I do not think it possible to generalize the effects of particular information/images/whatever on children as a group. Each child is an individual, and it would be foolish to attempt to extrapolate some sort of cause/effect relationship from something as subtle as pictures or words.
LONG ANSWER (bear with me, please):
You seem to view puberty (and, by extension, maturity) as a point to be crossed; I would suggest that it is a process to be completed.
Speaking as a parent, I believe that kids learn social boundaries from watching the behavior of those around them; this naturally extends to what they read, watch on television, or view on the Internet. This applies not only to matters sexual, but to just about all aspects of behavior.
What is missed in this observational learning is nuance. For instance, there is an element of consent in most sexual behaviors; people may like S&M, but they usually practice such behaviors only after mutual agreement upon limits, boundaries, and the like. (In fact, most cultures/countries criminalize sexual behaviors performed in the absence of consent.) By the same token, there are safety precautions in chemistry experiments; sure, you can mix A and B, but you'd better do it in a well-ventilated area or behind a blast shield. There are elements of risk in countless (innumerable?) activities; I could slap you in the face or kick you in the leg, but there will certainly be consequences.
Those persons who view only the acts (or results) are not exposed to the discussions, negotiations, precautions, et cetera that take place in advance; usually, they are also left unaware of the potential risks/consequences of the act(s) in question. Therefore, they are left with incomplete - sometime woefully incomplete - information upon which to base their opinions and decisions.
Whether a young person is prepared to process such incomplete information is, of course, a judgement call of the most difficult sort. We all know that physical maturity is not necessarily accompanied by mental and emotional maturity. How many times have we heard people say "oh, but it looked like fun," "I thought it would be cool," or "it looked like they were enjoying it" as they nurse injuries or (sadly) speak to medical personnel or police?
Turning to the media in general, and the Internet in particular, the only persons who can make these judgement calls on behalf of kids are the parents of those children. Are my kids ready to see nude people? They may well be prepared to do so, in the context of a painting or sculpture; however, they are not ready to view what is commonly referred to as 'pornography.' By the same token, they are not sufficiently mature (emotionally) to view excessive violence or gore. What does that mean? Right now, it means that they don't surf the Internet unaccompanied; it also means that they don't use the library unaccompanied, nor do they watch television unaccompanied. We don't watch the surgical procedures shown on the Learning Channel, pro wrestling, or the evening news when the kids are in the room. They did not receive a chemistry set as a present. This will, of course, change as they mature; however, the responsibility for measurement and evaluation of those changes is mine and my wife's.
What do I expect from public establishments, such as schools and libraries, then? Well, I would expect group environments (such as a classroom computer lab) to use filtering software; the school should not be called upon to accomodate the wide range of public opinion on such private matters. (There's nothing wrong when a teacher tells a child, "you should ask your mom or dad that question.") Individual environments, such as public library terminals, should make filtering software available as a service *AND* require informed parental consent for its use or disuse; a minor child should not receive Internet access from a public library unless/until the parent has given informed consent for either unfettered or filtered access. To me, this strikes a balance between obligations to the community and the responsibilities of parents.
The question, then, is not "what harm does {information} do to children viewing it," but rather "what harm does {information} do to *THIS PARTICULAR CHILD* viewing it." That question can best be answered only by the parents; in all but the most extreme cases, they are the only ones who should be expected to answer it.
Slashdot Mirror
>what harm does porn do to children viewing it?
SHORT ANSWER:
I do not think it possible to generalize the effects of particular information/images/whatever on children as a group. Each child is an individual, and it would be foolish to attempt to extrapolate some sort of cause/effect relationship from something as subtle as pictures or words.
LONG ANSWER (bear with me, please):
You seem to view puberty (and, by extension, maturity) as a point to be crossed; I would suggest that it is a process to be completed.
Speaking as a parent, I believe that kids learn social boundaries from watching the behavior of those around them; this naturally extends to what they read, watch on television, or view on the Internet. This applies not only to matters sexual, but to just about all aspects of behavior.
What is missed in this observational learning is nuance. For instance, there is an element of consent in most sexual behaviors; people may like S&M, but they usually practice such behaviors only after mutual agreement upon limits, boundaries, and the like. (In fact, most cultures/countries criminalize sexual behaviors performed in the absence of consent.) By the same token, there are safety precautions in chemistry experiments; sure, you can mix A and B, but you'd better do it in a well-ventilated area or behind a blast shield. There are elements of risk in countless (innumerable?) activities; I could slap you in the face or kick you in the leg, but there will certainly be consequences.
Those persons who view only the acts (or results) are not exposed to the discussions, negotiations, precautions, et cetera that take place in advance; usually, they are also left unaware of the potential risks/consequences of the act(s) in question. Therefore, they are left with incomplete - sometime woefully incomplete - information upon which to base their opinions and decisions.
Whether a young person is prepared to process such incomplete information is, of course, a judgement call of the most difficult sort. We all know that physical maturity is not necessarily accompanied by mental and emotional maturity. How many times have we heard people say "oh, but it looked like fun," "I thought it would be cool," or "it looked like they were enjoying it" as they nurse injuries or (sadly) speak to medical personnel or police?
Turning to the media in general, and the Internet in particular, the only persons who can make these judgement calls on behalf of kids are the parents of those children. Are my kids ready to see nude people? They may well be prepared to do so, in the context of a painting or sculpture; however, they are not ready to view what is commonly referred to as 'pornography.' By the same token, they are not sufficiently mature (emotionally) to view excessive violence or gore. What does that mean? Right now, it means that they don't surf the Internet unaccompanied; it also means that they don't use the library unaccompanied, nor do they watch television unaccompanied. We don't watch the surgical procedures shown on the Learning Channel, pro wrestling, or the evening news when the kids are in the room. They did not receive a chemistry set as a present. This will, of course, change as they mature; however, the responsibility for measurement and evaluation of those changes is mine and my wife's.
What do I expect from public establishments, such as schools and libraries, then? Well, I would expect group environments (such as a classroom computer lab) to use filtering software; the school should not be called upon to accomodate the wide range of public opinion on such private matters. (There's nothing wrong when a teacher tells a child, "you should ask your mom or dad that question.") Individual environments, such as public library terminals, should make filtering software available as a service *AND* require informed parental consent for its use or disuse; a minor child should not receive Internet access from a public library unless/until the parent has given informed consent for either unfettered or filtered access. To me, this strikes a balance between obligations to the community and the responsibilities of parents.
The question, then, is not "what harm does {information} do to children viewing it," but rather "what harm does {information} do to *THIS PARTICULAR CHILD* viewing it." That question can best be answered only by the parents; in all but the most extreme cases, they are the only ones who should be expected to answer it.