good and Evil are relative. For example, I am evil compared to Gandi, but compared to say Stalin, or Po Pot I am good.

but Gandhi was a dick?

also its still even to put tax in your tea no matter how I paint it

If you mean 15-16 years old and older.......probably not "harmful" so much as not a good use of time, and possibly addictive. (which is also true for adults)

considering how much of a killer prostate cancer is I think if anything men need to have more porn

Can we get a definition of "children"?

If you mean 15-16 years old and older.......probably not "harmful" so much as not a good use of time

Lies. It is an excellent use of time. No matter how old you are, but especially if you are 15/16;)

but Gandhi was a dick?

also its still even to put tax in your tea no matter how I paint it

Typical British view of Gandhi. Good thing most Americans outside of San Fransisco don't drink tea. Coffee FTW. And I don't mean that nasty starbucks crap either.

It varies case by case. The age of the child, the developmental stage, and the kind of porn.


5 years olds watching S&M for example is probably a bad idea.
Agreed. Especially the age of the child/developmental stage (which I guess are usually, but not always equivalent). If they watch just about any kind of porn while they're still in that malleable, impressionable stage... well, that's just trouble waiting to happen. They're going to be ingrained with allllll the wrong ideas about sex. But at the appropriate age, and with the appropriate guidance, who knows? It could be beneficial. It might even have that magical "demystifying" effect that people sometimes use to keep their kids away from drugs or alcohol (i.e. expose them to it while they're young, take the "excitement" out of it and properly teach them the risks, and hope they'll act responsibly about it afterwards).

Depends what you mean by "children" and "porn." I'm not particularly worried about 17-year-olds reading Penthouse, but I'd be very much troubled by letting a 6-year-old watch hardcore rape porn.

Typical British view of Gandhi. Good thing most Americans outside of San Fransisco don't drink tea. Coffee FTW.

but how will you enjoy the crumpets?!

but how will you enjoy the crumpets?!

Use them when we trapshoot.

Use them when we trapshoot.

:eek: don't you know that all Swans are English and the act of killing one is an offense that technically still has the death penalty!

:eek: don't you know that all Swans are English and the act of killing one is an offense that technically still has the death penalty!

Good thing I'm in America. English laws don't apply here.

Good thing I'm in America. English laws don't apply here.

but we send so many of our prisoners in America :confused:

but we send so many of our prisoners in America :confused:

Your confusion is normal. This is the result of long term exposure to the Metric system and a Monachry.

It depends on the kind of porn. It doesn't do them much harm to see animals mating in a nature show; nor in fact on the farm if they so happen to life on/near one.
Of course most porn hardly depict sex in anything related to a normal situation anymore. And that's the element that may be harmfull; if they can't recognize it isn't normal. That can be said for all sorts of films and TV series though. "Reality" shows can be harmfull in just that way (moreso because they pretend to show some notion of reality).

I've watched porn underage, even as young as 13-14, and am none the worse for it.

I'd certainly take the time to have a talk with a child of mine I'd catch with porn, though. They need to have it explained to them that pornography cannot be said to picture reality correctly, as it has many grossly exaggerated features.

And it would also depend on the kind of porn, I guess. Anything that is degrading to one or the other of the partner I would be very wary of, and tell the child to be aware that many practices can be outright disrespectful to partners, and that other things appeal only to a small portion of the population. Also that consent is the main, critical issue about those kind of things, and that never should they be pressured or pressure someone else in doing something they don't want to do.

Otherwise it's all fine and dandy.

But what is so bad about, let's say, a 9 year old watching porn? It's absolutely normal! It's not like drinking in that it won't damage you in any way. I just don't get why everybody thinks sex is so bad.

It depends on the kind of porn. It doesn't do them much harm to see animals mating in a nature show; nor in fact on the farm if they so happen to life on/near one.
Of course most porn hardly depict sex in anything related to a normal situation anymore. And that's the element that may be harmfull; if they can't recognize it isn't normal. That can be said for all sorts of films and TV series though. "Reality" shows can be harmfull in just that way (moreso because they pretend to show some notion of reality).

Oh, come on! Kids already must know that what's on TV is not real! I can hardly imagine anything on TV that's real (or at least not highly exaggerated - talking about news)

But what is so bad about, let's say, a 9 year old watching porn? It's absolutely normal! It's not like drinking in that it won't damage you in any way. I just don't get why everybody thinks sex is so bad.

Well, first off, there's a pretty big difference between "sex" and "porn." I would really not worry at all about a 9-year-old watching a nature documentary in which animals have sex. I would worry rather a lot about a 9-year-old watching "Cum Sluts 4."

Well, first off, there's a pretty big difference between "sex" and "porn." I would really not worry at all about a 9-year-old watching a nature documentary in which animals have sex. I would worry rather a lot about a 9-year-old watching "Cum Sluts 4."

But why? What's so different? Well apart from the fact that "Cum Sluts 4" probably features humans who are having sex, controlled by a director, to get money?

But why? What's so different? Well apart from the fact that "Cum Sluts 4" probably features humans who are having sex, controlled by a director, to get money?

The fact that porn is not in any way, shape, or form, a realistic portrayal of sex? The fact that a significant proportion of porn is deeply, deeply disrespectful towards women? Just to pick two overwhelmingly obvious answers...

Inspired by another thread...
Do you think it's bad for children to watch porn? And I'm not talking about illegal - I know it is. Tell me your opinions.

Personally, I don't think it's bad. They might not understand fully if it's not explained to them but after that I think it's okay.
I think watching violence (which is much more present on the TV, news, etc.) is far worse. They will one day be able to enjoy sex and there will be nothing wrong with it. However killing is always wrong!

Eh, I think if kids look at porn by themselves, it's ok.

However if an adult supervise...well...*shudders* and I'll call Social Service...because that's.....just wrong....and five bucks says there's a reason the adult is supervising.....and not a good one....

I need a shower now....

The fact that porn is not in any way, shape, or form, a realistic portrayal of sex? The fact that a significant proportion of porn is deeply, deeply disrespectful towards women? Just to pick two overwhelmingly obvious answers...

Why is it not a realistic portrayal of sex? The thing goes in and out, doesn't it?
There is porn that can be "disrespectful" towards women as there is porn that can be "disrespectful" towards men. Personally, I didn't really notice any "disrespect" in any of them. Well apart from the fact that girls (nearly) always keep the attention of the camera. And oral sex is always performed on the man but not always (but still quite frequently) on the woman (though that's not disrespect - girls ARE turned on by doing it, in most cases).

Eh, I think if kids look at porn by themselves, it's ok.

However if an adult supervise...well...*shudders* and I'll call Social Service...because that's.....just wrong....and five bucks says there's a reason the adult is supervising.....and not a good one....

I need a shower now....

Why? What's so wrong? Even if it is getting the adult horny, if he doesn't touch (or scare or whatever) the kids I don't see anything wrong.

Why is it not a realistic portrayal of sex? The thing goes in and out, doesn't it?
There is porn that can be "disrespectful" towards women as there is porn that can be "disrespectful" towards men. Personally, I didn't really notice any "disrespect" in any of them. Well apart from the fact that girls (nearly) always keep the attention of the camera. And oral sex is always performed on the man but not always (but still quite frequently) on the woman (though that's not disrespect - girls ARE turned on by doing it, in most cases).


I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and guess that you are yourself underage, have watched porn, and haven't had sex. Please trust me when I say that sex in the real world bears about as much resemblance to sex in pornos as apples do to oranges. The "thing" does indeed "go in and out" but that's about where the resemblance ends.

And are you honestly, honestly going to tell me that nothing about my fictional example of "Cum Sluts 4" strikes you as disrespectful towards women? Because if so, may I just suggest talking to some, y'know, women about that?

Why? What's so wrong? Even if it is getting the adult horny, if he doesn't touch (or scare or whatever) the kids I don't see anything wrong.

Dude..think about it....there's only one...very very very fucked up reason....that an adult....would watch porn with....a kid.....

and I'm not even trying to be funny, I'm dead serious....

Good and Evil are relative. For example, I am evil compared to Gandi, but compared to say Stalin, or Po Pot I am good.
IMS Gandhi was quite the racist, and on occasion gave enemas to teenage girls. Penn and Teller told me. Well, mostly Penn.
Depends what you mean by "children" and "porn." I'm not particularly worried about 17-year-olds reading Penthouse, but I'd be very much troubled by letting a 6-year-old watch hardcore rape porn.
Pretty much this.
But why? What's so different? Well apart from the fact that "Cum Sluts 4" probably features humans who are having sex, controlled by a director, to get money?

Porn is almost exclusively designed to fit with the fantasies of the men watching it. There is some porn for women, but not much. Real life sex, however, is just that. Real. Between two real people. People who(probably) aren't getting directed, don't have a script, aren't being paid and aren't basing their actions on what the man likes to think about when he masturbates.

Though, I still have Teh Virginity, so I may be wrong.

Though, I still have Teh Virginity, so I may be wrong.

*blinks*

I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and guess that you are yourself underage, have watched porn, and haven't had sex. Please trust me when I say that sex in the real world bears about as much resemblance to sex in pornos as apples do to oranges. The "thing" does indeed "go in and out" but that's about where the resemblance ends.

It's usually not gentle sex but I don't see why real sex couldn't be rough. Tell me what do you think is so much different in porn that no pair could possibly experience it and like it.
For your information I'm 23, definitely not a virgin and watch porn (as probably anyone does).

And are you honestly, honestly going to tell me that nothing about my fictional example of "Cum Sluts 4" strikes you as disrespectful towards women? Because if so, may I just suggest talking to some, y'know, women about that?

I don't know, are you referring to the "Slut" part? It does have a negative connotation to it. But so does the word "stud" that is quite frequently used in porn. I don't think that's disrespectful to women in general. Personally, I don't give a damn about what they call themselves in porn. And you can explain to a kid that using swear words is bad. (Besides using them in bed CAN be good in certain situations - though I never got myself to do it, even though I was asked to by the girl once)

Dude..think about it....there's only one...very very very fucked up reason....that an adult....would watch porn with....a kid.....

and I'm not even trying to be funny, I'm dead serious....

What? It's making him horny? So what? Watching kids is good if you don't do anything to them. And believe me, an overwhelming majority of pedos would NOT do anything to them.
(I just hope this thread isn't closed because of the P word :rolleyes:)

*blinks*

Surprised, or something in your eye?

What? It's making him horny? So what? Watching kids is good if you don't do anything to them. And believe me, an overwhelming majority of pedos would NOT do anything to them.
(I just hope this thread isn't closed because of the P word :rolleyes:)

Dude...if you don't get why it's wrong for an adult to be watching porn with a minor then you are probably a sick sick person yourself.

Please, for the love of God do not have any child of your own, and do not babysit.

God..the fact that you don't see anything wrong with this....ugh....God you're making me sick...

Surprised, or something in your eye?

Neesika is fundamentally opposed to the concept of virginity and is currently contemplating how to take yours.

Neesika is fundamentally opposed to the concept of virginity and is currently contemplating how to take yours.

I knew I should have put it in a safe.....

It's usually not gentle sex but I don't see why real sex couldn't be rough. Tell me what do you think is so much different in porn that no pair could possibly experience it and like it.
For your information I'm 23, definitely not a virgin and watch porn (as probably anyone does).



I don't know, are you referring to the "Slut" part? It does have a negative connotation to it. But so does the word "stud" that is quite frequently used in porn. I don't think that's disrespectful to women in general. Personally, I don't give a damn about what they call themselves in porn. And you can explain to a kid that using swear words is bad. (Besides using them in bed CAN be good in certain situations - though I never got myself to do it, even though I was asked to by the girl once)


I have to run out the door, but I just wanted to let you know that I am giggling uncontrollably at the idea that the reason I would find porn unrealistic is that it's "not gentle." Tee hee hee... ;)

Surprised, or something in your eye?

Shocked and appalled. Also wondering if you've got some weird sort of definition of 'virginty' that essentially allows you to do everything but missionary.

I have to run out the door, but I just wanted to let you know that I am giggling uncontrollably at the idea that the reason I would find porn unrealistic is that it's "not gentle." Tee hee hee... ;)

:D

Not everyone is familiar with your particular tastes m'dear.

Shocked and appalled. Also wondering if you've got some weird sort of definition of 'virginty' that essentially allows you to do everything but missionary.
My interactions with teh wimminz have been limited to say the least, so I don't need crazy definitions.

Porn is almost exclusively designed to fit with the fantasies of the men watching it. There is some porn for women, but not much. Real life sex, however, is just that. Real. Between two real people. People who(probably) aren't getting directed, don't have a script, aren't being paid and aren't basing their actions on what the man likes to think about when he masturbates.

Girls watch porn too. You're right in that it's mostly tailored for men. Women tend to like erotic stories more. However, as men may like the stories (me being an example), women may like the action of porn. Everybody sometimes gets into the mood to enjoy the other thing.
Oh, and if love isn't involved it's quite like porn actually. It may not look like much but when you experience it the feeling is very good.

Though, I still have Teh Virginity, so I may be wrong.

May I ask you how old you are? Because if you're of a legal age I recommend you to start enjoying sex as soon as you can. I now kinda regret that I didn't start sooner. I was missing out on a really great thing. You must not forget to be responsible though.

Girls watch porn too. You're right in that it's mostly tailored for men. Women tend to like erotic stories more. However, as men may like the stories (me being an example), women may like the action of porn. Everybody sometimes gets into the mood to enjoy the other thing.
Oh, and if love isn't involved it's quite like porn actually. It may not look like much but when you experience it the feeling is very good.
When people are involved there's usually some exceptions. I'm sure there are some people whose sex lives are just like porn.



May I ask you how old you are? Because if you're of a legal age I recommend you to start enjoying sex as soon as you can. I now kinda regret that I didn't start sooner. I was missing out on a really great thing. You must not forget to be responsible though.

I'm 20.

Dude...if you don't get why it's wrong for an adult to be watching porn with a minor then you are probably a sick sick person yourself.

Please, for the love of God do not have any child of your own, and do not babysit.

God..the fact that you don't see anything wrong with this....ugh....God you're making me sick...

Why won't you tell me what's so wrong with this, I wonder...

I have to run out the door, but I just wanted to let you know that I am giggling uncontrollably at the idea that the reason I would find porn unrealistic is that it's "not gentle." Tee hee hee... ;)

So why would you?

Why won't you tell me what's so wrong with this, I wonder...

I think it's pretty clear that Wilgrove is suggesting that the only people who would want to watch porn with children is a paedophile who is trying to 'groom' them. And he has a point. Why else would one want to watch porn with a child?

I think it's pretty clear that Wilgrove is suggesting that the only people who would want to watch porn with children is a paedophile who is trying to 'groom' them. And he has a point. Why else would one want to watch porn with a child?

There are so many other more appropriate visual sources for sex education...I really can't see someone not having a 'grooming' agenda if they decide they must use porn.

Then again, depends on what we're calling 'porn'.

I think it's pretty clear that Wilgrove is suggesting that the only people who would want to watch porn with children is a paedophile who is trying to 'groom' them. And he has a point. Why else would one want to watch porn with a child?

I never quite got the definition of the word "groom". But to give some answers to your question: Either it's making him horny, he wants to know what kind of porn the kid is watching in order to explain it to him, he wants to directly control what the kid is watching (by turning off the TV if something very inappropriate turns up), etc.

There are so many other more appropriate visual sources for sex education...I really can't see someone not having a 'grooming' agenda if they decide they must use porn.

Then again, depends on what we're calling 'porn'.

I do agree that parents should teach their children about sex, but sitting them down to watch porn (and by my definition, porn is something you would not see in a school setting due to it's content) is not one of them.

I believe that if any adults watches porn with a minor, they are grooming that minor and they are a pedophile.

Why won't you tell me what's so wrong with this, I wonder...

Because it's very very likely that the adult is grooming the child....

Lies. It is an excellent use of time. No matter how old you are, but especially if you are 15/16;)
Agreed.

I never quite got the definition of the word "groom". But to give some answers to your question: Either it's making him horny, he wants to know what kind of porn the kid is watching in order to explain it to him, he wants to directly control what the kid is watching (by turning off the TV if something very inappropriate turns up), etc.

From what I've been able to gather (from my own talks with victims of pedophilia) the pedophile themselves would watch porn with them so that they'll be more open to being "played" with if you catch my drift.

A child's mind is so unbelievably easy to manipulate, all an adult has to do is to convince the child that there's nothing wrong with it, and it "feels good".

There are so many other more appropriate visual sources for sex education...I really can't see someone not having a 'grooming' agenda if they decide they must use porn.

Then again, depends on what we're calling 'porn'.

I do agree that parents should teach their children about sex, but sitting them down to watch porn (and by my definition, porn is something you would not see in a school setting due to it's content) is not one of them.

I believe that if any adults watches porn with a minor, they are grooming that minor and they are a pedophile.

Would you, please, define "grooming" for me?
And porn may not be the greatest tool for teaching children about sex but it's definitely something a person will encounter and have to deal with.
I still can't see what's all the fuss about. It's not like telling "You must do this or you don't get the candy"

Would you, please, define "grooming" for me?
And porn may not be the greatest tool for teaching children about sex but it's definitely something a person will encounter and have to deal with.
I still can't see what's all the fuss about. It's not like telling "You must do this or you don't get the candy"

From what I've been able to gather (from my own talks with victims of pedophilia) the pedophile themselves would watch porn with them so that they'll be more open to being "played" with if you catch my drift.

A child's mind is so unbelievably easy to manipulate, all an adult has to do is to convince the child that there's nothing wrong with it, and it "feels good".

I do agree that parents should teach their children about sex, but sitting them down to watch porn (and by my definition, porn is something you would not see in a school setting due to it's content) is not one of them.

I believe that if any adults watches porn with a minor, they are grooming that minor and they are a pedophile.

I will have to agree with Wilgrove here and Neesika for backing it up. There is not an appropriate situation where an adult should be allowing a child to watch porn. As Neesika already pointed out there are other methods to teach sex education. Watching porn is not one of them.

From what I've been able to gather (from my own talks with victims of pedophilia) the pedophile themselves would watch porn with them so that they'll be more open to being "played" with if you catch my drift.

A child's mind is so unbelievably easy to manipulate, all an adult has to do is to convince the child that there's nothing wrong with it, and it "feels good".

Yeah! And do you know that all the bad things start with eating bread?
A serial killer gets up in the morning, eats some bread for breakfast and then goes out shooting people!
An old man eats bread for supper and goes to sleep, never waking up again.
A child molester eats bread on a bench, watching children play and then goes to one and rapes him.
We should ban bread!! :eek:

I wouldn't ban bread because of this, I wouldn't ban sex because of rapes and I wouldn't ban children watching porn with adults because of a child molestation. It's the same reason in all cases.

Oh and sex play isn't bad in general, it's bad if someone doesn't like it. But that's a different story.

From what I've been able to gather (from my own talks with victims of pedophilia) the pedophile themselves would watch porn with them so that they'll be more open to being "played" with if you catch my drift.

A child's mind is so unbelievably easy to manipulate, all an adult has to do is to convince the child that there's nothing wrong with it, and it "feels good".

Don't forget that they would want to teach the child the "right way"....

I've always found it utterly idiotic that we have higher age rating for porn than violence and gore. I mean seriously, how is watching porn more harmful for a teenager than seeing someone's guts splattered on the wall :headbang:

Then again I find age labels usually quite stupid anyway, and have never respected them nor will I. Well, other than that I never smoked nor drank before I was of legal age, but those were due completely different reasons :p

I will have to agree with Wilgrove here and Neesika for backing it up. There is not an appropriate situation where an adult should be allowing a child to watch porn. As Neesika already pointed out there are other methods to teach sex education. Watching porn is not one of them.

Okay, you say that it isn't appropriate for teaching sex ed. But why would you ban it? Because it does not serve a meaningful purpose, in your eyes? Then let's ban chocolate! It makes kids fat and their teeth bad! At least there's a proof that it's bad in some way for them, unlike porn.

Yeah! And do you know that all the bad things start with eating bread?
A serial killer gets up in the morning, eats some bread for breakfast and then goes out shooting people!
An old man eats bread for supper and goes to sleep, never waking up again.
A child molester eats bread on a bench, watching children play and then goes to one and rapes him.
We should ban bread!! :eek:

I wouldn't ban bread because of this, I wouldn't ban sex because of rapes and I wouldn't ban children watching porn with adults because of a child molestation. It's the same reason in all cases.

Oh and sex play isn't bad in general, it's bad if someone doesn't like it. But that's a different story.

"sex play" between an adult and a child is always bad.

adults watching porn with children is always inappropriate.

I've always found it utterly idiotic that we have higher age rating for porn than violence and gore. I mean seriously, how is watching porn more harmful for a teenager than seeing someone's guts splattered on the wall :headbang:

Then again I find age labels usually quite stupid anyway, and have never respected them nor will I. Well, other than that I never smoked nor drank before I was of legal age, but those were due completely different reasons :p

I completely agree with you! Btw, I never smoke or drank ever! :)

Yeah! And do you know that all the bad things start with eating bread?
A serial killer gets up in the morning, eats some bread for breakfast and then goes out shooting people!
An old man eats bread for supper and goes to sleep, never waking up again.
A child molester eats bread on a bench, watching children play and then goes to one and rapes him.
We should ban bread!! :eek:

Nice strawman *burns strawman* This has nothing to do with the topic.


I wouldn't ban bread because of this, I wouldn't ban sex because of rapes and I wouldn't ban children watching porn with adults because of a child molestation. It's the same reason in all cases.

So if you had a child, you would actually be ok with another adult, say a neighbor, taking your child, and watching porn with your child?

Oh and sex play isn't bad in general, it's bad if someone doesn't like it. But that's a different story.

Sex with a minor IS VERY BAD! Want to know why, because of the fact that they are MINORS they cannot consent to such acts, and like it or not, watching porn with a MINOR does constitute as a sexual act! So you're right, sex without consent is bad, and because MINORS cannot legally consent to sex or sexual act, it is bad.

*hammers this into your thick skull until you get it*

"sex play" between an adult and a child is always bad.

adults watching porn with children is always inappropriate.

And the spagetti monster rules all!

Care to explain why?

Yeah! And do you know that all the bad things start with eating bread?
A serial killer gets up in the morning, eats some bread for breakfast and then goes out shooting people!
An old man eats bread for supper and goes to sleep, never waking up again.
A child molester eats bread on a bench, watching children play and then goes to one and rapes him.
We should ban bread!! :eek:

I wouldn't ban bread because of this, I wouldn't ban sex because of rapes and I wouldn't ban children watching porn with adults because of a child molestation. It's the same reason in all cases.

Oh and sex play isn't bad in general, it's bad if someone doesn't like it. But that's a different story.

How did... but that's... you can't...

Did you just equate eating bread with adults watching porn with minors!?

I'd like to see a two-column Proof detailing your journey on this one.

And the spagetti monster rules all!

Care to explain why?

You're a pedophile aren't you? Because honestly, they are the only people who would have no problem with "sex play" between an adult and a child.

How did... but that's... you can't...

Did you just equate eating bread with adults watching porn with minors!?

I'd like to see a two-column Proof detailing your journey on this one.

Ok, I have the brain bleech if anyone needs it.

Anyone need brain bleech?

So if you had a child, you would actually be ok with another adult, say a neighbor, taking your child, and watching porn with your child?

I would ask for the reason they did that and ask the child how was it. If the reason was good and the child's experience was positive (not very likely), I'd be okay with that.

Sex with a minor IS VERY BAD! Want to know why, because of the fact that they are MINORS they cannot consent to such acts, and like it or not, watching porn with a MINOR does constitute as a sexual act! So you're right, sex without consent is bad, and because MINORS cannot legally consent to sex or sexual act, it is bad.

We are not talking about legality here. Of course I know it's illegal. But that doesn't say anything at all about whether it's good or bad.
In the past there were lots of laws that weren't particularly good.

I never quite got the definition of the word "groom".
My understanding of it is that it's the process by which one manipulates a child into agreeing to have sex and keeping it a secret.
But to give some answers to your question: Either it's making him horny,
The porn or the fact that he's watching it with a child?
he wants to know what kind of porn the kid is watching in order to explain it to him,
He could watch it on his own and explain it later.
he wants to directly control what the kid is watching (by turning off the TV if something very inappropriate turns up), etc.
Watching TV with a child and turning it off when porn comes on it not watching porn with a child.
Okay, you say that it isn't appropriate for teaching sex ed. But why would you ban it? Because it does not serve a meaningful purpose, in your eyes? Then let's ban chocolate! It makes kids fat and their teeth bad! At least there's a proof that it's bad in some way for them, unlike porn.

Because the only purpose it serves is a harmful one.

And the spagetti monster rules all!

Care to explain why?

because, as wilgrove has already told you, children are easily manipulated into sexual situations that they are not ready for and not equal participants in. adults must take their sexual needs elsewhere.

and since purpose of porn is sexual stimulation its very inappropriate for an adult to seek sexual stimulation in the presence of a child.

We are not talking about legality here. Of course I know it's illegal. But that doesn't say anything at all about whether it's good or bad.
In the past there were lots of laws that weren't particularly good.

Ok, then in the words of Christopher Titus, please give us the Pro-Pedophile side of this debate. Please, tell us what positive experience could possibly come out from an adult watching porn with a child!

Care to explain why?

Congrats, you've said something that makes you look like a paedophile. Chances are everyone will disregard your posts, which is bad form but understandable.

How did... but that's... you can't...

Did you just equate eating bread with adults watching porn with minors!?

I'd like to see a two-column Proof detailing your journey on this one.

Why two column? It's an easy one-row!

(molested child => did watch porn with minor) =/=> (did watch porn with minor => molested child)
It's a one-sided implication just as:
(shot everyone => ate bread) =/=> (ate bread => shot everyone)

You're a pedophile aren't you? Because honestly, they are the only people who would have no problem with "sex play" between an adult and a child.

Just as only gays would not have any problem with two boys making up, right?

oho...this does bring back fond memories.

eight years old and sleeping over at my friends house. It's 12:30 in the morning and we flip to HBO.

WHAM! SOFTCORE PORN! (which is not to say it was gentle...heh heh heh)

Lets be totally honest. Every kid looks at porn at young age (maybe not eight, but twelve or thirteen)

I mean, I'm not that screwed up, and I got exposure at a rather young age. And yes, I did understand what was going on...mostly.

Why two column? It's an easy one-row!

(molested child => did watch porn with minor) =/=> (did watch porn with minor => molested child)
It's a one-sided implication just as:
(shot everyone => ate bread) =/=> (ate bread => shot everyone)

Wanting to watch porn with a minor => wanting to have sex with that minor. I can't think of any other reason an adult could have for wanting to watch porn with a minor.

Why two column? It's an easy one-row!

(molested child => did watch porn with minor) =/=> (did watch porn with minor => molested child)
It's a one-sided implication just as:
(shot everyone => ate bread) =/=> (ate bread => shot everyone)

Y'know, two-column as in...

Premise: If P -> Q
~Q

Conclusion: ~P

Statement |Reason
1. P -> Q |1. Premise
2. ~Q |2. Premise
3. Therefore ~P |3. 1, 2, Modus tollens

Y'know. That sort of thing.

IMS Gandhi was quite the racist, and on occasion gave enemas to teenage girls. Penn and Teller told me. Well, mostly Penn.

Pretty much this.


Porn is almost exclusively designed to fit with the fantasies of the men watching it. There is some porn for women, but not much. Real life sex, however, is just that. Real. Between two real people. People who(probably) aren't getting directed, don't have a script, aren't being paid and aren't basing their actions on what the man likes to think about when he masturbates.

Though, I still have Teh Virginity, so I may be wrong.

Then why do they bother to actually have sex? ;)

Just as only gays would not have any problem with two boys making up, right?

I believe that NAMBLA is an organization made up of nothing but pedophiles.

Honestly, I am finding you more sicking and repulsive with every post you make. and the fact that you actually see no problem with an adult getting turned on by watching porn with a child...is ugh...

I have seen what adult/child porn watching has done, I've seen it in my best friend, and it fucks them up. Hell, my friend is a successful law enforcement officer, she rose above the disaster that is her "childhood" but she is still damaged, she is still fucked up. So, don't sit on your ass and tell me that there's nothing wrong with adult watching porn with a minor when I have to comfort my friend when she has flashbacks.

So you can take your entire argument and shove it up your ass!! :upyours:

Mod: I'm sorry for the harsh language, but I can't stomach this anymore. I'm done with this thread.

My understanding of it is that it's the process by which one manipulates a child into agreeing to have sex and keeping it a secret.

Then it's bad because it's manipulation.

The porn or the fact that he's watching it with a child?

I meant the fact that he's watching it with a child. But either will do.

He could watch it on his own and explain it later.
Explaining things in context is a much better educational tool. Do you not know that?

Watching TV with a child and turning it off when porn comes on it not watching porn with a child.
No, I meant watching it and turning it off when, for example, S/M comes.

Because the only purpose it serves is a harmful one.
You did not even tell me what harmful purpose :rolleyes:

because, as wilgrove has already told you, children are easily manipulated into sexual situations that they are not ready for and not equal participants in. adults must take their sexual needs elsewhere.

They may be easily manipulated into sexual situations but it does not have to happen. Believe it or not, there can be an equal sexual relationship between an adult and a child. Besides some children may even be much harder to manipulate then some adults.

and since purpose of porn is sexual stimulation its very inappropriate for an adult to seek sexual stimulation in the presence of a child.

Have you ever looked upon a nice looking woman when there where children around? That's also "seeking sexual stimulation in the presence of a child" if we get literal. :p

Ok, then in the words of Christopher Titus, please give us the Pro-Pedophile side of this debate. Please, tell us what positive experience could possibly come out from an adult watching porn with a child!

I never said I'm a pedophile! I am just very liberal when it comes to talking about sex. I hate it when people tell other people that they can't do something completely natural even though it doesn't harm anyone.

The adult can explain in context, supervise or just enjoy independently.

Congrats, you've said something that makes you look like a paedophile. Chances are everyone will disregard your posts, which is bad form but understandable.

Yeah, people tend to act moronish. Since when is explaining one's view on something a reason to disregard all his other remarks?

Well, first off, there's a pretty big difference between "sex" and "porn." I would really not worry at all about a 9-year-old watching a nature documentary in which animals have sex. I would worry rather a lot about a 9-year-old watching "Cum Sluts 4."

Oh, I totally agree.


Cum Sluts 4 was poorly written and badly directed. Cum Sluts 1-3, however, are masterpieces of pure fucking art and I wouldn't worry about a nine-year-old watching them.

Neesika is fundamentally opposed to the concept of virginity and is currently contemplating how to take yours.

Leave some for the rest of us, for Pan's sake!

Ah, it's like a familiar old tune.

Wilgrove can't conceive of anyone not believing what he thinks is unquestionable common sense. Kattia can't conceive of any remote reason why anyone might find an adult watching porn with a minor objectionable, and is being deliberately obtuse about it.

Okay, kids, you disagree. Let's get on with life now, shall we?

"Most of us caring, responsible parents want to instill in our children our own personal values about relationships, sex, intimacy, love, and marriage. Unfortunately, the powerful irresponsible messages of pornography may be educating our children on these very important life issues. Just as thirty-second commercials can influence whether or not we choose one popular soft drink over another, exposure to pornography shapes our attitudes and values and, often, our behavior.

Photographs, videos, magazines, virtual games, and Internet pornography that depict rape and the dehumanization of females in sexual scenes constitute powerful but deforming tools of sex education. The danger to children stems at least partly from the disturbing changes in attitude that are facilitated by pornography. Replicated studiesx have demonstrated that exposure to significant amounts of increasingly graphic forms of pornography has a dramatic effect on how adult consumers view women, sexual abuse, sexual relationships, and sex in general. These studies are virtually unanimous in their conclusions: When male subjects were exposed to as little as six weeks' worth of standard hard-core pornography, they:

developed an increased sexual callousness toward women


began to trivialize rape as a criminal offense or no longer considered it a crime at all


developed distorted perceptions about sexuality


developed an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent types of pornography (normal sex no longer seemed to do the job)


devalued the importance of monogamy and lacked confidence in marriage as either a viable or lasting institution


viewed nonmonogamous relationships as normal and natural behavior" (citeation by website: Cline, Pornography's Effects, 8.)

http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm

That's just a sample from a very basic google search. Starting reading up on your stuff, perv.

Y'know, two-column as in...

Premise: If P -> Q
~Q

Conclusion: ~P

Statement |Reason
1. P -> Q |1. Premise
2. ~Q |2. Premise
3. Therefore ~P |3. 1, 2, Modus tollens

Y'know. That sort of thing.

I was never too good with modus ponens logic, sorry.

I believe that NAMBLA is an organization made up of nothing but pedophiles.

What's your point?

Honestly, I am finding you more sicking and repulsive with every post you make. and the fact that you actually see no problem with an adult getting turned on by watching porn with a child...is ugh...

Thank you :p

I have seen what adult/child porn watching has done, I've seen it in my best friend, and it fucks them up. Hell, my friend is a successful law enforcement officer, she rose above the disaster that is her "childhood" but she is still damaged, she is still fucked up. So, don't sit on your ass and tell me that there's nothing wrong with adult watching porn with a minor when I have to comfort my friend when she has flashbacks.

Then there has to be something else that had to happen. I fail to see how the mere fact that she was watching porn with an adult would have scarred her as such. Unless, of course, she was forced to.

So you can take your entire argument and shove it up your ass!! :upyours:

No need to be rude, you know.

They may be easily manipulated into sexual situations but it does not have to happen. Believe it or not, there can be an equal sexual relationship between an adult and a child. Besides some children may even be much harder to manipulate then some adults.


no, there cant. an adult who is interested in a child must wait until the child is old enough to consent to a sexual relationship. there is no "good" sexual relations between an adult and a child.


Have you ever looked upon a nice looking woman when there where children around? That's also "seeking sexual stimulation in the presence of a child" if we get literal. :p



if one seeks sexual stimulation while with a child, one has a problem. noticing that another person is attractive isnt quite the same thing as looking at porn, eh?

Kattia can't conceive of any remote reason why anyone might find an adult watching porn with a minor objectionable, and is being deliberately obtuse about it.

Oh, I can! Unquestionable common sense! :p

no, there cant. an adult who is interested in a child must wait until the child is old enough to consent to a sexual relationship. there is no "good" sexual relations between an adult and a child.

No legal sexual relations! Legal! Say it with me: "Legal!"
Legal isn't the same as good, you know.

noticing that another person is attractive isnt quite the same thing as looking at porn, eh?

Well, it gets quite close if you have a hard-on :p

No legal sexual relations! Legal! Say it with me: "Legal!"
Legal isn't the same as good, you know.

Usually doesn't pop out of thin air either.

Cum Sluts 4 was poorly written and badly directed. Cum Sluts 1-3, however, are masterpieces of pure fucking art and I wouldn't worry about a nine-year-old watching them.

I wasn't aware that we're talking about an existing porn movie :)
However, great to hear that!

Then it's bad because it's manipulation.
To say the least.



I meant the fact that he's watching it with a child. But either will do.
Generally one watches porn alone or with one's significant other. If you're watching porn with a child it's almost certainly because you're trying to groom that child.


Explaining things in context is a much better educational tool. Do you not know that?
Since we've already agreed that porn is generally based on male fantasies, then it should be clear why it isn't a useful tool for educating children about sex.


No, I meant watching it and turning it off when, for example, S/M comes.
Why would one be watching porn with the child before that point? All I can think of is because one is grooming that child.


You did not even tell me what harmful purpose :rolleyes:
I thought it was obvious. Evidently not. The harmful purpose I was referring to is attempting to manipulate the child into having sex.



They may be easily manipulated into sexual situations but it does not have to happen. Believe it or not, there can be an equal sexual relationship between an adult and a child. Besides some children may even be much harder to manipulate then some adults.
Your saying it does not make it so. And I do not believe it. Have you heard of puberty? It's when a person changes from a child to an adult. How can they be equal when children are physically incapable of being like an adult until after puberty and adults are physically incapable of being like children after puberty?



Have you ever looked upon a nice looking woman when there where children around? That's also "seeking sexual stimulation in the presence of a child" if we get literal. :p
No, it isn't. Looking at a woman is not equivalent to watching porn.


I never said I'm a pedophile! I am just very liberal when it comes to talking about sex. I hate it when people tell other people that they can't do something completely natural even though it doesn't harm anyone.
So I suppose all those support groups for people who were molested as children are just huge conspiracy or something?

The adult can explain in context,
To what end?
supervise
To what end?
or just enjoy independently.
It's not really independant when there's a child there.

Usually doesn't pop out of thin air either.

Try explaining these (http://nonsense.sourceforge.net/demo/stupidlaws/)

No legal sexual relations! Legal! Say it with me: "Legal!"
Legal isn't the same as good, you know.



Well, it gets quite close if you have a hard-on :p

im not talking legal. im talking right and wrong.

Try explaining these (http://nonsense.sourceforge.net/demo/stupidlaws/)

The Internet has seen its fair share of "stupid law" lists. Most of the laws cited are fake, and so are the following randomly generated laws... but, in the United States at least, you never know.
Those are all fake.

Wanting to watch porn with a minor => wanting to have sex with that minor. I can't think of any other reason an adult could have for wanting to watch porn with a minor.

And because you can't think of any reason there can be no reason amirite? Or well, Wilgrove and you, in this case.

This would depend on just who the adult is and how old the "minor" is. There's big difference in daddy showing his more "appropriate" porn to his 15 year old kid to give him some sex-ed and a stranger giving candy to random kid if s/he promises to keep it secret he showed him/her "interesting video"...

Honestly, I am finding you more sicking and repulsive with every post you make. and the fact that you actually see no problem with an adult getting turned on by watching porn with a child...is ugh...

I'm getting more and more sick reading your self-righteous bullshit.

I have seen what adult/child porn watching has done, I've seen it in my best friend, and it fucks them up. Hell, my friend is a successful law enforcement officer, she rose above the disaster that is her "childhood" but she is still damaged, she is still fucked up. So, don't sit on your ass and tell me that there's nothing wrong with adult watching porn with a minor when I have to comfort my friend when she has flashbacks.

So your personal experience with one person says that it can only ever do harm? Just like I could say that just because I had bad dreams over watching certain cartoon at tender age of 6 the said cartoon should be banned worldwide :rolleyes:

Oh and before you bother: I've posted my views on rapists/pedophiles on these forums before, which should be proof enough that I'm not one. Only writing this because you seem to be the kind that is quick to comdemn any thoughts that don't match yours.

And because you can't think of any reason there can be no reason amirite? Or well, Wilgrove and you, in this case.
I'm getting lumped in with Wilgrove. Oh dear.

daddy showing his more "appropriate" porn to his 15 year old kid to give him some sex-ed
See, that seems reasonable enough.

Those are all fake.

There are stupid laws all over the world. Finnish example would be that you can legally shoot gypsies on sight. Doesn't mean anyone actually followed the law...

I actually enjoy reading about stupid laws, some of them just are so ridiculously stupid or no-brainers that it's crazy.

Since we've already agreed that porn is generally based on male fantasies, then it should be clear why it isn't a useful tool for educating children about sex.

What about educating children about sex fantasies? :p

I thought it was obvious. Evidently not. The harmful purpose I was referring to is attempting to manipulate the child into having sex.

Having sex with children is already banned. Why do we need to ban this also? Especially when it's not certain it's used for that purpose.

Your saying it does not make it so. And I do not believe it. Have you heard of puberty? It's when a person changes from a child to an adult. How can they be equal when children are physically incapable of being like an adult until after puberty and adults are physically incapable of being like children after puberty?

I actually know a quite charming little girl that always astounds me by thinking a lot like an adult would.
And puberty is just a period when the biggest amount of hormones is pumped into your brain.

So I suppose all those support groups for people who were molested as children are just huge conspiracy or something?

I'm not advocating child molestation! Child molestation is bad!

And because you can't think of any reason there can be no reason amirite? Or well, Wilgrove and you, in this case.

This would depend on just who the adult is and how old the "minor" is. There's big difference in daddy showing his more "appropriate" porn to his 15 year old kid to give him some sex-ed and a stranger giving candy to random kid if s/he promises to keep it secret he showed him/her "interesting video"...

We're not talking about a dad giving his son porn and then the son going off to masturbate to it by himself. We're talking about an adult watching porn with a minor. Two very different things.

I'm getting more and more sick reading your self-righteous bullshit.

Hmm, didn't realize that standing up for what's right and just is "self-righteous". I just thought it was called being right.

So your personal experience with one person says that it can only ever do harm? Just like I could say that just because I had bad dreams over watching certain cartoon at tender age of 6 the said cartoon should be banned worldwide :rolleyes:

Does the nightmare and cartoon affect the rest of your life? Is it something that will take years of therapy for you to get over, will you be reminded of it every time you drive by your childhood home or when you hear news about pedophiles? I highly doubt it. So your example fails.

Oh and before you bother: I've posted my views on rapists/pedophiles on these forums before, which should be proof enough that I'm not one. Only writing this because you seem to be the kind that is quick to comdemn any thoughts that don't match yours.

I only comdemns thoughts that will only serve to harm and hurt someone for the majority of their life.

im not talking legal. im talking right and wrong.

By pointing out the legality?

Those are all fake.

Maybe, maybe not. However, there can be stupid laws!

I only comdemns thoughts that will only serve to harm and hurt someone for the majority of their life.

ya know, wil, i think we (as in you and i) shoud let this thread go. its getting seriously creepy and im not sure that they arent "taking the piss" here.

its only going to make our heads explode.

ya know, wil, i think we (as in you and i) shoud let this thread go. its getting seriously creepy and im not sure that they arent "taking the piss" here.

its only going to make our heads explode.

Sadly I'd have to agree with you. Can't believe there are people like this out in the world...and they're not even hiding anymore....

There are stupid laws all over the world. Finnish example would be that you can legally shoot gypsies on sight. Doesn't mean anyone actually followed the law...

I actually enjoy reading about stupid laws, some of them just are so ridiculously stupid or no-brainers that it's crazy.

Source it.

Hmm, didn't realize that standing up for what's right and just is "self-righteous". I just thought it was called being right.

I bow before you, paladin!
Seriously, you should know why you feel certain things are "right" and certain things are "wrong". The feeling itself is never enough.

Does the nightmare and cartoon affect the rest of your life? Is it something that will take years of therapy for you to get over, will you be reminded of it every time you drive by your childhood home or when you hear news about pedophiles? I highly doubt it. So your example fails.

Actually, I had this children's book about a little lice that was cooking beer (I swear it's true!). It ended up with the cute little drawn lice drowning in the large cauldron of hot beer. I found the depiction of the beer itself very disgusting, sympathized with the poor lice and imagined the burns she must have experienced. I was very very young by then. I had nightmares about it for some time. I still get uneasy when I think about it and some things remind me of it.
I think that maybe if I was told all the time how poor I am that I experienced this horrible thing and how the thought of the lice burning with her skin slowly peeling off is painful, I would have broken down a long time ago and really would need a professional attention. This is usually what a victim of child molestation has to go through. And with such a great culture of therapy I'm not amazed that lots of them go to one.
It might have been a horrible experience, true. But what followed might have been an even more horrible experience. But what do I know? I don't know the case.

We're not talking about a dad giving his son porn and then the son going off to masturbate to it by himself. We're talking about an adult watching porn with a minor. Two very different things.

And my example wasn't about the father going away, but staying the child to explain what is actually happening in the video. I see no harm in it, actually, provided the father concentrates on the essential.

Hmm, didn't realize that standing up for what's right and just is "self-righteous". I just thought it was called being right.

Drawing your own (false) conclusions about Kattia's OP and demonizing him due them is quote self-righteous IMHO. Remember, term "minor" can be understood to be anything between just-born baby and teen/young adult of 15-21 age depending on country/state.

Does the nightmare and cartoon affect the rest of your life? Is it something that will take years of therapy for you to get over, will you be reminded of it every time you drive by your childhood home or when you hear news about pedophiles? I highly doubt it. So your example fails.

I can't see how you can draw the line between "one child got molested (I assume from your writings) after some guy showed him porn" to "every child is molested after being shown porn". As such the examples are equal: just because something happened in one case doesn't mean it always happens.

I got nightmares (for years, actually, thank you for asking, but no therapy) when I watched the cartoon at young age, but I have friends who didn't despite watching it at even younger age. Just because it happened to me, it doesn't happen to everyone. Just because one pedophile showed porn to a minor before abusing her doesn't mean every pedophile does. Just because one girl got abused after being shown porn doesn't mean every girl who is shown porn does.

I only comdemns thoughts that will only serve to harm and hurt someone for the majority of their life.

Personal/shared experience overriding the possibility of any other similar event with different ending from happening. Sorry, does not compute.

I can't see how you can draw the line between "one child got molested (I assume from your writings) after some guy showed him porn" to "every child is molested after being shown porn". As such the examples are equal: just because something happened in one case doesn't mean it always happens.

I got nightmares (for years, actually, thank you for asking, but no therapy) when I watched the cartoon at young age, but I have friends who didn't despite watching it at even younger age. Just because it happened to me, it doesn't happen to everyone. Just because one pedophile showed porn to a minor before abusing her doesn't mean every pedophile does. Just because one girl got abused after being shown porn doesn't mean every girl who is shown porn does.

Personal/shared experience overriding the possibility of any other similar event with different ending from happening. Sorry, does not compute.

Exactly what I was trying to say with the one line logical proof! Thank you for putting it into an example. I think it may be much more understandable in this form :)

Source it.

Would if I could. It's been years since I read/heard about it, and as such I've even forgotten the source. Even if I would be able to find source for it, it would be in finnish and as such pointless for majority of posters here.

Quick google search only found a lot of racist comments on gypsies, and one person in some random forum refererring to the law but again, only in finnish.

The law has, for all I know, been repealed a long time a go.

Would if I could. It's been years since I read/heard about it, and as such I've even forgotten the source. Even if I would be able to find source for it, it would be in finnish and as such pointless for majority of posters here.

Quick google search only found a lot of racist comments on gypsies, and one person in some random forum refererring to the law but again, only in finnish.

The law has, for all I know, been repealed a long time a go.

The reason I ask is because a lot of times fictional laws get mistaken for real ones. Like, according to dumblaws.com, lollipops are illegal in Washington.

AFAIK, that isn't a real law.

Porn is much less damaging on a child than seeing your parents having sex.

Porn is much less damaging on a child than seeing your parents having sex.

Wouldn't be damaging at all if our society took sex as something natural and good.

I wasn't aware that we're talking about an existing porn movie :)
However, great to hear that!

I'll take it as read that you're matching my joke with one of your own. Otherwise, you're not pretending to be obtuse, you're just plain obtuse.

What about educating children about sex fantasies? :p

What about it? Why do they need educating at all, except perhaps that the person educating them might get off on it?

Having sex with children is already banned. Why do we need to ban this also? Especially when it's not certain it's used for that purpose.

Seriously? You're really asking that question? Okay, one more time, I'll bite. Murder is already banned. Why is battery banned, too? Too broad?

Okay, how about this one? LSD is illegal -- why bother regulating the components that make it?

Adults consorting with minors in a sexual manner is made illegal because the vast majority of those who do so are doing so without any regard for the capacity of the minor to truly -- TRULY -- handle what's happening. You may try, but I sincerely doubt your ability to convince me that there can be anything even approaching equality in a sexual relationship between an adult and a young minor. The only exception might be the "high school age difference" kind of rule that allows for the freshman/senior age range to be mildly acceptable (many still think that the potential of iniquity between the 18-y-o senior and the 14-y-o freshman is too far). Sure as sunrise that much past that gap, when dealing with minors, there's a manipulation taking place, active or passive, it's there.

I actually know a quite charming little girl that always astounds me by thinking a lot like an adult would.

All the time, as an adult, or in occasional passages when she's concentrating and focused? Many children in adolescence can string together adult-like stretches of thought and expression -- that's the point of adolescence. A child's brain grows to the point where the concrete operations phase gradually -- gradually -- gives way to adult critical thinking.

Sorry, but the occasional flash of adult-level understanding is not the same as a consent-ready adult. This argument is really suspicious anyway, given as it is to the appearance of inability to wait until the younger of the two has reached the legal age of majority. It's as if there's some kind of magic state that can only be reached when the minor being lusted after is still a minor. It's disingenuous.

And puberty is just a period when the biggest amount of hormones is pumped into your brain.

Which often addles the living daylights out of it. All the more reason to avoid confusing relationships with people who've long since recovered from the dosage. Unless you're arguing that any kind of incapacity is okay to take advantage of, regardless of whether it's distilled spirits, pot smoke, or hormones.

I'm not advocating child molestation! Child molestation is bad!

No, but you ARE advocating one of the main avenues used by molesters to rationalize that behavior. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and if you're so keen to fuck some quasi-adult-functioning minor, then you're probably suffering from at least a mild case of ephebephilia, and should look into treatment.

This isn't that difficult a concept to understand, is it? Regardless of its flexibility, your own personal morality isn't what's at issue here. It's the morality that society has so far legislated into legal reality. If they don't match, guess which one's not going to bend?

In the interest of full disclosure, I have taught public high school and college. I've been unintentionally privy to conversations and seen modes of dress that have challenged my every fiber of propriety. I have even been propositioned (in varying degrees, some innocent, some not even close) by young female students. I have had to mentally purge the wafting thoughts of potential sexual pleasure out of my mind in order to keep functioning and keep my self-respect and my career. I understand the temptation perhaps better than most of you (apologies for the gross assumption, but I have to imagine I'm right, feel free to correct me if I'm not). I have resisted it successfully in every incarnation. Even ones where succumbing would not have been illegal.

Why? Because I don't want to be "that guy". The one who rationalizes the living hell out of shady behavior and has to work up the bravado to look in a mirror. My chosen career is already a minefield, and will me as long as I'm in it and young women are students. In darker moments, I've wished that the world you're living in were in fact the world we have. But it simply isn't, and I don't think that's bad. Young men and women have plenty of time for exploration of that aspect of their lives once the societal hurdle has been crossed. I know many who didn't wait and wished they had, and yes, I do know one who didn't wait and is fine. She and the ultra-vast minority of others like her are far, far too small a population for which society as it is now could ever write exceptions to laws intended to govern everyone.

In the end, you are free to believe what you like about the potential for sexual relationships between minors and adults. I've seen them from close-up. I've seen them ruin the minor, and I've seen them ruin the adult. While it might be true that the ruination of which I speak is only due to the aforementioned constraints imposed by society, those constraints MUST apply SOMEwhere. Since individual aptitude and readiness for sexual relationships is virtually impossible to measure, the law was written using the only quantifiable part of the equation: chronological age. (And don't get me started on mental age -- we ALL know plenty of immature adult geniuses as well as the mythical "adult-like kid".)

The system is, as any system governing human behavior is destined to be, flawed. But the flaws are worth the overall level of protection the laws offer. Childishly "taking the piss" out of what has become societal and legal precedent (and something you obviously know to be such) is a waste of time. I wonder why you bother?

Wouldn't be damaging at all if our society took sex as something natural and good.

:rolleyes:

Come on. How close do you think we are to that? Your fantasies are all well and good, but reality is harsher and far more judgmental. I'm no fan of the Puritan-capitalist hypocrisy when it comes to sex, either, but there it is.

Inspired by another thread...
Do you think it's bad for children to watch porn? And I'm not talking about illegal - I know it is. Tell me your opinions.

Personally, I don't think it's bad. They might not understand fully if it's not explained to them but after that I think it's okay.
I think watching violence (which is much more present on the TV, news, etc.) is far worse. They will one day be able to enjoy sex and there will be nothing wrong with it. However killing is always wrong!

I think it's bad because it clashes with the values I hold. They will get the wrong kind of influences and the wrong kind of education, since I don't think porn gives a good representation of a healthy sex life when viewed in those perspectives.

Believe it or not, there can be an equal sexual relationship between an adult and a child.

That would be in the rarest of cases, most likely where the adult is mentally retarded and thus at the same "mental age" as the child, and being similar in maturity. Normally, there will not be an equal sexual relationship between an adult and a child.

Of course, the inequality is generally lessened proportionally with a smaller age gap.

Well, having fapped off to kiddy porn I'm going to sleep now :)
I'm glad you enjoyed this conversation as much as I did! (And I know you did because otherwise you wouldn't participate so enthusiastically, right? ;))
Feel free to continue, however. I'll be delighted to read the continuation tomorrow!
Good night and sweet dreams!

Why? What's so wrong? Even if it is getting the adult horny, if he doesn't touch (or scare or whatever) the kids I don't see anything wrong.

I was going to comment on how messed up I think the practice of buying kids alcohol is under the premise that "at least they're drinking at home", but this is so infinitely more disturbing.

*blinks*

*likewise*

I was going to comment on how messed up I think the practice of buying kids alcohol is under the premise that "at least they're drinking at home", but this is so infinitely more disturbing.

You'll have a choice of either a brain bleech or a boiling water shower.

I wouldn't ban bread because of this, I wouldn't ban sex because of rapes and I wouldn't ban children watching porn with adults because of a child molestation. It's the same reason in all cases.

Oh and sex play isn't bad in general, it's bad if someone doesn't like it. But that's a different story.

You're either psychotic, a troll, or a psychotic troll.

This is not analogous to eating bread. This is analogous to, say, taking PCP and becoming violent.

I sincerely hope you're just trolling, because the idea that someone thinks it's okay for an adult to watch porn with a child and "get horny" watching the child watch porn, or that sex play with children can be "good" if the child "likes it"... I have to go be violently ill now.

I think it depende so n age but also the content.

Hardcore no no

erotic/softcore not that bad for them.

Believe it or not, there can be an equal sexual relationship between an adult and a child.

No, there absolutely, in no uncertain terms, CAN NOT.

That's one of the reasons we make distinctions between children and adults, because they are NOT equal in terms of abilities to make decisions, comprehend consequences, stand up for themselves, etc et fucking cetera.

This is probably the most disgusting statement I've ever read on NSG, and that's saying something. Please go talk to a professional mental health specialist before you ruin any children's lives.

You'll have a choice of either a brain bleech or a boiling water shower.

So I now see.

So I now see.

Yep, you can't reason with people who think like Kattia, and you can't reason with pedophiles. That's why I wonder why we even bother.

So I now see.

dont you hate it when you are left hoping to god that a poster is just a troll and doesnt really believe the things he has written?

I've read several pages of this and seen many people argue about watching porn with a "child" or "minor".

Yet nobody bothered defining that.

Suffice to say that the age of the "minor" involved does change quite a bit the situation.

An adult watching porn and even getting frisky with a 16-17 yo teenager might be seen as socially reprehensible, but it's in no way "OH MY GOD YOU MONSTER SHOULD DIE IN A FIRE" bad.

Of course, if we're talking about a 10 years old child, then it's another whole damn set of circumstances.

I've read several pages of this and seen many people argue about watching porn with a "child" or "minor".

Yet nobody bothered defining that.

Suffice to say that the age of the "minor" involved does change quite a bit the situation.

An adult watching porn and even getting frisky with a 16-17 yo teenager might be seen as socially reprehensible, but it's in no way "OH MY GOD YOU MONSTER SHOULD DIE IN A FIRE" bad.

Of course, if we're talking about a 10 years old child, then it's another whole damn set of circumstances.


if the adult is a 19 year old friend or sweetheart, no problem. if the adult is a 50 year old neighbor, BIG problem.

if the adult is a 19 year old friend or sweetheart, no problem. if the adult is a 50 year old neighbor, BIG problem.
Even if, it's not illegal, and although I would readily label it as creepy by my own standards, I know enough young people who are into older partners to figure out that it doesn't necessarily mean problems.

Heck, there was a girl I knew in high school who dated a 40-something guy. On purpose. As in, she's the one who went after him.

Creepy, but it happens.

Even if, it's not illegal, and although I would readily label it as creepy by my own standards, I know enough young people who are into older partners to figure out that it doesn't necessarily mean problems.

Heck, there was a girl I knew in high school who dated a 40-something guy. On purpose. As in, she's the one who went after him.

Creepy, but it happens.

thats why there are consent laws eh? teen girls (and boys) are often very attracted to older partners. that doesnt mean they should have them. the older person should have the self control to put on the brakes until the teen is old enough to be involved with legally.

even then most parents will freak out at their 17 year old dating a 40+ person.

well most parents would probably also freak out if their 17 year old daughter and her 19 year old boyfriend were watching porn together in the living room.

Yes the legal definition is over 18 years. Please dont use that as a smart ass response.

I have known 15 year olds who could manage their life alot better then some legally defined adults. Some countries you must be 21 years do certain activities. Other countries its 18. And some places people over 10 can be tried as an adult. But they still couldnt go into a porn theatre.

You could define an adult as someone who hits puberty. If that was the case some 14 year olds could watch porn.
Another way in mental development which often does not finish until you are 22 or 23.

The 18 or 21 year mark was created by law to make a solid line. Its easier to run a system that way. However that does not necessarily mean that someone who is just a few days or months younger then the age mark should be unable to watch porn if others are.

Any age limit no matter how close to being right will not be the best suited for all people. A merit basis however is far to complicated

What about it? Why do they need educating at all, except perhaps that the person educating them might get off on it?

While I remember that we had too much sex-ed from 7th to 12th grade (using grades due lack of similarity between finnish and american/UK schooling) I also remember that most of the sex-ed was repetition of the same: We were only taught about contraception and STDs. Along with "Drinking is bad, mkay, don't drink. Drugs are bad, mkay, don't do drugs".

So, from personal experience, some kind of proper sex-ed that didn't center around the possible side-effects might have been good. I'm not saying every parent should sit down with their kid to watch porn and use it to explain stuff, but it's one option that I wouldn't consider exactly horrible nor mark of pedophile either :rolleyes:

Seriously? You're really asking that question? Okay, one more time, I'll bite. Murder is already banned. Why is battery banned, too? Too broad?

I would be horrified at this example if it wasn't everywhere in our society already: "Here sonny, I bought you the new <insert splatter movie title>. But if I ever catch you looking at porn, you'll regret it for the rest of your life!"

Okay, how about this one? LSD is illegal -- why bother regulating the components that make it?

Just like they're regulating components of alcohol - or not :rolleyes:

Above is as pointless as the quoted part.

Adults consorting with minors in a sexual manner... *snip*

And here's the problem: The only possibility for you people is that the adult wants abuse the kid. There just isn't any other possibility for you.

Yes, showing porn for any reason to 6 year old would be pointless. 9 years old? Yes. Educational purposes for 12 years old? Too early for most, but not for all. After that it would depend on how mentally developed the minor in question would be. Mind you, AFAIK there are countries where 15 years old is considered adult.

All the time, as an adult, or in occasional passages when she's concentrating and focused? Many children in adolescence can string together adult-like stretches of thought and expression -- that's the point of adolescence. A child's brain grows to the point where the concrete operations phase gradually -- gradually -- gives way to adult critical thinking.

I've conversed - albeit online in a game - with minors whose words and actions made me think they'd be 20+ (real age 13-16) at the least, as well as 30+ adults who I would've expected to be 9 years old. Mental and real age vary wildly form person to person.

...The line has to be drawn somewhere, and if you're so keen to fuck some quasi-adult-functioning minor...

Whoa whoa-fucking whoa there fellow! You're jumping from him giving an example of young minor who surprises him by acting adult-like to him wanting to abuse her? If anyone it's you who should get your head examined...

(And don't get me started on mental age -- we ALL know plenty of immature adult geniuses as well as the mythical "adult-like kid".)

Too late :p

I decided to quote when I read quote above this, and am reading rest of the post while I reply.

Childishly "taking the piss" out of what has become societal and legal precedent (and something you obviously know to be such) is a waste of time. I wonder why you bother?

Let's see... OP was about Kattia asking what people think about children (of undetermined age, just "children") watching porn, after which Wilgrove mentioned that if there was adult supervising said watching of porn (with his mind set that there can only be one reason for adult to do so, no matter what age the child is), and when Kattia asked why would it be wrong he started getting personal attacks.

Looking back it's - ironically enough - Wilgrove & CO arguing case of pre-teen child and random person watching person vs. my example of teen being given sex-ed by father, with first party hammering at their example as the only possible scenario that could ever happen in the whole wide world :rolleyes:

Besides, Kattia hasn't really defended any particular point that much, as much as asked "why?" and given "Because I says so! *brands mark of pedophile on forehead* " treatment.

Yes the legal definition is over 18 years. Please dont use that as a smart ass response.

I have known 15 year olds who could manage their life alot better then some legally defined adults. Some countries you must be 21 years do certain activities. Other countries its 18. And some places people over 10 can be tried as an adult. But they still couldnt go into a porn theatre.

You could define an adult as someone who hits puberty. If that was the case some 14 year olds could watch porn.
Another way in mental development which often does not finish until you are 22 or 23.

The 18 or 21 year mark was created by law to make a solid line. Its easier to run a system that way. However that does not necessarily mean that someone who is just a few days or months younger then the age mark should be unable to watch porn if others are.

Any age limit no matter how close to being right will not be the best suited for all people. A merit basis however is far to complicated


yeah but you can wait a few days to get your porn eh?

thats why there are consent laws eh? teen girls (and boys) are often very attracted to older partners. that doesnt mean they should have them. the older person should have the self control to put on the brakes until the teen is old enough to be involved with legally.

Consent laws means that they can get them, actually, once they reach age of consent.


even then most parents will freak out at their 17 year old dating a 40+ person.

Agreed, and I certainly would.


well most parents would probably also freak out if their 17 year old daughter and her 19 year old boyfriend were watching porn together in the living room.
Disagreed, and I certainly wouldn't. By 17 a kid is old enough to be sexually active. As long as I know said daughter took the proper precautions to have safe sex, and that she had a healthy relationship going on with her boyfriend, there'd be nothing to worry about.

yeah but you can wait a few days to get your porn eh?

Apparently not...a case of blue balls?

You got a T'gram Ashmoria.

But what is so bad about, let's say, a 9 year old watching porn? It's absolutely normal!

Do tell, what is "normal" about a 9 year old watching two people have unrealistic sex?


It's not like drinking in that it won't damage you in any way.

Disagree.

I just don't get why everybody thinks sex is so bad.


No one has said this. Nice strawman.

Mmk, so I just read the first page, my ADD took hold, and I skipped to the last page, so I'll just reply to the initial question: Is porn bad for children?

We have to think of what porn is and what the possible effects each description could have on a child. I'm just going to use "straight guy-girl having sex" (or whatever you want to call it) porn for a base, as it's the most common, I think.

Porn is essentially watching a person you lust for have sex with another person. Now since porn is based on the emotion of lust, a child probably wouldn't understand or have an interest in porn until his early-to-mid 10's, I'd think. So I'd say that porn before 10 is just a really moany anatomy lesson.

(Note that the following paragraphs addresses long-term effects and how the child may act as an adult.)
However, your frontal lobe of your brain (from what I understand, the section of the brain that determines how you react to certain situations) doesn't fully develop until you're 25. I can imagine that porn would affect your decision-making skills in that you would be more prone to cheating (seeing as how you've come to accept watching another person have sex with your "partner," you yourself would assume it's okay to do the same). It may also make a person more shallow and to have shorter relationships, since they only see the sexual context of a relationship all the time instead of the romantic. And since sexual relationships would be shorter, that means there would most likely be more of them, which, obviously, would put the person at higher risk for STDs and unwanted pregnancies. And because of the "perfect" nature of porn star bodies, it could engrain a stereotype of wanting "perfect" women or men, thus leading to more general stress and self-image issues for men and women everywhere. Finally, porn can become terribly addictive, especially since a child is so impressionable, and cause relationship or financial problems (if it becomes too serious).

However, most people aren't affected this heavily by media (though some poor souls are), even at such a young age. Some less serious effects of children watching porn could be (some would argue) disrespect for women, constant, invasive thoughts of sexual activity, and an overall shallowness of character.

But surely not all effects are bad. Sex is a staple of any romantic relationship. It's the whole point of humans falling in love in the first place, to reproduce. Watching porn at a young age could teach the child good sexual habits that cause sexual euphoria to both partners, which would strengthen the sexual staple. It could also give both partners a taste for more frequent sex, so one partner doesn't have to give a miserable mercy-fuck every now and then, but rather both parties could enjoy the sexual aspect of their relationship. That's all that really comes to mind for positive effects of children viewing porn, though.

All in all, I think porn is more detrimental to a youth than it is beneficial. Looking back on what I wrote, I basically described the effects of porn in general, but they apply three-fold to children simply because of their undeveloped frontal lobe. I think that porn can be a very, very dangerous pass-time to a child until the child can fully understand what sex is, why people do it, and why the child feels the way he or she does when thinking about sex. When the child can understand these topics, then I think it would be safe to allow the child to view pornography.

Well, having fapped off to kiddy porn I'm going to sleep now :)


.....what?


Ok, combined with this statement:

Believe it or not, there can be an equal sexual relationship between an adult and a child.

as well as your constant assertion that kids should watch porn, especially with adults, Im now convinced you are a troll or kiddy toucher. Which is it?

as well as your constant assertion that kids should watch porn, especially with adults, Im now convinced you are a troll or kiddy toucher. Which is it?

Or, you know, joke. At least I'm hoping it's one :confused:

Or, you know, joke. At least I'm hoping it's one :confused:

That's certainly how I read it.

Or, you know, joke. At least I'm hoping it's one :confused:

I would be inclined to agree, if they were not staunchly defending children under 12 watching porn, calling it natural, saying adults should watch it with them, and saying things like this:

Believe it or not, there can be an equal sexual relationship between an adult and a child.

I would be inclined to agree, if they were not staunchly defending children under 12 watching porn, calling it natural, saying adults should watch it with them, and saying things like this:

BOW CHICKA BOW...No. No I can't finish it. It's too low, even for me.

My post was a direct quote-for-quote exchange with Kattia. You've decided to post a reply to it, and that's fine, but you've taken a lot of stuff out of context.

While I remember that we had too much sex-ed from 7th to 12th grade (using grades due lack of similarity between finnish and american/UK schooling) I also remember that most of the sex-ed was repetition of the same: We were only taught about contraception and STDs. Along with "Drinking is bad, mkay, don't drink. Drugs are bad, mkay, don't do drugs".

So, from personal experience, some kind of proper sex-ed that didn't center around the possible side-effects might have been good. I'm not saying every parent should sit down with their kid to watch porn and use it to explain stuff, but it's one option that I wouldn't consider exactly horrible nor mark of pedophile either :rolleyes:

I'll concede that the method parents choose to educate their kids about sex is their own business. I would add that using porn for the purposes of demonstration is very low-end thinking, given the unrealistic nature of the vast majority of porn. There's likely a porn niche out there that's somehow ideal for sex-ed purposes -- this is America, after all, there's a niche for everything.

I would be horrified at this example if it wasn't everywhere in our society already: "Here sonny, I bought you the new <insert splatter movie title>. But if I ever catch you looking at porn, you'll regret it for the rest of your life!"

Okay, you were fine until here -- you seem to be missing the point, but it's probably not deliberate. I have a fairly idiomatic way of expressing myself when I type, and the part you quoted was cut off out of context. Your retort makes no sense to me.

I said "murder is already banned, so why is battery also banned". My implication was that there's a difference between beating someone up and beating them to death. Using Kattia's logic of "sex with a minor is illegal, so why is behavior labeled as 'grooming' also banned", my point was that society has deemed that not only is the worst offense illegal, but anything leading to or with the potential to lead to that worst offense is also illegal...

...which is why your next bit makes no sense...

Just like they're regulating components of alcohol - or not :rolleyes:

Above is as pointless as the quoted part.

Uh...pointless? Alcohol isn't illegal for everyone, it's regulated for the ages determined by any given nation. Of course the ingredients of something that isn't itself banned aren't banned, there's no need.

Again, you've missed the point. LSD is illegal for everyone. So to avoid anyone making it and to track those who would try, the components of LSD are strictly regulated. Again, the "bad" thing (LSD production and use, according to the law) is further insulated by law through the regulation of those things that go into creating the "bad" thing. That's the comparison to laws on the books that make "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" all the way though "communication with a minor for sexual purposes" and related offenses necessary according to current societal dictates. If minors can be kept out of situations that are a high risk of becoming sexually abusive, coercive, manipulative, what-have-you, they should. That's the rationale. It may be ham-fisted, but it's seen as erring on the side of caution where minors are concerned, regardless of their own or others' perception of their "readiness" for sexual contact.

Again, it's imperfect, but it's more practical than attempting case-by-case analyses of individual maturity levels. Age is one hell of a lot easier to quantify than maturity.

And here's the problem: The only possibility for you people is that the adult wants abuse the kid. There just isn't any other possibility for you.

No, that's the outcome with the greatest potential for damage. As a result, laws have been enacted to ensure that even threshold behaviors are made illegal to keep that damage from happening. Again, erring on the side of caution. Disagree with it all you like, it's still the law. And it's the law because the likelihood is far greater that a minor will be taken advantage of by an unscrupulous older adult than a minor will be wholly and genuinely ready for such a relationship. If one of 100 is ready for it, the law is there to protect the other 99, which makes more practical and pragmatic sense than trying to write a law that incorporates both the 99 and the one.

Yes, showing porn for any reason to 6 year old would be pointless. 9 years old? Yes. Educational purposes for 12 years old? Too early for most, but not for all. After that it would depend on how mentally developed the minor in question would be. Mind you, AFAIK there are countries where 15 years old is considered adult.

For those countries where the age of majority is 15, then that's where THEY chose to draw the line. The US chose 18. What's the problem? By mentioning other nations' ages of majority you make my point -- the line had to be drawn SOMEwhere. As far as "too early for most" and "depend on how mentally developed the minor in question would be" -- I ask the question that I always ask in this situation: who decides? Again, if a parent decides that porn is an appropriate tool to help introduce their kids to sexuality, fine. But that's not what I'm reading in Kattia's posts. I'm reading "what's wrong with AN ADULT watching porn with A MINOR?" I'd think the minor's parents could answer that question best.

I've conversed - albeit online in a game - with minors whose words and actions made me think they'd be 20+ (real age 13-16) at the least, as well as 30+ adults who I would've expected to be 9 years old. Mental and real age vary wildly form person to person.

Good for you. That's wholly irrelevant. If you were fooled or otherwise convinced that someone who wasn't 20+ was, that's your lookout. You do not and cannot speak for everyone. Of course mental age and chronological age differ from person to person. As I've said before, law is an inaccurate safeguard for every possible permutation of humanity, but it's much better than none.

So far as you know, the person coming off as 20+ only has the intellectual capacity to do so and not the emotional capacity to handle the consequences of his/her actions.

Whoa whoa-fucking whoa there fellow! You're jumping from him giving an example of young minor who surprises him by acting adult-like to him wanting to abuse her? If anyone it's you who should get your head examined...

Once more, you've jumped to a conclusion and misinterpreted my post. The "you" is the general "you" not implying that Kattia wanted to abuse anyone. Please learn to read context before accusing people of things, k? Otherwise you look needlessly reactionary and almost predisposed to misinterpret things for shock value. In short, a prime recruit for FOX News.

I decided to quote when I read quote above this, and am reading rest of the post while I reply.

Unwise. That seems to lead to misunderstandings in your case.

Let's see... OP was about Kattia asking what people think about children (of undetermined age, just "children") watching porn, after which Wilgrove mentioned that if there was adult supervising said watching of porn (with his mind set that there can only be one reason for adult to do so, no matter what age the child is), and when Kattia asked why would it be wrong he started getting personal attacks.

Wilgrove's a bit of reactionary himself. People get that way when you don't phrase the acceptability of sex with minors very, VERY carefully. And sometimes, no matter how well you phrase your arguments and no matter how well your arguments are crafted, they're going to go unheard because "children" are forever the lightning rod when it comes to anything controversial. That's the nature of the topic, I'm afraid. I don't agree wish such reactionary nonsense, but it's a plain fact in the US.

Looking back it's - ironically enough - Wilgrove & CO arguing case of pre-teen child and random person watching person vs. my example of teen being given sex-ed by father, with first party hammering at their example as the only possible scenario that could ever happen in the whole wide world :rolleyes:

As I look back, I see Kattia deliberately provoking the opposition by not being thoughtful enough with [her? his? -- I've not seen any gender ID'd, apologies for not knowing] attempt to be rational about the sexuality of minors. It's not a subject that is typically greeted with much rationality, as I've mentioned.

Besides, Kattia hasn't really defended any particular point that much, as much as asked "why?" and given "Because I says so! *brands mark of pedophile on forehead* " treatment.

Which is, as I've said, exactly what Kattia walked into by being so glib about it. It isn't fair, but very little is.

I would be inclined to agree, if they were not staunchly defending children under 12 watching porn, calling it natural, saying adults should watch it with them, and saying things like this:

It was a joke. And a reaction to people starting to call me a pedo.

I said "murder is already banned, so why is battery also banned". My implication was that there's a difference between beating someone up and beating them to death. Using Kattia's logic of "sex with a minor is illegal, so why is behavior labeled as 'grooming' also banned", my point was that society has deemed that not only is the worst offense illegal, but anything leading to or with the potential to lead to that worst offense is also illegal...

There's a difference! Battery is harmful in itself. Watching porn is not. Hence my bread-eating example.

And if I remember correctly, I was not talking about 'grooming' in general but specifically about watching porn with an adult.

No, that's the outcome with the greatest potential for damage. As a result, laws have been enacted to ensure that even threshold behaviors are made illegal to keep that damage from happening. Again, erring on the side of caution. Disagree with it all you like, it's still the law. And it's the law because the likelihood is far greater that a minor will be taken advantage of by an unscrupulous older adult than a minor will be wholly and genuinely ready for such a relationship. If one of 100 is ready for it, the law is there to protect the other 99, which makes more practical and pragmatic sense than trying to write a law that incorporates both the 99 and the one.

So you're saying that if a law damages a minority but helps protecting the majority it's okay? So why don't we arrest gypsies on sight? It would help people protect their property and there aren't so many good gypsies anyway.

Wilgrove's a bit of reactionary himself. People get that way when you don't phrase the acceptability of sex with minors very, VERY carefully. And sometimes, no matter how well you phrase your arguments and no matter how well your arguments are crafted, they're going to go unheard because "children" are forever the lightning rod when it comes to anything controversial. That's the nature of the topic, I'm afraid. I don't agree wish such reactionary nonsense, but it's a plain fact in the US.

Sadly. People should attempt to discuss things calmly. Especially when it's on the net (as it can't change anything, aside from opinions). There's no need to get stressed over this, it's unhealthy.

As I look back, I see Kattia deliberately provoking the opposition by not being thoughtful enough with [her? his? -- I've not seen any gender ID'd, apologies for not knowing] attempt to be rational about the sexuality of minors. It's not a subject that is typically greeted with much rationality, as I've mentioned.

Again, sadly. Irrationality is bad in any argument.

This discussion is getting boring for me, and as such I'll only answer the parts that I want cleared before drifting to another subject.

Good for you. That's wholly irrelevant. If you were fooled or otherwise convinced that someone who wasn't 20+ was, that's your lookout. You do not and cannot speak for everyone. Of course mental age and chronological age differ from person to person. As I've said before, law is an inaccurate safeguard for every possible permutation of humanity, but it's much better than none.

I wasn't the only one. Actually, most people in the community (i.e., the ones that didn't know their age) thought they were older until the real age was told.

Once more, you've jumped to a conclusion and misinterpreted my post. The "you" is the general "you" not implying that Kattia wanted to abuse anyone.

Apologies then, this is one of the things that is occassionally hard to judge for me as english isn't my first language. In finnish there is a word each for both meanings of english "you". I have bad habbit of rather interpreting it as the singular instead of plural one.

Anyway's as mentioned, I'll leave this discussion to this :D

Inspired by another thread...
Do you think it's bad for children to watch porn? And I'm not talking about illegal - I know it is. Tell me your opinions.

Personally, I don't think it's bad. They might not understand fully if it's not explained to them but after that I think it's okay.
I think watching violence (which is much more present on the TV, news, etc.) is far worse. They will one day be able to enjoy sex and there will be nothing wrong with it. However killing is always wrong!

most porn has a distorted body image and portrays women in a subservient role. it also treats men as a peice of meat (little more than a cock with legs). i'm a bloke who's been watching porn for years, and its only fairly recently that i've come to a realisation on how much this can affect your outlook on women and relationships. its very hard to fight these distortions after being exposed to porn for a long time.

i would not let my children watch porn, and i'd want to have a (highly uncomfortable :p) chat with my teenage children about these issues.

sure porn isn't totally liable for many of these distortions, but it certainly can't help

most porn has a distorted body image and portrays women in a subservient role. it also treats men as a peice of meat (little more than a cock with legs). i'm a bloke who's been watching porn for years, and its only fairly recently that i've come to a realisation on how much this can affect your outlook on women and relationships. its very hard to fight these distortions after being exposed to porn for a long time.

i would not let my children watch porn, and i'd want to have a (highly uncomfortable :p) chat with my teenage children about these issues.

sure porn isn't totally liable for many of these distortions, but it certainly can't help

Interesting! I feel like I have the least distorted view about women even though I watch porn rather frequently. Interesting, really.

most porn has a distorted body image and portrays women in a subservient role. it also treats men as a peice of meat (little more than a cock with legs). i'm a bloke who's been watching porn for years, and its only fairly recently that i've come to a realisation on how much this can affect your outlook on women and relationships. its very hard to fight these distortions after being exposed to porn for a long time.

i would not let my children watch porn, and i'd want to have a (highly uncomfortable :p) chat with my teenage children about these issues.

sure porn isn't totally liable for many of these distortions, but it certainly can't help

I'm completely agree with this.

Interesting! I feel like I have the least distorted view about women even though I watch porn rather frequently. Interesting, really.Well, maybe you're special.
In any case, as Our Lord Hedlund quoted from http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm, quite a few pages back,
When male subjects were exposed to as little as six weeks' worth of standard hard-core pornography, they:

-developed an increased sexual callousness toward women
-began to trivialize rape as a criminal offense or no longer considered it a crime at all
-developed distorted perceptions about sexuality
-developed an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent types of pornography (normal sex no longer seemed to do the job)
-devalued the importance of monogamy and lacked confidence in marriage as either a viable or lasting institution
-viewed nonmonogamous relationships as normal and natural behavior
Well, not all bad, perhaps. But in any case, empirically, people in general do seem to be negatively influenced by porn, even if you might not be.

And a more extensive article is available at http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/clineart.cfm
Containing such gems as
3. EFFECTS ON CHILDREN

I find in my clinical practice a spill-over effect where pornography used by adults very frequently gets into the hands of children living in the home or neighborhood. This can cause extremely negative consequences.

For example, the parents of a 14-year-old boy brought their son to me when they discovered that he was sexually molesting his sister. We found on investigation that cable TV was in the home, and late at night on one of the channels, there were some very graphic, rough, very violent depictions of sexuality. He got up at two in the morning, went downstairs, and watched these films night after night. They became the training manual or "sex education" that triggered him to assault his sister sexually.

Which perhaps gives an answer to
Oh, come on! Kids already must know that what's on TV is not real! I can hardly imagine anything on TV that's real (or at least not highly exaggerated - talking about news)Even if they know it isn't real, they might still be mistaken about that it shouldn't be real; that they shouldn't, generally, try to emulate the types of relationships that are portayed (nor the acrobatics, for that matter).

Can we get a definition of "children"?

If you mean 15-16 years old and older.......probably not "harmful" so much as not a good use of time, and possibly addictive. (which is also true for adults)

If you are talking about 3 year olds, yes. 6 year olds, yes. 9 year olds, yes.

It's harmful.

I'm asking out of sheer curiosity : Why do you think it is harmful? In what way would they be harmed?

See, I spent part of my childhood growing up on a farm, and there was usually a lot of mating going on. And I sort of stumbled upon adults enjoying themselves more than once as well.
While I would agree that pre-puberty probably isn't a good time to start having penetrative sex, I can honestly say that the thought that kids hearing about or seeing sex would be harmful has always baffled me immensly...

I'm asking out of sheer curiosity : Why do you think it is harmful? In what way would they be harmed?

See, I spent part of my childhood growing up on a farm, and there was usually a lot of mating going on. And I sort of stumbled upon adults enjoying themselves more than once as well.
While I would agree that pre-puberty probably isn't a good time to start having penetrative sex, I can honestly say that the thought that kids hearing about or seeing sex would be harmful has always baffled me immensly...

Hard-core porn is vastly different from what I imagine "stumbling uponadults enjoying themselves" though, isn't it?

I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and guess that you are yourself underage, have watched porn, and haven't had sex. Please trust me when I say that sex in the real world bears about as much resemblance to sex in pornos as apples do to oranges. The "thing" does indeed "go in and out" but that's about where the resemblance ends.

And are you honestly, honestly going to tell me that nothing about my fictional example of "Cum Sluts 4" strikes you as disrespectful towards women? Because if so, may I just suggest talking to some, y'know, women about that?

Well... I have to admit, again, that I don't necessarily find anything disrespectful about that example. I have to point out, though, that I personally don't think the word "slut" in sexual context is an insult...
I know that some porn can be disrespectful towards women, although it's my impression that the majority of what's out there is more disrespectful towards men. I definitely would say that any kind of violent porn might be disturbing to a child.

I'm asking out of sheer curiosity : Why do you think it is harmful? In what way would they be harmed?

See, I spent part of my childhood growing up on a farm, and there was usually a lot of mating going on. And I sort of stumbled upon adults enjoying themselves more than once as well.I doubt they had much simulated gangrapes on the farm though. (Well, aside from the ducks maybe)
It's not so much sex in itself, but the kind, and the unhealthy context much porn surrounds it with.

Hard-core porn is vastly different from what I imagine "stumbling uponadults enjoying themselves" though, isn't it?

Depends... it certainly is vastly different from any sort of violent porn, but the normal guy-girl shag variety isn't THAT dramatically different, in my opinion.

I doubt they had much simulated gangrapes on the farm though. (Well, aside from the ducks maybe)
It's not so much sex in itself, but the kind, and the unhealthy context much porn surrounds it with.

Again, yes, there is violent porn out there, and that most certainly would disturb most kids.
However, the majority of porn made and watched - as far as I can tell - is pretty straightforward shagging, with little more fancy than oral and possible anal.

What unhealthy context are we talking about here?

most porn has a distorted body image and portrays women in a subservient role. it also treats men as a peice of meat (little more than a cock with legs). i'm a bloke who's been watching porn for years, and its only fairly recently that i've come to a realisation on how much this can affect your outlook on women and relationships. its very hard to fight these distortions after being exposed to porn for a long time.

i would not let my children watch porn, and i'd want to have a (highly uncomfortable :p) chat with my teenage children about these issues.

sure porn isn't totally liable for many of these distortions, but it certainly can't help

That confuses the hell out of me, I have to admit.
I'm a woman, and I love porn. I've been watching it regularly for years. So has my boyfriend, and I honestly have to say that I've never ever met anyone with more respect and admiration for women. If anything, he's probably feeling a little inferior at times.
Ok, we've only been in a relationship for something over 2 years now, but we're getting married next year and are hoping to be able to make the relationship last our lifetimes (no guarantees, but we'll certainly give it our best).

Also, if porn has such negative influences on the people watching it, wouldn't it be time to dig out the old "computer games make people violent" and "horror films make people less sensitive to violence against others, and more likely to commit violent crimes themselves"?

What about amateur porn? Surely that's a "realistic portrayal of sex", which seems to be the primary concern here.

I don't really see the problem if it's just a consenting, loving couple doing it, if the child is older than seven or so (when mental development - not necessarily the development of personality or character, but in a Freudian sense - is finished).

Really, some of the stuff posted here seems to be the kind of fabricated nonsense designed to make church council members faint, gasping "Goodness, it's so unchristian!"

Depends... it certainly is vastly different from any sort of violent porn, but the normal guy-girl shag variety isn't THAT dramatically different, in my opinion.

Lots more close-ups of.... well, everything. Not all that much use of protection, lots of non-lubricated penetration, bad hygiene, and an objectification of the partcipants. I would imagine that it would be vastly different.

Lots more close-ups of.... well, everything. Not all that much use of protection, lots of non-lubricated penetration, bad hygiene, and an objectification of the partcipants. I would imagine that it would be vastly different.

Hmm... you've got a point about the use of protection. There's certainly some problems there.

Non-lubricated penetration? *thinks* Can't say I've seen that very often...

"Objectification" is a term that puzzles me. Can you elaborate?

It was a joke. And a reaction to people starting to call me a pedo.

Ah, a joke. So you got what you asked for, then. Fair enough. Kinda childish, but fair enough.

There's a difference! Battery is harmful in itself. Watching porn is not. Hence my bread-eating example.

That's not really a given, though, is it? As I've repeatedly said in this thread, parents using pornographic images in the context of explaining or de-mystifying sex seems acceptable, even beneficial, in a supervisory/educational context. Just "watching porn with an(y) adult" is where you seemed to run afoul of some posters here. Context.

And if I remember correctly, I was not talking about 'grooming' in general but specifically about watching porn with an adult.

See? This seems too vague to be acceptable. What purpose other than arousal in the presence of a minor could an(y adult besides parent/guardian or someone approved thereby) have to watch porn with a minor?

So you're saying that if a law damages a minority but helps protecting the majority it's okay? So why don't we arrest gypsies on sight? It would help people protect their property and there aren't so many good gypsies anyway.

Come on -- how do laws keeping the potential for sexual abuse of minors at it's lowest damage any minority? You're really reaching for objections here. I fail to see the relevance of your Romani example other than still more inflammatory reaching.

Sadly. People should attempt to discuss things calmly. Especially when it's on the net (as it can't change anything, aside from opinions). There's no need to get stressed over this, it's unhealthy.

Agreed.

Again, sadly. Irrationality is bad in any argument.

Agreed in spades.

This discussion is getting boring for me, and as such I'll only answer the parts that I want cleared before drifting to another subject.

Whatever.

I wasn't the only one. Actually, most people in the community (i.e., the ones that didn't know their age) thought they were older until the real age was told.

Again, wholly irrelevant. Kids in the concrete operations phase are firmly in possession of many adult faculties when it comes to cognition and expression. That speaks not at all to emotional maturity and readiness for sexual contact. IT'S ONLINE, for crying out loud. Anonymity and misrepresentation are part and parcel of the beast. You seem to think that just because someone typed -- typed! -- an adult game that they should be treated as an adult. That's just not so.

Hell, I was reading and writing way beyond my age level at 12. In no way, shape or form was I ready for full immersion into sexuality. That example is just as anecdotal as yours, which means it effectively counters yours. See how silly reliance on anecdotal evidence can be? I'll say it one last time -- the line must be drawn in the realm of possibility, plausibility and practicality. Age fits all three of those parameters.

Apologies then, this is one of the things that is occassionally hard to judge for me as english isn't my first language. In finnish there is a word each for both meanings of english "you". I have bad habbit of rather interpreting it as the singular instead of plural one.

I'd guessed that. No harm done.

Cheers.

Sadly. People should attempt to discuss things calmly. Especially when it's on the net (as it can't change anything, aside from opinions). There's no need to get stressed over this, it's unhealthy.

True. When did a discussion about child pornography on the internet ever hurt anyone? :rolleyes:

I'm asking out of sheer curiosity : Why do you think it is harmful? In what way would they be harmed?

See, I spent part of my childhood growing up on a farm, and there was usually a lot of mating going on. And I sort of stumbled upon adults enjoying themselves more than once as well.
While I would agree that pre-puberty probably isn't a good time to start having penetrative sex, I can honestly say that the thought that kids hearing about or seeing sex would be harmful has always baffled me immensly...

I have to say that the idea of an adult watching porn with a child was far and away more disturbing to me than the idea of a child happening upon porn alone.

I don't think that a child stumbling upon pornography is an automatic recipe for scarring them for life. However, you probably did not, as a child, watch people engage in hours of sex day after day. There's a difference between encountering sex in a natural everyday context, a context where it is a part of life and not the ONLY part of life, and sitting down to watch an hour of hardcore screwing with all the special close-ups.

I have to say that the idea of an adult watching porn with a child was far and away more disturbing to me than the idea of a child happening upon porn alone.

I don't think that a child stumbling upon pornography is an automatic recipe for scarring them for life. However, you probably did not, as a child, watch people engage in hours of sex day after day. There's a difference between encountering sex in a natural everyday context, a context where it is a part of life and not the ONLY part of life, and sitting down to watch an hour of hardcore screwing with all the special close-ups.

True, an adult watching porn with a kid is just... weird. Although I couldn't really say why exactly.

In fairness, I cannot imagine a child watching hours of porn as a child. I remember once happening on some magazines in my parent's bedroom, and looking through them with my brothers. I must have been around 6 or 7 at the time, and our collective reaction was "Ewwwww.... "
It just wasn't interesting yet.
That did change with puberty.

I wouldn't. I would not want my children watching porn untill they are 18 or have a serious GF. and even then, I would make sure they they understand that porn is fantasy, not an example of how women and men should be treated.

True, an adult watching porn with a kid is just... weird. Although I couldn't really say why exactly.

Probably because, as Intangelon said, it's hard to come up with a good reason for it that doesn't involve the adult being sexually stimulated. While there are many things that make me go "ewwww" that I would never be interested in, I could really not give a hoot if adults with the ability to consent want to engage in them.

In fairness, I cannot imagine a child watching hours of porn as a child. I remember once happening on some magazines in my parent's bedroom, and looking through them with my brothers. I must have been around 6 or 7 at the time, and our collective reaction was "Ewwwww.... "
It just wasn't interesting yet.
That did change with puberty.

Again, totally agreed. I think many, if not most, of us had that experience at different ages. I remember at 12 that my cousins and I discovered a stack of Hustlers (that were of all things being sold by my uncle at a yard sale -_- who the fuck wants pre-owned Hustler mags?) and flipped through a couple pages before reaching our max gross-out level. It certainly didn't scar me, looking back it was funny. But that's very different than my uncle sitting down with me and going through the magazine page by page.

Thinking more about it, your experience growing up on a farm was probably the most natural and appropriate way to learn about sex, because of the important fact that sex, when you happened upon it, had a context. If you stumbled upon two people in the act, it's likely they were people you knew and had seen in other contexts--working, eating breakfast, playing with their children, etc. In that situation sex is just another act that's added to the list of things that make up life.

You would also learn that most people prefer to engage in sex in private, as they prefer to move their bowels in private--nothing at all dirty or unnatural about it, but at the same time you learn there are basic appropriate boundaries. Whether or not you want to test or change those boundaries as an adult is an entirely different matter, of course, and one that should be left up to no one else but you and the consenting adults in participation.

http://candicomics.com/comics/20040707.jpg
:D

Rofl! :D

Hmm... you've got a point about the use of protection. There's certainly some problems there.

Non-lubricated penetration? *thinks* Can't say I've seen that very often...
Do you often see them applying lubrication before starting the anal sex? Appart from the occasional spitting?

"Objectification" is a term that puzzles me. Can you elaborate?
Well, it's kinda how they dehumanize the participants. The men become "a penis on legs" as another poster put it, and the women little less than a willing hole. Most of the emotions and personalities are removed, and what we are left with are more or less objects for quick sexual pleasure.

Also, if porn has such negative influences on the people watching it, wouldn't it be time to dig out the old "computer games make people violent" and "horror films make people less sensitive to violence against others, and more likely to commit violent crimes themselves"?

Those are still being debated though. And the possible negative influences from those sources haven't been disproven I believe.

(Mind you, negative influences does not mean that it makes the viewers do something, just that it has an influence on their behavior.)

thread title caught my eye, so i'll add my two cents before moving on...

1) depending on your deffenition of porn, it is probably unwise to show it to children save for the purpose of explaining human reproduction... HOWEVER. cultural refferances and what-not will eventually expose them any way, when the time is about right (granted that there are 12 year olds getting pregnant,
i think the minimum age is going down, so the whole thing is debatable...)
i think that one should not intentionally show porn to children, almost ever (and even then, human reproduction as parents or gaurdians) but you should NOT try and censor it from them... eventually they'll find it, by looking or accident, maybe keep that censorship blocker on their internet explorer until they're 11... but after that turn it off, and let the kids find it for themselves if they are so inclined... that allows a natural introduction to the culture in pieces small enough for the kid to swallow...

2) i heard refferences to pedophelia and what i take to be discussions on age-of-consent laws.. i have a few things on that... minimum legal age of consent where i live is 16... it think... but only with some one within two years of your age... so if your 20, having sex with your 17 year old girl friend is illegal and will land you in jail for decades... this is dumb. first, i think that any punishment for violation of minimum age of consent should be equal to the number of years older one of the participants is than the other... also, it should be legal to have sex with some one within 4 years of your age... (just makes it more even i think) and lastly, people with a minor infraction (say 2 years or less) should NOT have to sign up on the 'sexual predators' list...

the whole system is archaic, puritanistic, and stupid!


ok... thats my two points, i'll let you guys argue the rest of it from here on out... have fun!

-also, think of the game, you can escape the mind-virus at the website in my signiture, one of the comics shows you the way to escape!-

I point out this article on wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pornography_laws_by_region

Especially interesting Laws:

France
Germany

Well, it's kinda how they dehumanize the participants. The men become "a penis on legs" as another poster put it, and the women little less than a willing hole. Most of the emotions and personalities are removed, and what we are left with are more or less objects for quick sexual pleasure.

Good porn has a story and three-dimensional characters.

Also, good porn features kissing and smiles. Anything where there is no kissing and no smiles is just cheap smut.

What's with all this violence is worse crap? I utterly disagree. A kid is 10 times more likely to commit a sexual act after watching porn than to commit a violent act after watching violence.

Do you often see them applying lubrication before starting the anal sex? Appart from the occasional spitting?

Don't know what you are watching, but they seem pretty lubed up to me most of the time...


Well, it's kinda how they dehumanize the participants. The men become "a penis on legs" as another poster put it, and the women little less than a willing hole. Most of the emotions and personalities are removed, and what we are left with are more or less objects for quick sexual pleasure.

Hmm... do cooking books objectify humans as well, then? I mean, they are basically only about food, as if humans were nothing but giant walking stomachs. There are no personalities and no emotions, it's really just about culinary pleasure...

No? Why would porn, then?

Those are still being debated though. And the possible negative influences from those sources haven't been disproven I believe.

(Mind you, negative influences does not mean that it makes the viewers do something, just that it has an influence on their behavior.)

Well, isn't behavious basically what an individual DOES? So, if porn influences behaviour, it would make people do something that they wouldn't do otherwise, right?

Well, isn't behavious basically what an individual DOES? So, if porn influences behaviour, it would make people do something that they wouldn't do otherwise, right?
And does it, or not? There seems to be research indicating both "yes" and "no", one such report indicating "yes" has been quoted in this thread.

Don't know what you are watching, but they seem pretty lubed up to me most of the time...
Do you see them apply lube? I have almost never seen that happen. Mostly, it seems that they take off their clothes and get down to it. No preparations.


Hmm... do cooking books objectify humans as well, then? I mean, they are basically only about food, as if humans were nothing but giant walking stomachs. There are no personalities and no emotions, it's really just about culinary pleasure...

No? Why would porn, then?
You are kidding, right? Or did you just decide you didn't want any serious debate anymore? Ah well. Saves me from typing, I guess.

And does it, or not? There seems to be research indicating both "yes" and "no", one such report indicating "yes" has been quoted in this thread.

And there have been throves of research saying "no" posted in every single "Do violent video games make kids violent?" thread on here so far...


Do you see them apply lube? I have almost never seen that happen. Mostly, it seems that they take off their clothes and get down to it. No preparations.

Sometimes.
Then again, most of them don't have any pubic hair, yet you don't see them shaving either... your point?


You are kidding, right? Or did you just decide you didn't want any serious debate anymore? Ah well. Saves me from typing, I guess.

No.
Recipe books are about food, nothing else. Porn is about sex, nothing else.
Why is one objectifying people and the other one isn't?

Inspired by another thread...
Do you think it's bad for children to watch porn? And I'm not talking about illegal - I know it is. Tell me your opinions.

Personally, I don't think it's bad. They might not understand fully if it's not explained to them but after that I think it's okay.
I think watching violence (which is much more present on the TV, news, etc.) is far worse. They will one day be able to enjoy sex and there will be nothing wrong with it. However killing is always wrong!

Personally I think children don't need to looking at porn. Sexuality is not meant for childrens eyes.

No.
Recipe books are about food, nothing else. Porn is about sex, nothing else.
Why is one objectifying people and the other one isn't?

Most recipe books outside the Twilight Zone do not have recipes for people. Most pornography outside Animal Planet involves only people. If a recipe book were to have lots of pictures of people eating, and somehow imply that the quality of social events depends entirely on the food, then they would objectify people. Most stick with just recipes, though.

Most recipe books outside the Twilight Zone do not have recipes for people. Most pornography outside Animal Planet involves only people. If a recipe book were to have lots of pictures of people eating, and somehow imply that the quality of social events depends entirely on the food, then they would objectify people. Most stick with just recipes, though.

Ever seen "Come dine with me" (http://www.channel4.com/food/on-tv/come-dine-with-me/), or "Jamie's school dinners" (http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/J/jamies_school_dinners/)?

Just the TV equivalent of what I'm talking about. Making a show about cooking doesn't objectify the cook, so why would a porno objectify the porn stars?

However killing is always wrong!

A false blanket statement. Murder is always wrong. Unnecessary violence is always wrong. Killing is not necessarily always wrong.

To answer the direct issue though: yes, I do think it is wrong for children to watch pornography, I don't think it's a good idea to jumpstart adolesence.

Ever seen "Come dine with me" (http://www.channel4.com/food/on-tv/come-dine-with-me/), or "Jamie's school dinners" (http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/J/jamies_school_dinners/)?

Just the TV equivalent of what I'm talking about. Making a show about cooking doesn't objectify the cook, so why would a porno objectify the porn stars?
But I think a show about cooking does objectify the cook, to a degree. I have never seen his show, but I know that if I were to see Emeril in the public the first thing I would think is, "Hey, it's the cooking guy!" It's not a bad thing, it would be difficult and pointless to make a cooking show that depicts the many facets of the individual who stars in it. Who cares?

What I was disagreeing with was the notion that a cookbook somehow objectifies people, as that makes no sense.

But I think a show about cooking does objectify the cook, to a degree. I have never seen his show, but I know that if I were to see Emeril in the public the first thing I would think is, "Hey, it's the cooking guy!" It's not a bad thing, it would be difficult and pointless to make a cooking show that depicts the many facets of the individual who stars in it. Who cares?

What I was disagreeing with was the notion that a cookbook somehow objectifies people, as that makes no sense.

Well, when I wrote about that, I had that kind of book in mind that Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsay publish these days...

I don't think it objectifies people. It makes them known for one thing, basically. But then again, you usually know your English teacher only as English teacher, but are still well aware that he/she probably still has a private life and further interests than teaching English.
So why would you assume that watching porn makes people believe that women always want sex, and men are always up for it?
It's not like you assume that all Jamie Oliver ever does is cooking...

But what is so bad about, let's say, a 9 year old watching porn? It's absolutely normal!

Source?

It's not like drinking in that it won't damage you in any way. I just don't get why everybody thinks sex is so bad.

First off, no one has ever said sex was bad (to my knowledge). Second, it's that it might have mentally damaging elements to it that people are against. Gambling in no way has ever hurt anyone ever... but people who have lost houses, and families to gambling addictions might say something else... merely because gambling, and porn don't sab you with a knife, or cause liver damage does not mean they are not harmful.

What you are doing is taking your own assumption, and using it to justify your own assumption; "I don't think porn is harmful, therefore, how can it be?" What you are failing to realize is that other people's opinions might indeed also have merit, even if they don't agree with you.

I agree with whoever it was (I didn't pay attention at the time) that said that pornography displays unrealistic expectations for children who often can't seperate fantasy from reality. Now, of course, to jump on the bandwagon, is it right out for a 17 year old to watch porn? Not so much as a 9 year old, who may not have the resources to understand that it is indeed fantasy.

Well, when I wrote about that, I had that kind of book in mind that Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsay publish these days...
I haven't read those. If they're like the shows, that makes sense, never mind what I said.

I don't think it objectifies people. It makes them known for one thing, basically. But then again, you usually know your English teacher only as English teacher, but are still well aware that he/she probably still has a private life and further interests than teaching English.
So why would you assume that watching porn makes people believe that women always want sex, and men are always up for it?
It's not like you assume that all Jamie Oliver ever does is cooking...
If I were seven I would assume that. The problem is that assuming all Jamie Oliver does is cook or all my English teacher does is grade papers makes me slightly stupid, as fitting a seven-year-old. But if I assume women always want sex and men are always up for it, I've gone from being benignly stupid to being sexist, however unintentionally.

What's with all this violence is worse crap? I utterly disagree. A kid is 10 times more likely to commit a sexual act after watching porn than to commit a violent act after watching violence.

A seemingly excellent point... how many teens are having sex? How many teens are commiting FPS-style shootouts?

And how much more prevalent in our society is violence? I never thought about it like that... and I will take this post well to heart.

And there have been throves of research saying "no" posted in every single "Do violent video games make kids violent?" thread on here so far...
Yup. So it has not been proven, nor has it been disproven. Still only a hypothesis.


Sometimes.
Then again, most of them don't have any pubic hair, yet you don't see them shaving either... your point?
That seeing it in porn and stumbling over it in real life is vastly different.


No.
Recipe books are about food, nothing else. Porn is about sex, nothing else.
Why is one objectifying people and the other one isn't?
Porn isn't just about sex. It's about the sexual relations between two or more people, it's about creating a desire to have sex with one or more of those people. If you remove the people from the equation, you no longer have porn.

Cooking is about food. Remove the cook, and it's still about the food. If anything would be objectified it would be the food - and it is.

I'm seriously confused about your point, since you're being serious here. :confused:

A seemingly excellent point... how many teens are having sex? How many teens are commiting FPS-style shootouts?

And how much influence the distinction between one activity being illegal, harmful and wrong, and the other being perfectly legal, moral and harmless as long as it's consensual could possibly have on the behavior of said teenagers?

Seriously, comparing sex and shooting people is stupid, not "an excellent point".

After thinking about this topic for far longer than I intended, and weighing in all the "sex is worse!" "violence is worse!" "cooking is worse! ;)" arguments, I think I've managed to figure out how I feel about it.

Aside completely from the part about adults watching pornography with children, which I can't imagine I'll ever find OK, I don't think my thoughts about children being exposed to porn are any different than children being exposed to movies where the violence is at the same, say, level of intensity and detachment from context as pornography. I disagree with both.

That is to say--children grow up for the most part learning about the world through living in it. They learn about food, what kinds of things are eaten and how, when and where it's appropriate to eat, what proper rituals and manners are associated, etc, because they grow up eating and watching people eat. They learn in-context; no one has to roll a video of eating and explain it.

This doesn't often happen in regards to sex, and happens to a less degree with violence. Because sex is something that in most modern societies is private, children aren't as exposed to it in an every day setting where it can be observed in its proper context. They are much more exposed to it in movies, songs and other media, including pornography.

It's this detachment from context, rather than the explicit sexual content, that bothers me. To show pornography, or graphic violence, to a child who has not obtained an understanding of either in the context of normal life is to hand them a weapon without telling them how and when to use it. It's like teaching a child the physics behind how to make an atom bomb, with the materials available, but never explaining war, radiation poisoning, or death.

This is a problematic analogy of course because good never comes from nuclear warfare, but it's the best I can come up with. It's also why I'd be far more willing to let children watch sex scenes in mainstream movies than pornography.

Anyway, that's it, I've spent far too much time on this thread.

"Replicated studiesx have demonstrated that exposure to significant amounts of increasingly graphic forms of pornography has a dramatic effect on how adult consumers view women, sexual abuse, sexual relationships, and sex in general. These studies are virtually unanimous in their conclusions: When male subjects were exposed to as little as six weeks' worth of standard hard-core pornography, they:

Hmm, these studies were done with adults (of course). As such, I find some of these points hard to believe...


began to trivialize rape as a criminal offense or no longer considered it a crime at all

After years and years of standard hard-core... no. And despite all the people watching porn nowadays, I've not seen rape getting more "acceptable" in any way.



developed an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent types of pornography (normal sex no longer seemed to do the job)

Yeah, that happens with me every couple months or so as well. That urge vanishes after a few days. So what? The thought of actually doing any of this shit still sickens me.

developed distorted perceptions about sexuality

I had been watching for years before I actually had sex for the first time. Even in hindsight, I still think it did teach me some useful... stuff. Of course, I was not a child by that time and had already a critical mind that was able to filter out what was unrealistic about the porn I had consumed.


devalued the importance of monogamy and lacked confidence in marriage as either a viable or lasting institution

"The importance of monogamy"? Uh... well, I know it's important for me, though there may be people out there who don't value it as much, what's wrong with that if both partners agree?

So if the studies about adults are doubtful, so seems projecting them on children.

Okay, you say that it isn't appropriate for teaching sex ed. But why would you ban it? Because it does not serve a meaningful purpose, in your eyes? Then let's ban chocolate! It makes kids fat and their teeth bad! At least there's a proof that it's bad in some way for them, unlike porn.

A bit late on the response to you. However I never said to ban it. Did I?

Teach it in a appropriate way. Watching porn is not the appropriate way.

Yup. So it has not been proven, nor has it been disproven. Still only a hypothesis.

Exactly.


That seeing it in porn and stumbling over it in real life is vastly different.

Well, you know.... so is cooking, actually. Watching a cooking show doesn't really teach you all the skills required to cook a tasty dish. Most people find that out easily enough ;)


Porn isn't just about sex. It's about the sexual relations between two or more people, it's about creating a desire to have sex with one or more of those people. If you remove the people from the equation, you no longer have porn.

Cooking is about food. Remove the cook, and it's still about the food. If anything would be objectified it would be the food - and it is.

I'm seriously confused about your point, since you're being serious here. :confused:


Ah, I can see why you're confused.
Cooking is not only about food, just as porn isn't only about people.
Cooking is people doing things with food, turning the food into different food (as in, cooking it, spicing it, etc.) to make it an intersting new experience for the tastebuds, sex is people using their bodies to create a pleasurable experience overall.

Cooking isn't about food, it is in fact about the cook. Without the cook, you wouldn't have food, just ingredients. The cooks is who is making food happen, really. And cooking on TV is most definitely desinged to make people want to cook themselves.

And yet nobody regards it as negative, nobody is concerned if a cooks is shown exlusively as a cook, nothing else. Why is that so much worse than showing people who have sex as nothing else but that? Why is one "objectifying" and the other one isn't?

I think watching violence (which is much more present on the TV, news, etc.) is far worse. They will one day be able to enjoy sex and there will be nothing wrong with it. However killing is always wrong!

Sex is the great killer. Everyone dies as a result of sex.

I don't have a problem with children seeing well done erotica.

Porn implies, to me, demeaning sexual situations. These would be situations that degrade or dehumanize another person or that take sex out of the context of love or at least respect for the other person. I would not consider it appropriate for children (or many adults for that matter) to watch things that degrade others.

Why is one "objectifying" and the other one isn't?

Would the food be objectified if it was used in porn?

(Hi, Sweetie! :fluffle:)

Would the food be objectified if it was used in porn?

(Hi, Sweetie! :fluffle:)

I think it would change status from "food" to "toy" :D

Hiya, babes!!! *pounces* :fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

I think it would change status from "food" to "toy" :D

Hiya, babes!!! *pounces* :fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

What was that my parents always said at the dinner table? Don't play with your food. If only they knew...

Long time, no chat. Miss you!

What was that my parents always said at the dinner table? Don't play with your food. If only they knew...

Long time, no chat. Miss you!

*lol

Miss you, too... can you come on gmail chat? It's the only thing I can use from work...

*lol

Miss you, too... can you come on gmail chat? It's the only thing I can use from work...

Let me see if I can figure this man's computer out. I'll get back to you.

Let me see if I can figure this man's computer out. I'll get back to you.

Have you still got my address or should I TG it to you? :)

That confuses the hell out of me, I have to admit.
I'm a woman, and I love porn. I've been watching it regularly for years. So has my boyfriend, and I honestly have to say that I've never ever met anyone with more respect and admiration for women. If anything, he's probably feeling a little inferior at times.
Ok, we've only been in a relationship for something over 2 years now, but we're getting married next year and are hoping to be able to make the relationship last our lifetimes (no guarantees, but we'll certainly give it our best).

Also, if porn has such negative influences on the people watching it, wouldn't it be time to dig out the old "computer games make people violent" and "horror films make people less sensitive to violence against others, and more likely to commit violent crimes themselves"?

well, a) porn obviously won't affect everybody the same way; and b) it depends what age you started watching it, and what you watch.

my point was regarding my own experience, and i started watching it at about 11. the distorted body image came from always seeing "perfect" women with "perfect" tits, unhealthily skinny, etc, and understanding that this is how women should be, before discovering 'real world' women for myself. the sheer availability of these women - just the click of a mouse - has also affected me in odd ways.

i'm respectful of women, and i always have been (ask glitzi), but in issues of sex, body image, and others, i do know i have some distorted views, and am having to, bit by bit, challenge them. its not all porn, by any measure, but it has played a fairly large part - and a voluntary part at that.

i can only talk from personal experience (and i have no idea how watching porn may affect (or not affect) a woman differently), but i can't imagine my experience is at all unique

My ex forced my older two daughters, who area 9 and 8, to watch porn and I can not have him arrested it is legal. As long as it is the parent and there is no sexual gratifacation and no touching it isperfectly legal. That is what the DA of Amarillo,Tx told me. Now if you are just as shocked as I am let me know what I can do.

This is not a joke. My daughters made the out cry to a councler 4 weeks ago. CPS is involved and is draging there feet. I have been in contact with 2 different police disstrics. Every ones says there hands are tied.

PLEASE HELP ME!!!!!!!!

AFAIK in most countries that actually is illegal.

But the internet...

It is never a good idea for children to watch porn. Children need to be children, while they can. They will be old a lot longer than they will be young.

Bah! dem cit' foke's now'a'days go all sqeemish from som'thin that ain't exactly unnatural you know.
When me, and my ma an pa and theirs ma and pa and all da'way back thro time grew up,
we learn't it by way of tendin' to the animals.
I reckon it wasn't long after one could walk that you had to get your hands dirty by helpin' deliver Bessie's latest calf.
The breakfast eggs took a wee bit longer tho, bu' not much.

If you consider this too much, tough luck..

No, seriously though, my apologies, it was written as a farewell joke and no harm meant by it.