Slashdot Mirror
Child Gets Nintendo 3DS Full of Porn For Christmas
dotarray writes "One Colorado family received more than they'd bargained for this Christmas when they gave five-year-old Braydon Giles a pre-owned Nintendo 3DS that apparently still contained 'graphic images' from a previous owner. From the article: 'Refurbishing is an art, as well as a craft. The whole point is to make a gadget feel pristine, even when it used to be owned by a cult leader, a scout leader or an exhibitionist.
Sadly, someone in a Colorado GameStop stopped refurbishing before the job was complete.
So much so that 5-year-old Braydon Giles opened his Xmas gift — a Nintendo 3DS — and discovered images of naked people doing less than pristine things. As Channel 9 News tells it, Braydon showed the 3DS to his brother Bryton. He wanted his help to remove these weird pictures. '"
I think you miss the point of the question, or at least a very important point here. Nudity != pornography, at least in Europe. It is not at all rare to see nudity in commercials or programs in much of European TV, for example, even on, say, Viva, the German analogue to MTV. Which is of course watched by kids.
Now this in itself may be off topic to the original post here, as it does sound that what the child found on the 3DS could be considered pornography most anywhere. I still think it is a very interesting set of questions: Where does the line between art, or documentary photography, and porn lie? How does this vary by country, or regionally? At what age is nudity ok for people to view? And what age pornography? What affect does viewing such "too early" have?
Now, I'm ultra-liberal. I don't believe pornography should be regulated for adults, and I believe that education is the best defense, not regulation beyond reason (again, entirely subjective).
So, apologies for being off-topic, but I think parent should think twice before dismissing the question of differing cultural and national attitudes toward nudity.
Kids are violent from the moment they are born.
They're also sexual from the moment they are born. Not to the same extent as when hitting puberty, but certainly not asexual cherubs.
Some repress and deny that they themselves were sexual creatures even as children, quite possibly out of guilt, thinking it was themselves there was something wrong with.
But pictures of grown-ups? Largely uninteresting to a five year old boy, I should think. To him, it would be a lemon party - something to say "yuck" at and delete.
Which apparently he tried to do, and it was his father who blew a fuse, not the kid. Sure, the kid is probably traumatized now, by his father's behavior.
And unless he changes his name, likely to be ridiculed in a few years in school, when classmates enter his name in a search engine. All thanks to dad, who wanted his fifteen minutes of fame, but apparently didn't give a flying fuck about causing his kids problems.
Just as natural is the act of guarding the privacy of sex. It reinforces the advantages of the natural practice of monogamy in nature in general.
You have never been to the park in spring and seen ducks fuck? Or looked out a city window to see pigeons fuck? They certainly don't hide it.
And if you're of European descent, neither did your ancestors. The sleeping partition of typical houses was for everyone, both children and adults, and the adults fucked with the children present. It was no more interesting to the kids than watching the farm animals go at it.
If anything, fucking in front of others strengthens monogamous relationships, because you make your claim on the partner where others of your gender can see it. And that's at least partially why couples kiss in public too.