You may or may not be right that it gives some people "unrealistic expectations," but I think the problem is a lack of education rather than a lack of censorship.
Why would we need to show preferred role models and "better pornography," if porn is fine and not harmful at all as it is?
1) The study I linked concludes that prolonged exposure to porn reduces sensitivity to victims of sexual assault;
The problem is, I believe, the lack of real-world evidence showing that this is a major problem that many, many people are facing. I asked you to clarify this with those questions. Mainly that it was pointed out that real-world evidence isn't always used (which was said near the beginning).
2) Your argument that preventing someone from displaying a video of someone being raped constitutes intolerable censorship shows a profound lack of sensitivity to victims of sexual assault;
Not necessarily true.
3) You are claiming there are no negative consequences of prolonged (and early) exposure to porn, while exhibiting signs of one of the negative influences found in the NIH's study;
That's not the only way to exhibit such a sign, and you do not know if I do exhibit such a sign. You merely lack the imagination to fathom how a person can be opposed to censorship enough that their sensitivity towards victims can still remain after rejecting such censorship.
Given 1, 2 and 3 above - it's not an ad hominem attack to suggest that your unverified claims that "porn is fine for kids, trying to limit their unfettered access to it is intolerable!" lacks credibility.
I thought you were talking about my position on child pornography.
"cheekyjohnson is kind of a mouthy douchebag who shits up Slashdot. Therefore his views on porn are wrong."
It could also be: "cheekyjohnson looks and pornography and I believe he is negatively affected by it. Therefore, his position on child pornography is invalid because it was caused by pornography." Note that that's what it appeared to me you were saying when I made that comment.
Cheekyjohnson shows at least one of the negative signs found to be a result of long term exposure to porn.
It hasn't and very likely can't be proven to be due to pornography, though.
Therefore his unsubstantiated claims that 'porn is fine and never harmful,'
I don't recall saying that it's never harmful.
it's perfectly reasonable to block your children's access to porn until they're mentally and emotionally capable of being exposed to it.
Why are you concluding that I agree with that? Even if you were to prove it to me completely that it's harmful for them (which I don't believe was done), I would not agree to censorship-like policies.
These distinctions are not one that a 7 year old is prepared to make.
So they can't tell that video games are fantasy? For one thing, it depends on the 7 year old, and I very much doubt that. If they can tell that video games are fantasy, then chances are they can at least be informed by the parents that pornography doesn't reflect reality.
Were children in a bubble when there was no internet?
Depends on the child.
I could just unplug the computer for the next 5 years and my child would not suffer at all.
I never said that the internet was a necessity. Just that the attitudes of certain people seem foolish to me.
I don't need scientific proof to default to the traditional exposure of kids to the internet.
Well, I'd rather not have things be banned by default, and I'll argue against anyone that thinks they should be (even if it's simply a parent and child involved).
And the fact that something is old doesn't necessarily mean that it's good. I don't see why so many people are afraid when there is no scientific proof.
Hate to break it to you but a parents job involves knowing what their kids are up to.
That does not necessarily involve being overly paranoid and outright spying on all of their communications.
Any good parent will tell you that.
Now you've excluded anyone who doesn't do so as a "good parent." No True Good Parent would tell you otherwise.
Please explain how anything that was posted implies a parent is an imbecile for being concerned about, and filtering what their kids can and cannot see online, on the TV or in any situation you can think of?
Because many people seem to be, in my opinion, going overboard. They're paranoid of everything and desperate to block anything they don't want their precious children seeing based on what appears to be nothing. For the children, of course.
At what age should a child be able to decide for themselves what they are capable of handling?
Since I find it highly unlikely that they'll actually be affected in a negative way by the content, any age. Unless the parent has determined themselves that this specific child is negatively affected by the content. It seems to be assumed most of the time.
In my opinion, you sound quite determined to link any of my opinions to pornography. Your opinion must therefore stem from anti-pornography bias and is therefore invalid and illogical. Take that!
Your bullshit about "rejecting censorship" sounds very nice, but any claim of rejecting censorship that says "It's fine to harm other people with my actions and speech," displays a lack of sensitivity so fundamental that you should probably be screened for autism-spectrum disorders, if you don't already have a diagnosis.
I don't mind if you think it lacks sensitivity. Not only will what you believe I think not change what I actually think, but it's completely irrelevant as to whether or not what I said was correct.
Translation: I can't be assed to read it, or any of the references, because it might challenge my preconceptions, or I might be forced to offer counter-evidence. Since they disagree with me, I will simply hand-wave away the only concrete facts that have been presented to me.
Actually, given the finding that prolonged exposure to pornography promotes insensitivity to victims of sexual assault, and given the fundamentally shocking insensitivity of the claim that someone SHOULD be allowed to display a video in which someone is being sexually assaulted, I'd say your arguments about how you're "totally fine!" after prolonged and early exposure to porn lack a certain credibility.
Wait... lack credibility? Are you attempting to use an ad hominem attack to discredit my previous arguments? Even if I was affected by pornography, that does not alter the validity of any of my arguments (especially since they're mere opinions). You seem to be saying that anyone with certain views has been brainwashed by pornography, and their opinions on the matters are therefore invalid. I think that's illogical nonsense.
Or are you just trying to backpedal furiously, hoping I'll get distracted?
You're the one who brought the issue up.
No doubt your attitudes towards exposing children to pornography have been changed by exposure to hard facts and scientific data showing that there are harmful effects!
It's great to see that you agree with my opinion that pornography isn't harmful in most cases.
Prolonged exposure to nonviolent and violent pornography promotes insensitivity towards victims of sexual violence.
By the way, you have no idea whether or not I'm "insensitive" or simply reject censorship to such a degree that it doesn't matter. This entire point is meaningless, however, since it doesn't affect the validity of my position.
In other words, it gives people unrealistic views of body types and sexual activity which are actually harmful to your ability to form healthy intimate relationships with real people.
How accurate is the study? Does it provide actual, real-world evidence that conclusively shows that it's a problem for many people, and then links this to pornography?
This, said in the context of a discussion of whether or not somebody should be allowed to post a video of someone being raped on a billboard, with you taking the "of course it should be allowed, to disallow it is evil censorship!" position. Connecting these two quotes is left as an exercise for the reader.
That likely has nothing to do with pornography. Unless you assume that everyone should simply take one position on the matter and anyone who takes a contrary position must have been brainwashed by porn. To me, anything else is simply emotional and irrational nonsense.
The issue doesn't have anything to do with women, pornography, or even rape, but censorship.
So I'm glad you've come around and agree that limiting childrens' exposure to porn is a good thing!
I didn't agree. Educate them on the matter, not block sites or force them to stay off certain sites.
Dude, not every situation is going to have conclusive scientific research behind it.
Okay. Then I think it's time to stop trying to ban things/censor them if people aren't sure they're harmful. If they have no evidence, what's the point?
As for a seven year old. Seven! I won't let my seven-year-old out of the house alone - why the hell would I let her surf the internet alone and unrestricted?
Why not? Letting them out of the house is quite different, anyway. If he's educated about proper use, what's the problem?
If you say "yes", I suspect you'd be on the fringes of society.
Then I'm on the fringes of society. But that demonstrates nothing.
Again, most would say "no" but I can find worse on YouTube.
One can have unhealthy views of sex and sexuality, and not be a rapist or a pedophile.
How harmful is it? How often does it happen? Is there conclusive real-world evidence that links such behavior to pornography?
I have to check the URL bar to make sure I'm still at the site where:
I hope you're not assuming everyone on this website is like those people you mentioned that supposedly exist. I also hope you're not assuming any of those are caused by pornography.
Thank god for that educational porn!
I never said anything about educational porn. I said that I think that parents need to guide their children, not keep them in bubbles.
The problem is that a young person might misinterpret what they are seeing.
How often does this happen? What are the consequences? Can you provide conclusive real-world evidence that it's a common problem and that it's harmful?
does a 13 year old understand that this is roleplaying?
Are we speaking of an idiot, or what I believe a normal 13 year old is? If the former, the parents can educate them if need be. Censorship isn't necessary.
You claimed an 8-year-old can self-regulate their XBox usage.
And they very well might be able to. But it's possible to be responsible in general without being responsible 100% of the time.
As with all things, adults are supposed to able to assess if the trade-off is worth it. Yet kids usually do not really consider the consequences.
Adults, like children, are human beings. They usually fail many times, make many mistakes, and so on. I've seen many full-grown adults who don't "consider the consequences."
Find me an 8-year-old gamer who never, ever, ever does that, and you'll have a point.
There is nothing impossible about it. But I doubt you believe I'd have any way to prove it to you, just like you couldn't prove it to me if I were to ask you to prove such a person doesn't exist.
Based on his belief that an 8-year-old gamer would voluntarily quit playing at bedtime every night.
I didn't say "every night." And that doesn't prove I'm not a parent, either. It could simply mean that I am a parent and don't check up on them often, or that they really do regulate their use.
Kid might be an angel, but there will be some night when she really, really wants to finish that boss.
I thought we were talking in general. This is not a problem with 7-8 year olds specifically, but people. I think most people do this kind of thing from time to time.
That website looks highly trustworthy! Kind of like linking to a religious website when you're trying to prove the existence of a god. It's nice to see they have conclusive real-world evid... wait.
Depends on the 7 year old. It might work for a few years, but they'll probably get past it eventually. Or just see something at a friend's house. Either way, I don't think pretending the material doesn't exist is a worthwhile endeavor.
It's not spying . . . it's related to setting boundaries.
How is it not spying?
If you're underage and living with your parents it's something you'll need to learn to deal with.
Not if your parents aren't imbeciles. As I said, if the child is at least somewhat intelligent, say goodbye to any respect they had for you thanks to your meaningless paranoia.
I've just read tens of comments lecturing him on how to parent his children
That's what happens when you post something publicly: you get various kinds of responses.
I can tell most of the respondants are not even parents.
Interesting. Are you psychic? You know this based on what... a comment on the internet? Are you saying that No True Parent would have whatever opinions the people you're talking about posted?
Why do we always want to tell others how to live THEIR lives.
If you make something public, you've opened yourself up to criticism. If I believe you're doing something wrong, I will tell you. It's as simple as that. As for "why," there are various reasons for that. One is that perhaps you believe you're helping the person. Another is that you believe what they're doing is harmful.
People have opinions, and they will tell them to others. If you don't wish to hear them, shut yourself off to the world, because that's the only thing that will make the criticism go away.
Finally, it is difficult to provide any conclusive analysis about the impact of broader social changes and sexualisation on levels and likelihood of sexual abuse. CEOP remainscautious about this link given the scarcity of research in this area and what we known about the determined nature of offender behaviour. However, it is the case that some online environments provide particular opportunities for offenders to target and access vulnerable children and young people.
Did you have as much porn as you wanted (and more), of all kinds, freely available 24/7 on a personal device you carried with you?
No, but many people do today (teenagers even!). Now, tell me, how many people go out and rape others?
Now, how many people who do have this will have unreasonable expectations about a sexual relationship?
I have absolutely no idea, and I suspect neither does anyone else. But for me, that's not even the issue; the issue is pointless censorship. Rather than hiding everything, I think people should be educated by their parents instead (if they truly need to be). If they do indeed have these "unreasonable expectations," I'd wager that they'd quickly find out that they were mistaken, not turn into rapists. Until I see some evidence, of course.
It's kind of like saying video games cause people to be violent. Crime statistics simply do not back this up. I need some real-world evidence here, and I need quite a bit of it before I will acknowledge any such problem (although I will never accept censorship as an answer). It would also need to prove that it's directly because of pornography. I noticed that the text in your other comment uses words like "some" and other such things. There is always the chance that such studies will be biased, bogus, or that the problem is mainly caused by a sexually suppressed society.
I've seen no evidence to support your conclusion that it's unlikely they'll be hurt by it.
That's kind of like asking me to prove that Santa doesn't exist. You're the one making the assertion, and if you're going to assert that something hurts people with no evidence, you might as well lock your kid in a basement. Or not. That might hurt them (and I'm sure research shows it would). Better off not having any! If you're going to restrict other people's actions, shouldn't you at least find to evidence to back up your nonsense? I'd rather not have everything be banned by default, thank you.
but I would hypothesize it's even more unlikely that they will be hurt by the lack of hardcore pornography.
They'll probably get around any meaningless filters, and then, assuming they're idiots (as some people like to believe), the lack of guidance they received from their parents could damage them.
At the age of 7, perhaps, but at 13+ hardcore porn can have an effect on what teenagers see as "normal".
So basically... you've linked me to a few examples. Kind of like blaming Doom for Columbine. What idiotic 13 year olds are these? And assuming they take everything at face-value, why aren't the parents there educating them? It's not porn's fault.
I looked at porn when I was a kid and when I was a teenager. I suspect most people do. Now, how many go out and rape others because of it?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just not willing to make my kid into a test case.
Then become a Luddite, and assume new things are bad by default.
You may or may not be right that it gives some people "unrealistic expectations," but I think the problem is a lack of education rather than a lack of censorship.
Why would we need to show preferred role models and "better pornography," if porn is fine and not harmful at all as it is?
1) The study I linked concludes that prolonged exposure to porn reduces sensitivity to victims of sexual assault;
The problem is, I believe, the lack of real-world evidence showing that this is a major problem that many, many people are facing. I asked you to clarify this with those questions. Mainly that it was pointed out that real-world evidence isn't always used (which was said near the beginning).
2) Your argument that preventing someone from displaying a video of someone being raped constitutes intolerable censorship shows a profound lack of sensitivity to victims of sexual assault;
Not necessarily true.
3) You are claiming there are no negative consequences of prolonged (and early) exposure to porn, while exhibiting signs of one of the negative influences found in the NIH's study;
That's not the only way to exhibit such a sign, and you do not know if I do exhibit such a sign. You merely lack the imagination to fathom how a person can be opposed to censorship enough that their sensitivity towards victims can still remain after rejecting such censorship.
Given 1, 2 and 3 above - it's not an ad hominem attack to suggest that your unverified claims that "porn is fine for kids, trying to limit their unfettered access to it is intolerable!" lacks credibility.
I thought you were talking about my position on child pornography.
"cheekyjohnson is kind of a mouthy douchebag who shits up Slashdot. Therefore his views on porn are wrong."
It could also be: "cheekyjohnson looks and pornography and I believe he is negatively affected by it. Therefore, his position on child pornography is invalid because it was caused by pornography." Note that that's what it appeared to me you were saying when I made that comment.
Cheekyjohnson shows at least one of the negative signs found to be a result of long term exposure to porn.
It hasn't and very likely can't be proven to be due to pornography, though.
Therefore his unsubstantiated claims that 'porn is fine and never harmful,'
I don't recall saying that it's never harmful.
it's perfectly reasonable to block your children's access to porn until they're mentally and emotionally capable of being exposed to it.
Why are you concluding that I agree with that? Even if you were to prove it to me completely that it's harmful for them (which I don't believe was done), I would not agree to censorship-like policies.
These distinctions are not one that a 7 year old is prepared to make.
So they can't tell that video games are fantasy? For one thing, it depends on the 7 year old, and I very much doubt that. If they can tell that video games are fantasy, then chances are they can at least be informed by the parents that pornography doesn't reflect reality.
Were children in a bubble when there was no internet?
Depends on the child.
I could just unplug the computer for the next 5 years and my child would not suffer at all.
I never said that the internet was a necessity. Just that the attitudes of certain people seem foolish to me.
I don't need scientific proof to default to the traditional exposure of kids to the internet.
Well, I'd rather not have things be banned by default, and I'll argue against anyone that thinks they should be (even if it's simply a parent and child involved).
And the fact that something is old doesn't necessarily mean that it's good. I don't see why so many people are afraid when there is no scientific proof.
Hate to break it to you but a parents job involves knowing what their kids are up to.
That does not necessarily involve being overly paranoid and outright spying on all of their communications.
Any good parent will tell you that.
Now you've excluded anyone who doesn't do so as a "good parent." No True Good Parent would tell you otherwise.
Please explain how anything that was posted implies a parent is an imbecile for being concerned about, and filtering what their kids can and cannot see online, on the TV or in any situation you can think of?
Because many people seem to be, in my opinion, going overboard. They're paranoid of everything and desperate to block anything they don't want their precious children seeing based on what appears to be nothing. For the children, of course.
At what age should a child be able to decide for themselves what they are capable of handling?
Since I find it highly unlikely that they'll actually be affected in a negative way by the content, any age. Unless the parent has determined themselves that this specific child is negatively affected by the content. It seems to be assumed most of the time.
In my opinion, you sound quite determined to link any of my opinions to pornography. Your opinion must therefore stem from anti-pornography bias and is therefore invalid and illogical. Take that!
Your bullshit about "rejecting censorship" sounds very nice, but any claim of rejecting censorship that says "It's fine to harm other people with my actions and speech," displays a lack of sensitivity so fundamental that you should probably be screened for autism-spectrum disorders, if you don't already have a diagnosis.
I don't mind if you think it lacks sensitivity. Not only will what you believe I think not change what I actually think, but it's completely irrelevant as to whether or not what I said was correct.
Because you can't educate a 7-year-old to properly use a medium like the internet.
That depends on the 7 year old. How did anyone ever survive without censorship or keeping children in a bubble?
Because you have to live in this society. Social norms are a pretty important thing to learn, even if you chose to ignore them.
We're talking about holding an opinion here. It's unlikely that it'll even be noticed or affect anything.
Translation: I can't be assed to read it, or any of the references, because it might challenge my preconceptions, or I might be forced to offer counter-evidence. Since they disagree with me, I will simply hand-wave away the only concrete facts that have been presented to me.
That sounds like a straw man since I only asked a few questions. I'm sure anyone could fire off links to exceedingly long studies for either side, but where is the commonly-accepted, real-world evidence?
Actually, given the finding that prolonged exposure to pornography promotes insensitivity to victims of sexual assault, and given the fundamentally shocking insensitivity of the claim that someone SHOULD be allowed to display a video in which someone is being sexually assaulted, I'd say your arguments about how you're "totally fine!" after prolonged and early exposure to porn lack a certain credibility.
Wait... lack credibility? Are you attempting to use an ad hominem attack to discredit my previous arguments? Even if I was affected by pornography, that does not alter the validity of any of my arguments (especially since they're mere opinions). You seem to be saying that anyone with certain views has been brainwashed by pornography, and their opinions on the matters are therefore invalid. I think that's illogical nonsense.
Or are you just trying to backpedal furiously, hoping I'll get distracted?
You're the one who brought the issue up.
No doubt your attitudes towards exposing children to pornography have been changed by exposure to hard facts and scientific data showing that there are harmful effects!
It's great to see that you agree with my opinion that pornography isn't harmful in most cases.
Prolonged exposure to nonviolent and violent pornography promotes insensitivity towards victims of sexual violence.
By the way, you have no idea whether or not I'm "insensitive" or simply reject censorship to such a degree that it doesn't matter. This entire point is meaningless, however, since it doesn't affect the validity of my position.
In other words, it gives people unrealistic views of body types and sexual activity which are actually harmful to your ability to form healthy intimate relationships with real people.
How accurate is the study? Does it provide actual, real-world evidence that conclusively shows that it's a problem for many people, and then links this to pornography?
This, said in the context of a discussion of whether or not somebody should be allowed to post a video of someone being raped on a billboard, with you taking the "of course it should be allowed, to disallow it is evil censorship!" position. Connecting these two quotes is left as an exercise for the reader.
That likely has nothing to do with pornography. Unless you assume that everyone should simply take one position on the matter and anyone who takes a contrary position must have been brainwashed by porn. To me, anything else is simply emotional and irrational nonsense.
The issue doesn't have anything to do with women, pornography, or even rape, but censorship.
So I'm glad you've come around and agree that limiting childrens' exposure to porn is a good thing!
I didn't agree. Educate them on the matter, not block sites or force them to stay off certain sites.
Dude, not every situation is going to have conclusive scientific research behind it.
Okay. Then I think it's time to stop trying to ban things/censor them if people aren't sure they're harmful. If they have no evidence, what's the point?
As for a seven year old. Seven! I won't let my seven-year-old out of the house alone - why the hell would I let her surf the internet alone and unrestricted?
Why not? Letting them out of the house is quite different, anyway. If he's educated about proper use, what's the problem?
If you say "yes", I suspect you'd be on the fringes of society.
Then I'm on the fringes of society. But that demonstrates nothing.
Again, most would say "no" but I can find worse on YouTube.
Why does it matter what most think?
One can have unhealthy views of sex and sexuality, and not be a rapist or a pedophile.
How harmful is it? How often does it happen? Is there conclusive real-world evidence that links such behavior to pornography?
I have to check the URL bar to make sure I'm still at the site where:
I hope you're not assuming everyone on this website is like those people you mentioned that supposedly exist. I also hope you're not assuming any of those are caused by pornography.
Thank god for that educational porn!
I never said anything about educational porn. I said that I think that parents need to guide their children, not keep them in bubbles.
The problem is that a young person might misinterpret what they are seeing.
How often does this happen? What are the consequences? Can you provide conclusive real-world evidence that it's a common problem and that it's harmful?
does a 13 year old understand that this is roleplaying?
Are we speaking of an idiot, or what I believe a normal 13 year old is? If the former, the parents can educate them if need be. Censorship isn't necessary.
You claimed an 8-year-old can self-regulate their XBox usage.
And they very well might be able to. But it's possible to be responsible in general without being responsible 100% of the time.
As with all things, adults are supposed to able to assess if the trade-off is worth it. Yet kids usually do not really consider the consequences.
Adults, like children, are human beings. They usually fail many times, make many mistakes, and so on. I've seen many full-grown adults who don't "consider the consequences."
Find me an 8-year-old gamer who never, ever, ever does that, and you'll have a point.
There is nothing impossible about it. But I doubt you believe I'd have any way to prove it to you, just like you couldn't prove it to me if I were to ask you to prove such a person doesn't exist.
Even if they stumble across pornography at 7, and they don't know what it is (happened to me), they'll probably simply think it's gross.
Based on his belief that an 8-year-old gamer would voluntarily quit playing at bedtime every night.
I didn't say "every night." And that doesn't prove I'm not a parent, either. It could simply mean that I am a parent and don't check up on them often, or that they really do regulate their use.
Kid might be an angel, but there will be some night when she really, really wants to finish that boss.
I thought we were talking in general. This is not a problem with 7-8 year olds specifically, but people. I think most people do this kind of thing from time to time.
That website looks highly trustworthy! Kind of like linking to a religious website when you're trying to prove the existence of a god. It's nice to see they have conclusive real-world evid... wait.
Depends on the 7 year old. It might work for a few years, but they'll probably get past it eventually. Or just see something at a friend's house. Either way, I don't think pretending the material doesn't exist is a worthwhile endeavor.
And we now know CheekyJohnson doesn't have an 8-year-old or older kid.
Based on... what, exactly? Your notion that all children are the same? I would think a parent would know that isn't the case.
It's not spying . . . it's related to setting boundaries.
How is it not spying?
If you're underage and living with your parents it's something you'll need to learn to deal with.
Not if your parents aren't imbeciles. As I said, if the child is at least somewhat intelligent, say goodbye to any respect they had for you thanks to your meaningless paranoia.
I've just read tens of comments lecturing him on how to parent his children
That's what happens when you post something publicly: you get various kinds of responses.
I can tell most of the respondants are not even parents.
Interesting. Are you psychic? You know this based on what... a comment on the internet? Are you saying that No True Parent would have whatever opinions the people you're talking about posted?
Why do we always want to tell others how to live THEIR lives.
If you make something public, you've opened yourself up to criticism. If I believe you're doing something wrong, I will tell you. It's as simple as that. As for "why," there are various reasons for that. One is that perhaps you believe you're helping the person. Another is that you believe what they're doing is harmful.
People have opinions, and they will tell them to others. If you don't wish to hear them, shut yourself off to the world, because that's the only thing that will make the criticism go away.
Then there are things such as this...
Finally, it is difficult to provide any conclusive analysis about the impact of broader social
changes and sexualisation on levels and likelihood of sexual abuse. CEOP remainscautious
about this link given the scarcity of research in this area and what we known about the
determined nature of offender behaviour. However, it is the case that some online
environments provide particular opportunities for offenders to target and access vulnerable
children and young people.
Did you have as much porn as you wanted (and more), of all kinds, freely available 24/7 on a personal device you carried with you?
No, but many people do today (teenagers even!). Now, tell me, how many people go out and rape others?
Now, how many people who do have this will have unreasonable expectations about a sexual relationship?
I have absolutely no idea, and I suspect neither does anyone else. But for me, that's not even the issue; the issue is pointless censorship. Rather than hiding everything, I think people should be educated by their parents instead (if they truly need to be). If they do indeed have these "unreasonable expectations," I'd wager that they'd quickly find out that they were mistaken, not turn into rapists. Until I see some evidence, of course.
It's kind of like saying video games cause people to be violent. Crime statistics simply do not back this up. I need some real-world evidence here, and I need quite a bit of it before I will acknowledge any such problem (although I will never accept censorship as an answer). It would also need to prove that it's directly because of pornography. I noticed that the text in your other comment uses words like "some" and other such things. There is always the chance that such studies will be biased, bogus, or that the problem is mainly caused by a sexually suppressed society.
I've seen no evidence to support your conclusion that it's unlikely they'll be hurt by it.
That's kind of like asking me to prove that Santa doesn't exist. You're the one making the assertion, and if you're going to assert that something hurts people with no evidence, you might as well lock your kid in a basement. Or not. That might hurt them (and I'm sure research shows it would). Better off not having any! If you're going to restrict other people's actions, shouldn't you at least find to evidence to back up your nonsense? I'd rather not have everything be banned by default, thank you.
but I would hypothesize it's even more unlikely that they will be hurt by the lack of hardcore pornography.
They'll probably get around any meaningless filters, and then, assuming they're idiots (as some people like to believe), the lack of guidance they received from their parents could damage them.
At the age of 7, perhaps, but at 13+ hardcore porn can have an effect on what teenagers see as "normal".
So basically... you've linked me to a few examples. Kind of like blaming Doom for Columbine. What idiotic 13 year olds are these? And assuming they take everything at face-value, why aren't the parents there educating them? It's not porn's fault.
I looked at porn when I was a kid and when I was a teenager. I suspect most people do. Now, how many go out and rape others because of it?