Reply
Wed 20 Dec, 2006 07:40 pm
When I've asked this in the past I've never had a proper logical anser!
I don't want people giving me some kind of 'because the can't!!'
Baby animals watch their parents having sex, the baby horse steals anothers food.
So why are human baby animals not allowed to watch pornography?
Flame to me, and you will be ignored!
Animal brains and human brains are different.
Animal sexuality and human sexuality is different.
Animal society and human society is different.
You may sense a theme...
Humans are animals, yes, and there are a whole lot of commonalities. But this is one of the areas where there are differences.
Porn is harmful to children. (Porn, by the way, as separate from more straightforward acknowledgment of sexuality.) The fact that porn is harmful to children has been shown in a variety of ways by a variety of studies. I am against anything that is harmful to children. Children should not be shown porn.
This seems to be a decent overview, with cites:
http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm
When I try to not look at this question from a moral standpoint, I can find at least one benefit (aside from the possible costs) of letting children look at porn: They will eventually give up the obsessive fixation that I and all my cohort of friends had when growing up (of course this is an assumption, namely that the fixation will decrease rather than increase). Sex is best when it is between a particular man and a particular woman, not between a general man and a general woman. American men today are stimulated by eroticism in the abstract, not about the nearness of an attractive actual woman.
Because porn doesnt portray the trust and care and love that should be built into a working relationship.
In many cases porn portrays exactly the opposite.
No trust, no care, no relationship.
Dadpad, yes, that's it, in a nutshell.
I've just banned my son (15) from the internet for an indefinite period for googling illegal pron.
Hes in his bedroom now with his gf developing a relationship, and I couldnt be more happy.
Damn! I wish my mom or dad would have allowed my girlfriend into my room when I was that age so I could develop a relationship! I would have sworn off porn!
During NY childhood,
when I wanted porn, I just bought it.
That was not legal, but being legal
was not what I cared about,
so long as I did not violate someone else 's rights.
Cash is the universal solvent.
Re: But WHY can't children look at porn?
minipb wrote:When I've asked this in the past I've never had a proper logical anser!
I don't want people giving me some kind of 'because the can't!!'
Baby animals watch their parents having sex, the baby horse steals anothers food.
So why are human baby animals not allowed to watch pornography?
Flame to me, and you will be ignored!
I have no kids,
so I cannot think as a parent does.
It cud be possible, that if I had kids,
then maybe I 'd change my mind for some reason.
The answer appears to be that for emotional reasons
that parents cannot logically define
their children looking at porn
gives them a vague sense of anger,
sometimes intensely.
Sometimes, I 've heard them allege
that their children will be more prone to divorce,
if thay have seen porn, during childhood.
Even considering this question at all evokes
great negative emotion from them,
with vague n very general attributions of " indecency ".
" If u were DECENT, then u 'd KNOW, and find no need to ask such a question !!!! "
I cannot begin to guess
what the psychological root of their irritation is.
I doubt that it is much of a danger to the kid 's eyesight,
nor likely to grow hair on the palms of his hands.
Is this phenomenon limited to boys ?
The "answer" lies in the defintions of "childhood" and "pornography".
In as much that "childhood" is considered to be a fragile period of growth an learning where "good" and "bad" can have significant influence then "pornography" defined as "material which can deprave or corrupt" (English legal definition) is obviously antithetical to "childhood".
Whether or not you agree with these definitions or their origins is irrelevant to their logical antithesis. As already stated the argument about animals is irrelevant because they don't have linguistic concepts.
Children are very impressionable. They soak in information like sponges. That's why they learn a new language so much faster than adults attempting to do the same thing. It worries me that children could be watching porn, minus the counter-balance of caring adult influence. Like a number of troubled young boys that I've worked with. They've watch a lot of extremely violent videos, too. I strongly suspect they were "influenced", by their behaviour & attitudes.
All should note that minipb's desire for a logical answer has already been deflated by the fact that his capacity to ask questions at all logically separates him from "the animals" on which his argument rests.
fresco wrote:The "answer" lies in the defintions of "childhood" and "pornography".
In as much that "childhood" is considered to be a fragile period of growth an learning where "good" and "bad" can have significant influence then "pornography" defined as "material which can deprave or corrupt" (English legal definition) is obviously antithetical to "childhood".
Whether or not you agree with these definitions or their origins is irrelevant to their logical antithesis. As already stated the argument about animals is irrelevant because they don't have linguistic concepts.
I believe that your post has too many undefined assumptions,
such as " deprave " or " corrupt "; this invites circular reasoning,
which is unhelpful to understanding.
I believe that this thread presents the question,
in other words,
of specificly WHAT harm will befall a kid who sees porn ?
For instance,
will he lose the sight of one eye,
will it impair his musical ability,
or WHAT will allegedly happen to him, in a worst case scenario,
if he sees humans PEACEFULLY mating with one another ?
( Violence is a distinctly different question. )
OmSigDavid, your spelling may save you time, but takes more time for me to translate U as you, shud as should, etc. Just FYI.
MsOlga, your point about the impressionability of children is well taken. A major consideration.
Anybody who wants children to look at porn is a sicko in my book.
Well, I did, at that age.
I may be old, fat n ugly on the outside,
but inside, I 'm still a boy ( a slender, ugly boy ) at heart.
Its a question of individual rights.
During my boyhood, I was outraged n furious,
very indignant, over screwing me out of my right to vote,
or to drive, or to read whatever I dam pleased.
I had all the alcohol I wanted,
but never liked it much.
Sometimes I used to have to drink beer,
but I never liked its taste.
I detested the stench of cigarette smoke,
but I was much offended by posted signs telling me
that I cud not buy the damned things, because of my age.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace