Kids Like Porn.

[adamparkzer]

If you're a parent, have you ever wondered what your child has been searching for on the internet? The searching habits of Norton Safety Minder software users have been collected anonymously and a list of top searches have been created. Here are the top seven, and additional rankings of interest:

1. YouTube
2. Google
3. Facebook
4. Sex
5. MySpace
6. Porn
7. Yahoo

28. Boobs
72. Pussy
86. Naked girls
88. Naked
89. Nude
93. XXX

Maybe you should monitor your children more closely?

For the complete list, click here.

 

[John Klyne]

Ow wow...it's a good thing I don't have kids...if I did, I would not mind letting my son watch whatever they wish online : )


WHY???

There is a science behind my choices when it comes to taking care of kids. Feel free to look it up, and you'll find that a simple, "shutup" to the kid at a young age HAS SO MUCH IMPACT in the future.

...I won't go off topic with that, but according to what I have learned/read/researched for "fun"(for the sake of others...especially youngsters)...I am glad these kids are finding sources for such content.

Call me stupid/swear at me all you like, you would not beleive what happens (in a good way) to kids if they search these things...and you would NOT BELEIVE what happens (in a bad way) what happens if there is an immediate "shut down" of such content.

I have studied things like this, my neighbors come to me when they find what their son is really doing on the comp/in the shower or what their daughter is doing as well.

It's like economics, with good economics, kids searching these things, gain something, (in the long run)...but an immediate HALT on "trade"...the economy will dwindle, and truth be it, no matter how much you may deny it, such searches for people does in fact HELP people. Not in the ways you think, but...

ANSWER THIS: Would you rather have your son viewing these things on the computer...or do you want them, to become obsessive/shy/afraid/incompetent/socially inept??

For one small negative thing such as this...there is soooo much proving that letting this small thing go by...causes positive things in the long run...BUT A QUICK "HALT" on such content, can have disasterous effects.

Uhmmm...I am making a blog, helping parents be good parents : )
What else should I add?? Are you a person that yells at your child for that he/she gets bad grades...? Well wow, you will love to visit this blog of mine then. : )

I love helping others help their children in the long run. Some simple things can cause such disasterous(can't remember spelling) things to a persons mentality that an immediate halt on such things, as said before, will NOT HELP in the long run, but INSTEAD HARM.

Well I will make a note when my blog is up and running. : )
Self help, for you and YOUR child's help!

 

[Sharky]

The problem with that attitude is that there's a risk of the child growing up with unrealistic expectations of what it will be like, and how to act. There was a TV show on a similar issue not that long ago, and the fact is, it places enormous pressure on youngsters to conform to what they've seen online. Let's be honest, children do like to imitate others, especially those they think are cool. So let me ask you this: would you rather your child was allowed free access to the 'net and idolising porn actors, or watching stuff like Blue Peter, putting what they've seen on there in to practice, and going outside and having fun?

Call me old fashioned, but come the time when I've got these decisions to make, my child is NOT going to have free-reign on the internet, xbox, tv, etc. I'm sure there are plenty of like-minded people out there who agree.

Frankly, I'm disgusted that even the concept of sex is entering the minds of the lower-teens.

Coincidentally, I started writing a load more than this, and found the following insightful article on the Guardian (broadsheet newspaper in the UK) online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/aug/15/internet-pornography-sex-addiction ... A good read, and addresses quite a few issues here. And I agree with it. (yeah yeah, I hate writing long forum posts in that tiny box... go read!)

 

[jmcgowan]

I would have to agree with sharky on this one. Growing up the mischevous little boy that I did, I did my fair share of web surfing for porn (back when surfing the web was new and exciting, and web 1.0 wasn't even defined yet!), and when I look back at my life, I wish I never had. Now it helps to explain things to know that I am a conservative Christian and feel that porn is truly wrong. Porn has caused more problems in my life than it has entertainment or satisfaction. At times in my life I've had to fight the temptation to view women as mere objects to be stared at and oggled. I've known and seen people who don't share my worldview that accept porn as an essential part of their lives, and they completely objectify women and don't really see them as people. It's terrible. I would rather admire my wife and enjoy her in every way I can than stare at a screen and let it skew my view of the fairer gender.

 

[John Klyne]

In my opinion, NO ONE should be with someone that they don't find a spark in.
I beleive that the viewing of different people with clothes or no clothes on, developes a child's brain, to see that, there is just a wide range of people to choose from.

It lets them see all the people in the world, what their traits are, and what they do in certain situations. It developes the ideal guy or girl in the viewers mind. This is then used to determine if person x or y is the best choice for person z to sleep with.

Lets take a random hot girl from the mall.

she is tall, beutiful natural brown hair, tight pants, with rips in them...with a diamond necklace, 2k purse...following her around is a guy carrying her bags...from a dozen stores....blah blah blah...blah...blah...blah and so on...I gather all that information in a couple seconds glance...

I then go and strike a conversation, and bam, I hear what her voice sounds like...I get her to speak louder, and softer, or until I can here where her voice cracks in a 5 minute conversation.

I then have a drink with her, or sit with her on a bench...

JUST FROM THAT INFORMATION, according to past real life experiences...or what I have seen when I was younger (I admit ...you know...)

Just from spending a seconds glance, at her looks...I infer these things...
tall...at least I don't have to get down all the way...

natural brown hair...at least she isn't hiding gray hair/ she feels confident...showing not just anyone can start to arouse her..

tight pants, well, she had a thong on as you can clearly see...
pants with rips in them, just means it is easier to get into them...with soo many entrances.

Diamond necklace, loves money/what it represents to a girl, "power" the ability for the man to provide and take care of her...2k purse...she is deffinately packing some condoms...

guy carrying her bags...just means that he has def. seen her change...

well whats this tell us...with the clothes the person wears, I can literally predict what actions she will take in bed. What I need to show I have, (that I don't really have) in order to get her...(show power/money...in a way/represent it)...she had great looking hair and they were soo soft...means that no matter what happens, in bed or after bed in the morning, she will be in the bathroom, washing her hair, or taking a shower washing her hair...meaning that I can def slip in and have some fun in the shower or bathroom with the person....

if it was not for what I have seen, in the past, and what I have learned from what I have seen or experienced...I would not be able to tell what would happen if I was with that person, but now I am...I know what is going to happen, and thus...it lets me choose do I want to do that again, or do I want to do something else...or do I want someone who yells less, or does not yell at all...do I want to take my time digging down the pants or will I be able to just get in, do I need to buy a condom or do I need to simply let her know that we will be using hers...is it easy to get her, if she drinks a couple of times, or should I just try to act like she doesn't matter so I can get her that way...

with how a person looks, and sits on a bench, I can tell which positions would be best, and which would be less pleasurable for her...do I want to be with that, or do I not?

there are many things a person can learn, though this may not make sense, and the grammer or spelling may be horrible, I bet at least half of what I say makes sense...and that without prior knowledge or viewing...I would not be able to determine if I want person x or person y...someone who sits this way...or lays down that way...

Not sure if such content is allowed on this forum, if not, please delete this post, but I hope everyone understands what I am trying to let everyone know...that you don't ahve to settle for something you don't like or want to do, if you have prior knowledge or "viewage"

Thanks, from John Klyne! : )

 

[Sharky]

Dude... What porn are you watching?

The facts are, no matter how much you try to mask them, that porn is fake. If your children are to watch it, it is going to give them unrealistic expectations, their 'first time' is going to be boring compared to their preconceptions, and also too soon. Those that partake in making this content are also following some sort of script, any 'chance encounters' are not by chance. They're getting paid, ffs.

Teenage pregnancy is increasing [BBC, 2009], and you can not say that the increased availability of free/cheap adult media has nothing to do with it. The plan to combat this by giving sex-education classes to even younger students just baffles me. Previous generations considered sex as a special thing, and you can see that in early television shows. I admit, things do change. This doesn't mean they change for the better.

'John Klyne': If you're making your assumptions from a first encounter based on what you've seen in adult media, then you're making a horrible mistake, and my initial observations and impressions of you have been extraordinarily wrong...

 

[jmcgowan]

John, no offense, but you're the type of person I want my daughter to avoid. If I had a son, I would want him to be almost the exact opposite of you, or at least the parts of you described here in this thread. It is that same attitude that you display here that is fueled, if not created, by easy access to pornography. The attitude that says 'a girl is something to look at to get aroused', 'the purpose of talking to a girl is to try and get her to sleep with you', or 'that girl is wearing tight clothes, she must want to get laid'. My wife is the most beautiful woman I've ever met, but my attraction to her is more from the fact that I never know what to expect from her. Some days I'll come home and she'll want to cuddle on the couch and watch a movie. Other nights it's killing her waiting for my daughter's bedtime so we can be 'alone'. (Let's face it, with a two year old in the house, you're never really alone)

By giving kids free, easy access to porn, we are encouraging them to objectify women and treat them like they are worth nothing more than to get laid. Porn never shows women as people, only as playthings for men.

 

[John Klyne]

WOW, thats a great group of rebuttals, heh, I am not a person that promotes such content, truth be it, against my religion to even watch such, and as religious as I am not, I do not encourage people to watch this stuff, it does hinder what the first real experience will be like, since they will in fact not be using a script, as they do on the internet or whereever else they are available.

I have a couple of views that contradict what I beleive is the greater, good of weather or not limiting it is a good or bad thing.

I am not a person to be, "oh okay, lets have sex" that is not me, " so no worries if your duaghters or sons are near me which they are not : ) (thankfully is what you are thinking).

I am a person that belevies people should do as they wish, as long as it does not harm anyone, or anything else. So if watching something does no harm to others, go right ahead.

Are we encouraging kids to objectify women and treat them like they are worth nothing more than to get laid? There are reasons people make a website, one of which is that they earn money from it. Without money, where would we all be??

Well this stuff sells, like crazy, and there are always people willing to pay for such content. Though we are not talking about the kids paying for it, but it may add pleasure to a persons life.

Here's this scenario, I read somewhere, that there was a kid, he was bullied on A LOT since he was in kindergarten. He was pushed around, made fun of and all that stuff we don't like. The kid reached 7th and 8th grade and started to get mentally abused, (another kid, making fun of the fact that he had, old, dirty clothes...(the kid being bullied is in fact poor)...well what the kid did starting grades 7-8 was search the internet for things that made him feel better.

One of those few things he did online, was of course search up internet porn. He was poor and abused, as we already know, NOW, instead of him walking home crying, he comes home, differently towards the end of his middleschool life. He is happier for some reason coming home from school, and after getting out of his room, the parents said. Then one day, his father, since he was a security guard at a warehouse working the night shift, took a camera and planted it in the bookshelf pointing, his bed closet and computer...(which was literally all the kid had in his room...(bed was a matress on the ground, computer was on the ground as well, closet had no door...there was broken lamp on the side of the mattress near the computer... well what his father caought on tape was, his son, viewing internet porn, and thus the conclusion was that he was happier, because of such content.

Some people do in fact need help, some people have no way to release stress, how to become happy....and the internet in a way, helps to release stress...and makes people happy.

Well the kid got sick about 6 months before viewing internet porn...had ulcers (can turn into cancer) from stress...stated the doctors. Well here we are now, a year later...according to tests (that were paid for by his uncles) he had found something to do in his life that reduced it.

What was it...what do you think? Watching such content, does help people in a way. Not watching it, or having an immediate shut off valve on these things, can also have some adverse effects...

Think about it...

Remember this, is what I think...if it harms none, it is OKAY. : )

That is what I think, but then we all have different opinions.Should it be limited...I beleive it should to some extent. Some people need it, if they are not getting it. Though less people know that if they need it, and don't get it online/viewing it, their body will in fact/their brain will in fact, work in ways to acheive and get it. Don't ask me how I came up with this/where I found it.

 

[Eck.R]

John Klyne: You're either in this to provoke a debate, or you're the kind of guy I want my kids to be the opposite of...

jmcgowan is right, you come across as being sex-starved, and viewing women as objects/playthings.

pants with rips in them, just means it is easier to get into them...with soo many entrances.

Diamond necklace, loves money/what it represents to a girl, "power" the ability for the man to provide and take care of her...2k purse...she is deffinately packing some condoms...

guy carrying her bags...just means that he has def. seen her change...

with the clothes the person wears, I can literally predict what actions she will take in bed. What I need to show I have, (that I don't really have) in order to get her...(show power/money...in a way/represent it)...she had great looking hair and they were soo soft...means that no matter what happens, in bed or after bed in the morning, she will be in the bathroom, washing her hair, or taking a shower washing her hair...meaning that I can def slip in and have some fun in the shower or bathroom with the person....

do I want to take my time digging down the pants or will I be able to just get in, do I need to buy a condom or do I need to simply let her know that we will be using hers...is it easy to get her, if she drinks a couple of times, or should I just try to act like she doesn't matter so I can get her that way...

Now, I'm just going to address your "if it doesn't harm anybody it's ok" argument, as that's the most stupid thing I've heard. It sounds fantastic, but you can't honestly believe it...? Plus, everything else has already been addressed by someone else.

For starters, it implies that the reverse also applies. If it does harm, it's not ok. I'm sure many will think 'yeah, that's true'. Well, how about this scenario: You're applying for a job, and one of the other applicants recently lost his job, has no money, and nearly maxed out all the forms of credit available. If you're successful, you're harming the other applicant. Are you going to withdraw your application? Especially in the current climate.

What about gay marriage? Many religions are against that, and consequently, many religious supporters feel hurt that it's becoming so accepted in general life. I personally believe it somewhat makes a mockery of marriage (indeed, in 342 AD, same-sex marriage was prohibited in ancient Rome). I'm not going to lose sleep over it, nor am I going to put a stop to it... I understand popular culture changes, and it'll take its course. However, back on topic, does feeling hurt not count as 'harm'? I've heard many times that gay marriage doesn't harm anybody, and yet it seems that it does. This could boil down to the social culture of general acceptance and not kicking up a fuss, but that's for another forum thread... However, if you're going to address this by saying that somebody isn't really harmed by it, let's discuss rape victims [EDIT: apologies if this is offensive, if there are any here...]. At the end of the day, any pregnancy that follows from rape can be terminated, so everything's back how it was before, right? WRONG. The rape victim will still be hurt, mentally. The fact is, marriage is originally part of the religious institution upon which nations (western, at least) are formed. Changing fundamental religious beliefs is going to cause harm (y'know, the whole Husband And Wife thing), and generate views that if it's going to be changed as and when, existing marriages are worthless.

I hear you now thinking "Well, ok, it's ok as long as it doesn't harm anyone, or give them any legitimate feeling of harm". Who are we to decide what a legitimate reason for feeling is? The only way I can forsee proponents of the "it doesn't harm anyone" view actually being correct is if they also believe that ignorance is bliss, and in the age old 'out of sight, out of mind' belief. Which is just a cop-out, as it doesn't actually address any issues, and quite simply leads to an unhealthy build up of emotions, which is not healthy either on a personal or national level.

 

[fcomputers]

I Disagree in.

 

[sdnoble]

The only time porn is NOT harmfull is when it fuels fun in a stable relationship.

 

[bradym]

Absolutely, porn is harmful. It's addicting and victimizing. It clouds true love and the purpose of the sex act which is solidify a committment that has already been made on grounds other than sex. They didn't call "consumating the marriage" for nothing back when pre-marital sex was frowned upon. And believe it or not, there are and were MANY people who were virgins when they married and married virgins. Have you any idea how wonderful it is to go to bed every night with the man or woman that you love and knowing that you have NEVER had sex with another person? The history you have created with that one special person?, the committment? How many marriages has porn ruined? How many young men have become sexual predetors because the frustration fueled by their porn habits? Ted Bundy was clear and concise in his interview on death row: he got hooked on porn at an early age and was NEVER able to shake that habit.

 

[zen-r]

Never has one thread contained so much ill-informed mumbo-jumbo.

There are a lot of people here spouting a lot of (religion dictated) opinions as if they were facts - WHICH THEY ARE NOT.

Perhaps you would all like to provide some statistical evidence to support your wild claims?

And if you wish to keep making reference to how things "should" be, then we should all be walking around nude, as nature intended, & we should have all grown up seeing adults having sex. This is how it was for millions of years. Animals still do it this way, & they are not morally depraved.

Since there has been no definition of "porn" in this thread, then any sensible discussion of the actual facts is a non-starter. To some, "porn" is just pictures of nudity. Do you take my point?

Note that I am not stating my own opinion here, since I don't feel it a very appropriate place to have such a discussion, especially considering the original title of the thread. However, it does seem clear to me that the opinions of many others here are biased & without foundation.

 

[adamparkzer]

Maybe I should've posted this in Crossfire.

-.-

 

[xav0989]

Maybe I should've posted this in Crossfire.

-.-

That would have been a good idea. Maybe you can ask a mod to move it... although with a title like "Kids Like Porn" I wonder if they'll accept.

 

[adamparkzer]

That would have been a good idea. Maybe you can ask a mod to move it... although with a title like "Kids Like Porn" I wonder if they'll accept.

lol That's not what I meant - I said that I should've posted this on Crossfire because I got an unexpectedly high number of responses and paragraphs of input on the article. I basically started a debate about if pornography is good for kids or not.

And the topic doesn't really matter as long as it's something worth exchanging opinions about - I just made the title "Kids Like Porn." to catch people's attention.

 

[bradym]

Zen-r, you are absolutely right. Research should back up opinion.

Here are a couple of quotes from an article entitled, "Young men and pornography: Meeting the challenge through sex and relationships education," by Mark Limmer. Education & Health; 2009, Vol. 27 Issue 21, p6-8, 3p


There is stronger evidence that pornography
influences the attitudes and expectations of
young people, contributing to negative views
of themselves, their partners and their sexual
relationships (Peter & Valkenberg, 2007;
Redgrave & Limmer, 2006).

The six key themes. explicitly or implicitly found in almost all
pornography, are:
1. Sex is a purely physical activity taking place
within an emotional vacuum.
2. Heterosexuality is compulsory, for men
at least.
3. Male pleasure is paramount - the encounter
is complete on male ejaculation and women's
pleasure is conceptualised as evidence of
male artistry and expertise.
4. Men should take the lead, be the experts and
not refuse a sexual opportunity.
5. Women are always willing to have sex - even
though sometimes they 'pretend' that they
are reluctant.
6. Sex is consequence-free - issues of infection
and conception are absent.
The impact of these themes can be
significant, particularly for young men who
do not have access to alternative frames of
reference provided by family, wider social
networks and institutions. It is the young
men who do not have positive sexual role
models, who are alienated from parents and
family and who rely on their peer group to
define appropriate attitudes that are
particularly vulnerable to the impact of
pornography (Limmer, in progress).

After reading this entire article and numerous others like it throughout my college education, I have come to the reasoned opinion that porn is harmful and reduces the sex act to mere animal instints. If, however, we are all animals, then I guess that's ok. Right?

 

[John Klyne]

I will reply in bold/italicized in the quote; ...I can't spell just a note.

I will answer with flat out answers, no sugar coded nonsense, to make it simpler to explain in a way what I beleive.

-------------------------------

You're either in this to provoke a debate, or you're the kind of guy I want my kids to be the opposite of...

I am in this to provoke debate. What I appear to be online and in real life are totally different, according to this situation. I have been told, by parents, of my friends and cousins and neighbors that they wish THEIR childrento be more like me. Now that you know that...


jmcgowan is right, you come across as being sex-starved, and viewing women as objects/playthings.

Sex-starved, I am not. Viewing women as objects/playthings...well I don't think that is a good description...when I was younger, to tell the truth I did treat them like that, as objects or playthings to some extent. I would approach girls just because I knew she would be fun to hang around with...in the town I live in, showing your bellybutton in school, is slutty...well, people call girls sluts...why does no one call men, whatever they wish? I am what you would have called a person to hangs around a person for a short period, to have some fun, and heck, nothing more left...go onto the next person waiting in line.

Now, I'm just going to address your "if it doesn't harm anybody it's ok" argument, as that's the most stupid thing I've heard. It sounds fantastic, but you can't honestly believe it...? Plus, everything else has already been addressed by someone else. Yea it does sound stupid, but I do honestly beleive it...read the next couple replies...

You're applying for a job, and one of the other applicants recently lost his job, has no money, and nearly maxed out all the forms of credit available. If you're successful, you're harming the other applicant. Are you going to withdraw your application? Especially in the current climate. I only care for a group of people, family and friends, my neighbors and co-workers...with that, I care about those on the streets, there are many many countries you can go to, donate 1$ and feed them for a week. : ) ...those are the people I care about.

The guy that loses his job because I do not withdraw my application, I do care for, if I know his situation, in this case I know it...I care enough to feel bad, but not enough to forget what I need, and let someone else take it.

Sure it may harm others, but that is not problem. But now, according to my current life, if that does happen, I would withdraw the application for that, he needs it more than I do. A person with cancer...wants people to donate to cancer organizations so they can research a cure, correct? I would never donate to a cancer organization, or any other desiese treatment/finder organization for that the money I would give them, could have been used, 1. To invest...to make more money or (the more important one). To help feed a child in Africa, or buy a town a drinking water well.

I would personally like my money used on things that I know will matter...treatment for cancer...will my 5 thousand dollar contribution do much to that, HECK NO, that is probably almost enough for a researcher to get paid for the day. No no no, my money will be used on better things.

However, back on topic, does feeling hurt not count as 'harm'? Feeling hurt does cause harm in my opinion. I've heard many times that gay marriage doesn't harm anybody, and yet it seems that it does. It harms people, mentally....if anyone is getting the wrong impression about my opinion on gay marraiges, I do not mind them, I have many gay friends... However, if you're going to address this by saying that somebody isn't really harmed by it, let's discuss rape victims [EDIT: apologies if this is offensive, if there are any here...]. At the end of the day, any pregnancy that follows from rape can be terminated, so everything's back how it was before, right? WRONG. I agree...The rape victim will still be hurt, mentally. Want my opinion on people who rape others...(the forcing of one person to have sex with another...not the If you're over 18 you can't have sex with a 17 year old thing, even if both parties agree on it)...any person who rapes, needs help, mentally...those who are raped, need help as well. I will not discuss it, but that phrase I will stick to.

The fact is, marriage is originally part of the religious institution upon which nations (western, at least) are formed. I care not about marraige,in my opinion, if all parties (the husband and wife of one party and husband and wife of another party...first party husband with 2nd party wife) agree to have sexual intercourse lets say once a week for the rest of their life, even if they are seeing other people/married to others, does not matter to me, go right ahead. Changing fundamental religious beliefs is going to cause harm (y'know, the whole Husband And Wife thing), and generate views that if it's going to be changed as and when, existing marriages are worthless. Marriages in my opinion are not worthless...but yes, if people think the way I think many will say they are worthless.

I hear you now thinking "Well, ok, it's ok as long as it doesn't harm anyone, or give them any legitimate feeling of harm". Who are we to decide what a legitimate reason for feeling is? I do not beleive, I said anothing about legitmate feelings of harm, and yes we are not those to say what one is. The only way I can forsee proponents of the "it doesn't harm anyone" view actually being correct is if they also believe that ignorance is bliss, (lets use what you said against yourself on this on...just to have a laugh...we are not people to say what a legitamate feeling of harm is for another person.... BUT (haha) ...you said that it would be stupid (or something to that extent...I think) to beleive ignorance is bliss...who are you to judge what other people think or come up with legitamate reasons for why ignorance is not bliss...You see you use what I thought against me...and I will use the SAME EXACT THING against you...we are not to choose what other people think, or make anything that is in controversy legitamte.

and in the age old 'out of sight, out of mind' belief. Which is just a cop-out, as it doesn't actually address any issues, and quite simply leads to an unhealthy build up of emotions, which is not healthy either on a personal or national level.

-------------
I mean no harm to any party, that may further read into what I have said, or tried to express to the best of my ability within the set time frame I had to reply to such a profound rebuttal.

I like this topic...Eck.R thankyou for that reply...please reply again. Thankyou

From John Klyne
Edit:

The only time porn is NOT harmfull is when it fuels fun in a stable relationship.

You know that is a mere opionated statement. For that, to one person it helps at times and at other people may harm. For that what you beleive fuels fun in a stable relationship may mean something else to another person.
Edit:

Absolutely, porn is harmful. It's addicting and victimizing. It clouds ...

Read above reply.
Edit:

Never has one thread contained so much ill-informed mumbo-jumbo. I must agree

There are a lot of people here spouting a lot of (religion dictated) opinions as if they were facts - WHICH THEY ARE NOT. I agree again. : )

Perhaps you would all like to provide some statistical evidence to support your wild claims? ...Impossible for that this issue is not important enough, to have received donatable funds to fund the dam rich researchers to find some things for us to use in such an interesting arguement.

And if you wish to keep making reference to how things "should" be, then we should all be walking around nude, I would not mind it, just like you would not mind it, if everyone else was doing it. : ) no shame, no problemo, you know what I mean....as nature intended, & we should have all grown up seeing adults having sex. This is how it was for millions of years. Animals still do it this way, & they are not morally depraved.Now you are really digging into the way I truly think. I could not have said it any other way.

Since there has been no definition of "porn" in this thread, then any sensible discussion of the actual facts is a non-starter. To some, "porn" is just pictures of nudity. Do you take my point? The post starter means all forms of it, since it was general, I beleive...though that is once again my opinion.

Note that I am not stating my own opinion here, but in a way you did...that is when I replied "no problemo" above : ) since I don't feel it a very appropriate place to have such a discussion, especially considering the original title of the thread. However, it does seem clear to me that the opinions of many others here are biased & without foundation.

zen-r
---------
zen-r I like the way you think, I really do...I was just in the mood to argue and here I am... : ) Glad to see you sprouted some of your thoughts onto this thread.
Edit:

Maybe I should've posted this in Crossfire.

-.-

Please ask to have it moved. : )

I would love that hehe.

 

[John Klyne]

Below I will comment in bold... : )

Zen-r, you are absolutely right. Research should back up opinion. It should, glad to see bradym you are thinking logically.


There is stronger evidence that pornography
influences the attitudes and expectations of
young people, (they can't prove this statement! : ) contributing to negative views
of themselves, their partners and their sexual
relationships (Peter & Valkenberg, 2007;
Redgrave & Limmer, 2006).

The six key themes. explicitly or implicitly found in almost all
pornography, are:
1. Sex is a purely physical activity taking place
within an emotional vacuum. Glad to see it has nothing to do with religion.

4. Men should take the lead, be the experts and
not refuse a sexual opportunity.Glad to see, some guys opinions match mine, in High School, sleep/have fun with whomever you can. : )
5. Women are always willing to have sex - even
though sometimes they 'pretend' that they
are reluctant. Not always, but the rest is true...
6. Sex is consequence-free - issues of infection
and conception are absent. What in the world...you do get deseases...???)VERY WRONG SCIENTIFLY, what the guys posted.
The impact of these themes can be
significant, particularly for young men who
do not have access to alternative frames of
reference provided by family, wider social
networks and institutions. It is the young
men who do not have positive sexual role
models, who are alienated from parents and
family and who rely on their peer group to
define appropriate attitudes that are
particularly vulnerable to the impact of
pornography (Limmer, in progress). This is also an opinion, though it may occur in many cases)

After reading this entire article and numerous others like it throughout my college education, I have come to the reasoned opinion that porn is harmful and reduces the sex act to mere animal instints. UM...I have read if you beleive in all science....that SEX IS MERE ANIMAL INSTINCTS. Science/nature made it easy for me/some of my friends to get to sleep with a girl I just met 2 hours ago. Want proof? Come right over and watch what we do. There are steps, to getting the greatest result, it will take practice, but getting a girl to sleep with you, is a systematic group of steps. Every step must be taken, at the right time. Some people do it unknowingly...I had to learn...(family members are pickup artists...you may consider me one/people have considered me one)If, however, we are all animals, then I guess that's ok. Right?

It is okay...we are animals, though more advanced than many others.


Keep the comments coming. : )
From John Klyne.

 

[zen-r]

@ bradym - As I said, I am not about to enter this debate here. Furthermore, many of the participants in this forum are children themselves, making it even harder to discuss this properly.

However, what I will say is this;

You & others here keep switching between citing that porn is harmful to children, & then suddenly changing the statement to saying that porn is harmful, period. That is, you are trying to confuse the issue by making blanket statements to cover what adults can & can't do, as well.

Your posting of an article does not constitute statistical evidence. If you actually looked for that, you would see that there is nothing conclusive statistically either way.

To answer your question, yes, humans are animals. Perhaps you should have studied Biology instead of Geography if you don't know this. We have animal needs & animal instincts, & no amount of intellectualising about this will change it.

You used Ted Bundy as example of why porn is harmful.

OK, by the same reasoning, priests are good example of why religion is harmful, because there are numerous incidents of priests being child abusers.

You seem to be ignoring all the pleasure & benefits that porn also brings. All the marriages it has saved, all the lonely lives it has added some enrichment to.

Perhaps we should ban everything which may cause some harm?

Cars are a massive killer of people, & polluter of the environment. So lets ignore all the benefits they also bring, & lets ban them.

Let's ban any dangerous sport, because even though people may benefit from the exercise & enjoy doing the activity, by banning them we can save many lives.

Let's ban salt from food. After all, added salt isn't really needed & the average person gets far too much of it in their diet. Who cares if it actually gives pleasure to people & allows them to enjoy their food more.

In fact, let's ban everything. Life isn't for enjoyment is it?

I'm not asking for a total acceptance that everything about porn is great, because it isn't. There are also plenty of undesirable elements to it, just as there are with just about everything else which gives pleasure in life.

But what I am asking for is a bit of balance in this thread, without the ridiculous black & white statements.