You presume that it harms children.
Why should anyone have to opt-in to a healthy adult desire? The chilling effects of this policy would be far worse than a few kids seeing boobs (good luck stopping them!).
Healthy adult desires aren't healthy child desires. Boobs and butts etc are fine. I have no problem with nudity, and most mental health pros would agree. Choose any five videos from xTube and tell me that a child ought to be viewing them.
Censor it only for children. If you're an adult, have a great time.
And don't trust me. Read the salient literature. Get savvy with arguments. Understand that children are impressionable and act out on what they see in porn.
Bluenose, I'm not. Father of six grown children and stepchildren, I am. If you knew me, you'd understand that I'm not puritanical in any way, rather I am protective.
Parents ought to do this. But they don't. Or he or she doesn't. Or grandma, the servicing parent, doesn't. And so on. When a child becomes a teen, there's a natural interest in sex. Wouldn't it be great if they didn't get pictures of adults doing it in objectifying ways, with no contextually supporting information?
No, you pull the suggestion from context incorrectly. A GP is the first-line health source. A good one will answer the specific question cited upthread, and if he/she can't will refer you on. The question was: is exposing a child to porn harmful to the child? The answer will very likely be: yes, or I don't know, let me refer you.
There are a lot of good GPs out there, and a few skunks and lazy ones.... not to mention a very small fraction of crooks. But lots of them are really good at what they do, see a lot of humanity, and understand a lot about pediatric mental health, and what's good for it, and what's not.
1) So you say. Go to the nearest high school. Ask how many pregnancies among students there were in the past 24 months.
2) See #1. Go to your local STD clinic. Ask how many kids across what age distribution were reported to the state (all of them keep statistics) for STDs, what kind, and how many were HIV and HepC.
3) I'll pound home the points necessary. Porn doesn't lead to sex, as correlation != causation. But kids watch it, get curious, get hormones, and experiment. Some have parents that have prepared them for sex with birth control, STD, and relationship advice. And then some do not. You have to catch, as a civil society, the ones that don't as a responsible act for the general good.
That's one alternative. Down the street lives a family of four, and their income has been state unemployment. There aren't any jobs around here. They snack from my WiFi connection because they don't have and can no longer afford cable. The wife is looking after her mother, who has dementia and is ill most of the time. Dad looks after the kids when he's not out looking for a job, even a burger flipping job would be good for him. They're an anecdotal case close to home. The kids are looked after, but I can tell what sites the kids go to when the family car's not around. I end up being the digital nanny. CPS is $30 they don't have, and I'm not buying. So I counsel the kid thru talking to their dad. It's not a perfect world.
When you're young, you're impressionable. In a vacuum, not having understanding of the reality of adulthood, you see graphic sex as would occur when say, a seven year old look at XTube, Redtube as examples. You see essentially optimized adults doing things with each other. You don't see the realities of pregnancy, STDs, relationships, boundaries, and so on. It lacks context.
An impressionable mind views sex entertainment, in ways that are difficult to grasp, and then act on what they see. It really happens, and real 11 year olds get pregnant by twelve year olds because they watched it and thought it looked like fun. Well, it probably was for a few moments.
2) Re-examine your sentence and think about what you said. Then imagine the typical household where two parents work, or one works two jobs, and so on. Get out of your box and consider the context of people unlike yourself, and their needs.
Yes... and how about the boys in Rome used for sex and cast away? Some of that even goes on in Afghanistan today.
I personally have no religious context. I'm an ex-Catholic and a practitioner of zen. It's not a religious philosophy that I'm relaying here. I'm talking about the real and genuine damage inflicted by children viewing porn. Children don't have a context for porn. They also see beautiful, often glamorized and unattainable and objectified bodies doing things that they don't understand... but eventually will. Research it and learn. Kids grow up, but too soon is not good.
No one suffers from naked bodies for more than a few seconds. Alas, if porn were just naked bodies, then there's no harm. But it isn't. It's viewing and subsequent attempts to rank and model perceived adult behavior.
Sex has side effects and needs for responsibilities. Does XTube carry a warning about using condoms before posting video? How about that 25yrs+ and million bucks or so that it takes to raise a child thru university age?
There are consequences, and some can be avoided, but a ten year old doesn't know that when he tries to dork his sister or the neighborhood kid next door. Some of that behavior isn't avoidable, and some of it is-- allowing children to be children until they need to be adults.
KidS need protection because parentS don't do the job.
The trial balloon looks like it's an initial attempt at censorship. It's not. It's opt-in viewing of porn. No one said: stop watching. No one said: you can't watch it. No one said: we're going to tax it. No one said we're going to call you out on it your viewing of it. Nothing like that at all. You think it's a slippery slope, and I tell you that children need protection, and taking this responsibility seems like it's censorship and it's not, it allies the protection of children. But as long as your fingers are in your ears, I can't get thru.
No. We're the adults, and the advisors in our children's lives, and they're the children. Parenting is an active, not a passive role. And it's a responsibility not to be taken lightly. This includes protecting children's development as well as their physical being. Porn has no place in child rearing, rather letting children grow a bit at a time is important.
Like you and I, doctors have a body of evidence and research to learn from. They are exposed to many child-rearing issues. Your estimation of their skills as advisors isn't my or my expectation of the general experience.
Your doctor can indeed render an opinion in this and other regards, and do so both responsibly, and referentially. Ask your doctor, it's ok. If they don't know, they'll usually say: I don't know. If they do, listen, challenge, learn.
Please research this before you go off on me. You're likely using your own anecdotal experience to respond to an issue that's profoundly serious.
It's not an issue of keeping kids in a bubble, or sanitizing their lives. The great body of evidence says: porn isn't for kids. Accusing people of being whiners doesn't alter the facts.
I'm very anti-censorship. I'm very protective of kids. Too many suffer.
Your sense of history needs work. Please grab any book on child psychology, or just google it. Read why exposure to porn by children is both detrimental, and the cause of a lot of harm. It's real, and it has an effect on both sexes. Porn is entertainment. Kids don't understand the context of this entertainment. Understanding sex, birth control, STD prevention, relationships, and deviations need to be understood. A lot of kids just mime what they see.
Then you get teen pregnancy or worse, STDs, abuse, and dysfunctional relationships. Some survive it unscathed, it's true. But there are enough that don't/can't make informed choices that it's a big problem.
Slashdot Mirror
You presume that it harms children. Why should anyone have to opt-in to a healthy adult desire? The chilling effects of this policy would be far worse than a few kids seeing boobs (good luck stopping them!).
Healthy adult desires aren't healthy child desires. Boobs and butts etc are fine. I have no problem with nudity, and most mental health pros would agree. Choose any five videos from xTube and tell me that a child ought to be viewing them.
Censor it only for children. If you're an adult, have a great time.
And don't trust me. Read the salient literature. Get savvy with arguments. Understand that children are impressionable and act out on what they see in porn.
Bluenose, I'm not. Father of six grown children and stepchildren, I am. If you knew me, you'd understand that I'm not puritanical in any way, rather I am protective.
When you start rehashing points over again using different verbage, the possibility of communicating information diminishes rapidly.
Not a 'bluenose'. See http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10261&page=143 and read a little.
Go here to start: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10261&page=143 so you'll understand that I'm not handwaving.
Not true.
Please read the salient literature and research.
Irresponsible adults need to be attacked.
Parents ought to do this. But they don't. Or he or she doesn't. Or grandma, the servicing parent, doesn't. And so on. When a child becomes a teen, there's a natural interest in sex. Wouldn't it be great if they didn't get pictures of adults doing it in objectifying ways, with no contextually supporting information?
The nanny programs go out of date faster than hamburger, and the refreshes on them are spotty. So I do what I do.
You're in denial. There's no productive further pursuit of this conversation.
No, you pull the suggestion from context incorrectly. A GP is the first-line health source. A good one will answer the specific question cited upthread, and if he/she can't will refer you on. The question was: is exposing a child to porn harmful to the child? The answer will very likely be: yes, or I don't know, let me refer you.
There are a lot of good GPs out there, and a few skunks and lazy ones.... not to mention a very small fraction of crooks. But lots of them are really good at what they do, see a lot of humanity, and understand a lot about pediatric mental health, and what's good for it, and what's not.
1) So you say. Go to the nearest high school. Ask how many pregnancies among students there were in the past 24 months.
2) See #1. Go to your local STD clinic. Ask how many kids across what age distribution were reported to the state (all of them keep statistics) for STDs, what kind, and how many were HIV and HepC.
3) I'll pound home the points necessary. Porn doesn't lead to sex, as correlation != causation. But kids watch it, get curious, get hormones, and experiment. Some have parents that have prepared them for sex with birth control, STD, and relationship advice. And then some do not. You have to catch, as a civil society, the ones that don't as a responsible act for the general good.
And this anecdotal evidence proves what, exactly?
That's one alternative. Down the street lives a family of four, and their income has been state unemployment. There aren't any jobs around here. They snack from my WiFi connection because they don't have and can no longer afford cable. The wife is looking after her mother, who has dementia and is ill most of the time. Dad looks after the kids when he's not out looking for a job, even a burger flipping job would be good for him. They're an anecdotal case close to home. The kids are looked after, but I can tell what sites the kids go to when the family car's not around. I end up being the digital nanny. CPS is $30 they don't have, and I'm not buying. So I counsel the kid thru talking to their dad. It's not a perfect world.
Different equation.
When you're young, you're impressionable. In a vacuum, not having understanding of the reality of adulthood, you see graphic sex as would occur when say, a seven year old look at XTube, Redtube as examples. You see essentially optimized adults doing things with each other. You don't see the realities of pregnancy, STDs, relationships, boundaries, and so on. It lacks context.
An impressionable mind views sex entertainment, in ways that are difficult to grasp, and then act on what they see. It really happens, and real 11 year olds get pregnant by twelve year olds because they watched it and thought it looked like fun. Well, it probably was for a few moments.
In order:
1) Monkey see, monkey do. Or worse.
2) Re-examine your sentence and think about what you said. Then imagine the typical household where two parents work, or one works two jobs, and so on. Get out of your box and consider the context of people unlike yourself, and their needs.
3) Curiosity is great. Sex at age 11 is not, etc.
Yes... and how about the boys in Rome used for sex and cast away? Some of that even goes on in Afghanistan today.
I personally have no religious context. I'm an ex-Catholic and a practitioner of zen. It's not a religious philosophy that I'm relaying here. I'm talking about the real and genuine damage inflicted by children viewing porn. Children don't have a context for porn. They also see beautiful, often glamorized and unattainable and objectified bodies doing things that they don't understand... but eventually will. Research it and learn. Kids grow up, but too soon is not good.
No one suffers from naked bodies for more than a few seconds. Alas, if porn were just naked bodies, then there's no harm. But it isn't. It's viewing and subsequent attempts to rank and model perceived adult behavior.
Sex has side effects and needs for responsibilities. Does XTube carry a warning about using condoms before posting video? How about that 25yrs+ and million bucks or so that it takes to raise a child thru university age?
There are consequences, and some can be avoided, but a ten year old doesn't know that when he tries to dork his sister or the neighborhood kid next door. Some of that behavior isn't avoidable, and some of it is-- allowing children to be children until they need to be adults.
KidS need protection because parentS don't do the job.
The trial balloon looks like it's an initial attempt at censorship. It's not. It's opt-in viewing of porn. No one said: stop watching. No one said: you can't watch it. No one said: we're going to tax it. No one said we're going to call you out on it your viewing of it. Nothing like that at all. You think it's a slippery slope, and I tell you that children need protection, and taking this responsibility seems like it's censorship and it's not, it allies the protection of children. But as long as your fingers are in your ears, I can't get thru.
Yeah, and they'll get that from porn.
No. We're the adults, and the advisors in our children's lives, and they're the children. Parenting is an active, not a passive role. And it's a responsibility not to be taken lightly. This includes protecting children's development as well as their physical being. Porn has no place in child rearing, rather letting children grow a bit at a time is important.
Like you and I, doctors have a body of evidence and research to learn from. They are exposed to many child-rearing issues. Your estimation of their skills as advisors isn't my or my expectation of the general experience.
Your doctor can indeed render an opinion in this and other regards, and do so both responsibly, and referentially. Ask your doctor, it's ok. If they don't know, they'll usually say: I don't know. If they do, listen, challenge, learn.
Please research this before you go off on me. You're likely using your own anecdotal experience to respond to an issue that's profoundly serious.
It's not an issue of keeping kids in a bubble, or sanitizing their lives. The great body of evidence says: porn isn't for kids. Accusing people of being whiners doesn't alter the facts.
I'm very anti-censorship. I'm very protective of kids. Too many suffer.
Harm to children.
Your sense of history needs work. Please grab any book on child psychology, or just google it. Read why exposure to porn by children is both detrimental, and the cause of a lot of harm. It's real, and it has an effect on both sexes. Porn is entertainment. Kids don't understand the context of this entertainment. Understanding sex, birth control, STD prevention, relationships, and deviations need to be understood. A lot of kids just mime what they see.
Then you get teen pregnancy or worse, STDs, abuse, and dysfunctional relationships. Some survive it unscathed, it's true. But there are enough that don't/can't make informed choices that it's a big problem.
That's true. It's a place to start, convenient for many, and not as expensive an inquiry. And a good GP ought to know the right answer, and why.