Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Kids viewing porn on the net

By enterfornone in MLP
Mon Jan 01, 2001 at 06:00:49 PM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)
Internet

In what will come as no surprise to most, Excite Australia reports that minors spend more time surfing adult sites than visiting gaming or other entertainment sites.

27.5% of minors (under 17 years) online visited an adult site in September 2000, with over 40% of those being female and over 20% being under 14.


So is this a demonstration that we need more censorship on the net? Or perhaps we need to educate parents of the sort of content that is out there and that the should be supervising their children. Perhaps this isn't a problem at all and we should let kids satisfy their curiosity.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Kids viewing porn on the net
o We need censorship to protect them 1%
o Parents need to supervise their children 42%
o Let them look at porn, it won't hurt them 56%

Votes: 121
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Excite Australia
o Also by enterfornone


Display: Sort:
Kids viewing porn on the net | 39 comments (38 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
Hmmm. (4.25 / 24) (#1)
by Signal 11 on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 06:28:15 PM EST

Something to think about - if society didn't make it so damned taboo, we probably wouldn't have this problem. Most people go off the deep end over the thought of 9 year olds looking at porn, but stop and think - why are they looking at porn? They're not exactly interested in the other sex at that age - they're still in full on coodies mode, remember? They might think it's alittle disgusting, but that's about it.

Most every kid I knew < 12 years old who bragged about having porn or finding it did it precisely because adults have such a problem with it. If there wasn't that, there would be no reason to brag, and hence no reason to look at it in the first place.

As far as older kids (teens) looking at porn, you're trying to supress seven million years of evolution by saying they can't look at naked people. Parents and the community ought to be there as resources for kids that age, helping them make the transition into adulthood, instead of shunning them, saying that it is wrong, as if until you're 18 you should be completely uninterested, while simultaniously those same parents encourage their kids to have boyfriends and girlfriends. Ahem.

This is a social problem which has all but been flattened in the face of the "blind" communication of a text-only medium that is the majority of the internet. While these people fret and lobby for censorware, they do so in a futile effort to restrain the hormones of millions of teenagers. That which is created by man can be destroyed by man. Kids, if nothing else, are creative and unfazed by attempts to curtail behavior their elders view as wrong. They have lots of time on their hands, flush with hormones, and a rebellious streak. Do 'ya think they're going to be deterred by something as simple as a computer program?




--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.

and also... (3.64 / 14) (#8)
by codetoad on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 06:58:09 PM EST

Let us not forget that in other countries(England, among other European countries) allow for -far- more nudity in their mainstream media. I think the nature of "erotic" content, and sexual attraction in general, is highly subjective and enviornmental. Just about anyone who reads National Geographic knows this.

[ Parent ]
Suspicious (3.58 / 12) (#2)
by duxup on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 06:29:55 PM EST

I'm suspicious of how this data was gathered. The article is so short and gives so few details I don't feel it's of much value.

Statistics (4.20 / 10) (#7)
by gunner800 on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 06:58:01 PM EST

This information is pretty much useless. We can start a discussion based on the assumption that it can all be taken at face value, but your healthy skepticism is just right.

I can't even think of a good way a study could be conducted and reach these results. Do some porn sites have questionaires on-line that ask for your age? If so, who would actually fill it out?

Anonymous pen-and-paper surveys of children might account for some of the conclusions. But what about these tangents about unique visitors to websites? It sounds like they just spliced two or three studies together and played make-believe with the results.

---Ignore poorly-chosen handle for purpose of gun-control discussions.
[ Parent ]

What we need is better porn (4.00 / 22) (#3)
by Arkady on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 06:30:59 PM EST

The problem I have with most of the porn I've seen is it's obsession with dominance/submission relationships. While I don't see anything wrong with children looking at pictures of naked people, I do think that the relationships portrayed in most pornigraphy aren't the sort we'd want children emulating (and where else do kids get their relationship models but through whatever observations of adult behavior they get?).

So, I don't think we need mandatory porn filtering a la the bluenoses in Washington's latest legal oevre; I think we just need porn that's been made by someone other than the generally dysfunctional power trippers responsible for most of that genre today.

Cheers,
-robin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


Well ... (2.90 / 11) (#4)
by Anonymous 7324 on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 06:36:10 PM EST

At least what I've personally found is that it all depends on what you're looking for. I guess if you're going to a central place and then linking off of that, then it depends what source you start from. If you start from a more 'hardcore' place, then you're going to find more hardcore stuff. Start from a place that's generally softcore (say, Tommy's Bookmarks), and most of the stuff you find is generally what you regard as better porn. <shrug>.

[ Parent ]
Sexism != sadomasochism (3.00 / 6) (#29)
by Paul Crowley on Mon Jan 01, 2001 at 08:33:34 PM EST

As a sadomasochist I've enjoyed a lot of very good porn that portrays dominance/submission relations and I'd like to see more such quality porn produced. What I don't like is the sexism that's very evident in mainstream "vanilla" porn. Sex is just one of the many things that becomes unreal, cliched and a mirror to prejudice when portrayed through the lens of the unimaginative, commercial production machine; our best response is to make our own porn that portrays the joys of our diverse sexualities as they really are.

I'd recommend against thirteen year olds downloading hardcore SM porn for the most part, but lots of kids and other people could do with an understanding of the consent and negotiation that is an integral part of what we call SM today.
--
Paul Crowley aka ciphergoth. Crypto and sex politics. Diary.
[ Parent ]
I think that parents need to be involved (4.00 / 13) (#5)
by djkimmel on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 06:46:17 PM EST

So many parents don't seem to be involved with their children's lives. Many parents don't understand that you can't rely on television to babysit your kids, you actually need to spend time with them. Computers and the internet are exactly the same way.

Television and computers are good, when used properly. They should be a shared experience between parent and child. If the child comes across something questionable, the parent should be able to explain it and educate the child instead of just censoring it away.

Many people don't seem to realize how much time and effort it takes to raise a kid and many parents don't seem to want to invest this time and effort. Its sad because the people who lose out are the ones that have no say in the matter.

Having said this, I am against censorship and in favor of parents spending more time with their children. But how could THAT possibly be put into law?
-- Dave
What's the point? (4.00 / 17) (#6)
by ObeseWhale on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 06:50:33 PM EST

Perhaps I've been missing something all this time, perhaps I was born on another planet, but I just don't get it. What the heck is so bad about kids looking at porn? Why is it "okay" for an 18+ aged human to look at it but socially horrifying for a fourteen year old to see a natural bioligical process? Is there any sort of evidence that seeing porn is traumatizing in any way, because I haven't seen any of it? I am truly questioning this confusing underlying concept of "porn + kids = bad". I don't see the connection here.

---

"The hunger for liberty may he suppressed for a time; yet never exterminated. Man's natural instinct is for freedom, and no power on earth can succeed in crushing it for very long."
-Alexander Berkman
What if... (3.23 / 13) (#9)
by enterfornone on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 07:13:51 PM EST

A 14 year old sees porn and decides it's OK to start having sex either with someone their own age or older people? What if they come across adult chat groups and end up meeting adults for anonymous sex?

Remember while kids might be able to look at naked people without the hearts turning dark, many are impressionable and not fully aware of the consequences of their actions. Parents and society have a duty to protect them, if not from the evils of porn, at least from those who would attempt to take advantage of their naivity.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Psychological damage to much younger kids (2.85 / 7) (#13)
by duxup on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 08:19:08 PM EST

That's a good point, porno is never presented in context, and often is way out of context. (I.E. Dr. Jimbo doing his client).

It also should be noted that there are many studies showing the psychological damage that came be done if children are exposed to highly sexual content at very young ages. Now we're not talking about 10-17 years old here. The studies usually show the damage occurs between the ages of 5 and 9. The high end age does depends on the children's development so that can vary. Now not many 5 year olds are out surfing for porno ;-) However that doesn't mean they can't be exposed (accidentally or otherwise) to it by siblings.

Sorry about the lack of sighting sources here. I've come across numerous articles in print media and such but little on the internet that can be linked too.

[ Parent ]
So? (3.33 / 3) (#27)
by ooch on Mon Jan 01, 2001 at 02:30:16 PM EST

What is so bad about fourteen yearolds having sex? De average 'first time' is fifteen years and a month(at least here in Holland), so alsmost half of the fourteen yearolds must have sex.

Why shouldn't someone who is phsyically able to have sex be allowed to have it?

[ Parent ]

NAMBLA (1.00 / 5) (#31)
by enterfornone on Mon Jan 01, 2001 at 10:00:11 PM EST

regularly ask the same question...

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry (3.00 / 1) (#33)
by ooch on Tue Jan 02, 2001 at 05:12:50 AM EST

I am not sure I understand what you mean with that reply. In fact I am quite sure I don't. So please Enlighten me. NAMBLA???

[ Parent ]
nambla: (3.00 / 2) (#34)
by molofaha on Tue Jan 02, 2001 at 07:43:29 AM EST

North American Man/Boy Love Association.

[ Parent ]
I agree (3.50 / 2) (#38)
by Joshua on Tue Jan 02, 2001 at 11:26:54 AM EST

I must agree fully with this statement. I am (perhaps unfortunately) an American. I first had sex when I was 15, but I most certainly had wanted to since around 12 or 13 when I started looking at porn on the internet. I think 15 was a fine age to start having sexual relations, and I think that 18 is a rather rediculous, arbitrary age.

I would also like to mention, however, that I think it's very important for parents to be open with their children about sex, and for children to not feel it's something that needs to be hidden, and kids should definitely be kept informed and educated about sex, given the dangers of it in today's world. Regular tests, and contraception, as well as discression in choosing your partner is important for parents to teach their kids about.

Joshua

[ Parent ]

"Impressionable Youth" perhaps (4.00 / 11) (#10)
by tetsuo on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 07:18:46 PM EST

I admit, when I first read that, I agreed. But I realized I share a similar problem (for lack of a better word) with a lot of people here; I extend rational discourse to anyone, including children.

I think the problem with kids viewing porn is that they're far more impressionable than say, adults viewing porn.

Expose a kid to enough porn and he'll eventually become desensitized to sex. His views of women and the world will be changed accordingly. From the people I know who are like this, I don't think anyone would want to see more of that around.

Also,take STD's, scary as they are. They are rarely mentioned in pornos (when's the last time you saw a guy wearing a condom, or the woman he's banging ask for one?). Promoting unsafe sex to impressionable youth is, in my opinion, wrong.

Now, I know not every youth is as impressionable as this. Some of us were more mature than our parents at the age of 3 or whatever. Great. Good for us. But we are not the norm. Children as a rule are blocks of clay, molded by their parents and society (sadly less and less by the parents and more and more by society).

It may be a parents choice what to allow their kids into and I'm all for that, but I for one won't be allowing mine to watch porn.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong ...

[ Parent ]
All unsafe activity shouldn't be promoted then? (3.00 / 4) (#18)
by romanpoet on Mon Jan 01, 2001 at 12:44:04 AM EST

>Promoting unsafe sex to impressionable youth is,
> in my opinion, wrong.

(Note that "safe sex" != safe sex. I've heard of it many times of people who practice "safe sex" still get STD's or whatever.)

But, expanding this point, you're basically saying it's wrong to promote any physically unhealthy activity to children. Which is basically what unsafe sex is -- a physical action that has potentially negative effects.

Interesting, but I guess you'd have to get rid of dangerous sports and the like then as well? That can be unhealthy.....
-Romanpoet Romanpoet.org
[ Parent ]
Wrong way of looking at it (3.80 / 5) (#21)
by tetsuo on Mon Jan 01, 2001 at 02:28:42 AM EST

But, expanding this point, you're basically saying it's wrong to promote any physically unhealthy activity to children. Which is basically what unsafe sex is -- a physical action that has potentially negative effects.

Interesting, but I guess you'd have to get rid of dangerous sports and the like then as well? That can be unhealthy.....


Wait a minute now, I didn't say anything about "getting rid of" anything. I said what I would do. I'm staunchly opposed to censorship of any kind. I was pointing out my opinions on pornography and its potential effects on youth. Here's some more opinions related to your response:

Sport mentality is team-work, cooperation and acheivement towards a goal. Yes, it CAN be unhealthy in the sense that you can get an injury, which is worlds-a-part from a disease, but whatever. However, SAFETY (bold new flavor!) is emphasized in every child sport and therein lies the difference. Pads, Cups, Helmets ... these are all worn, and taught to be used by children for their safety.

Porn mentality,however, is women are brainless bimbos who need to be objectified, screwed and used. Condoms, spermicidal jellies and "the pill" are none shown in a porno. None promoted.(yeah I generalize about porn. sue me.)

For me, the sports analogy fails because of the promotion of safety (a point in my original post).

Now, I'm not saying pornos are the cause of the spread of AIDS. Hell, that's not even what this article is/was about. I'm just saying that heavy usage of porn by an impressionable minor can warp said minors view of sex, and the dangers of unsafe sex.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong ...

[ Parent ]
Generalizations (3.66 / 3) (#26)
by zerth on Mon Jan 01, 2001 at 02:16:23 PM EST

> Condoms, spermicidal jellies and "the pill" are none shown in a porno.
> None promoted.(yeah I generalize about porn. sue me.)

Quite. A quick FFW of the pr0n tapes in my flatmates' closets almost all seem to use condoms(except for the anal scenes, oddly).

However, apple:video pr0n::orange:photo pr0n. One might assume, for photo pr0n, Safe Sex Stuff might be omitted because the subjects are just 'posing'.

Interesting note(besides insight into a certain flatmate's preferences), exclusively lesbian(well, probably pseudo-) pr0n doesn't use any kind of SSS. Wonder why...

Rusty isn't God here, he's the pope; our God is pedantry. -- Subtillus
[ Parent ]
Condoms in porn. (3.00 / 3) (#30)
by enterfornone on Mon Jan 01, 2001 at 09:59:15 PM EST

My "flatemate's" experience is quite the opposite. From what he's seen condoms are rarely used, if they are they are usually ripped off at the point of ejaculation. They seem more likely to be used in anal sex than vaginal.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
CinP (3.00 / 3) (#32)
by zerth on Tue Jan 02, 2001 at 02:30:10 AM EST

*shrug* One of the guys I lived with during my first year of univ used to wonder why they did that. Said if he wanted to see that sort of thing, he had a perfectly good right hand:}

Although I can understand why they might use them more on anal. Ouchy....

ps, why "flatemate"(in quotes||the misspelling)?

Rusty isn't God here, he's the pope; our God is pedantry. -- Subtillus
[ Parent ]
cos I can't spell (none / 0) (#39)
by enterfornone on Tue Jan 02, 2001 at 11:31:58 PM EST

I meant "flatmate" as in "my flatmate" has lot of porn :)

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
how much harm... (4.50 / 2) (#36)
by delmoi on Tue Jan 02, 2001 at 10:27:42 AM EST

Porn mentality,however, is women are brainless bimbos who need to be objectified, screwed and used. Condoms, spermicidal jellies and "the pill" are none shown in a porno. None promoted.

Dude, 40% of the minors surfing for porn *were* women (or girls, rather). And I don't really see how looking at a picture of a nude woman will change your attitude to them. Most pr0ns don't even have enough character development to make someone a 'bimbo' or not. And Condoms *are* used, Nowadays anyway.

Anyway, you're far, far, far less likely to die from an STD in our world today then from a debilitating health condition caused by excessive consumption. The relentless advertising of candybars and sugar coated cereals will cause much more harm to kids in the long run then pornography ever could.

Finally, from a statistical standpoint, sex is not actually that dangerous as far as catching HIV
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Condoms in porn (3.50 / 2) (#35)
by delmoi on Tue Jan 02, 2001 at 10:20:22 AM EST

(when's the last time you saw a guy wearing a condom, or the woman he's banging ask for one?).

Actualy, a lot of the 'high-class' pr0n nowadays actualy show condoms being used (vivid video, etc). Witch I find really annoying. I seem to recall hearing about a 'porn industry confrence' where they decided that using condoms in porn would become the norm rather then the exception.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Censoring porn exacerbates the problem (4.35 / 20) (#11)
by ObeseWhale on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 07:33:43 PM EST

Think about it for a minute here...

A good point was brought up that censoring pornography makes it seem "sacred". In many ways this view point is absolutely right on the mark.

In the United States, we have an extremely high rate of car accidents due to drunk driving. Why? Because alcohol is viewed among our youth as a sacred artifact of the elders, a symbol of age and maturity. Thus they feel that drinking makes them more "adult" and "cooler". Please don't try telling me that kids drink because it tastes good.

I grew up in a Russian family where alcohol was not considered anything special, and social drinking was the norm. As a result, I take absolutely no interest what so ever in alcohol, and laugh at my peers as they boast about their drunk experiences.

My case is not an exception either, but a rule.

In European nations, where alcohol laws and social views on alcohol are much more liberal, drunk driving is much less of a problem.

Europe also has a very liberal view on sex, heck, commercials in Holland feature nude women frequently. Guess what, their rape rates are lower then America's.

Enacting prohibition-like policies (whether in government or in the home) towards an item, concept, or feeling only gives it a "holy" status, and the exact same is true of pornography.

On the other hand, we still have to ask the question that I asked in a previous post, if viewing pornography actually is linked to real-life sexual violence. I have my doubts.

---

"The hunger for liberty may he suppressed for a time; yet never exterminated. Man's natural instinct is for freedom, and no power on earth can succeed in crushing it for very long."
-Alexander Berkman
Young people in naturism and child porn (4.09 / 11) (#12)
by jesterzog on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 08:03:30 PM EST

I agree with you completely.

One of the good arguments I've seen for naturism, particularly with the whole family involved, is that children growing up in the environment don't develop any genuine interest in porn. The human body is so normal to them anyway, and a lot of people are more interested in that than specifically seeing other people have sex. So when their friends are secretly passing porn around, they're usually wondering what the big deal is.

The current situation is worse, like you're saying I think, because young kids develop a curiosity that they're not likely to ask their parents to help them out with. By blindly searching for naked people on the net in an unsupervised way, they're more likely to come across things that really are a bad idea (eg. child porn) and give them very skewed ideas about what the world's like.

The Internet wasn't like it is today when I was that age, but I get the feeling that curious children might be even more interested in looking for child porn in particular. eg. "Hey, it's someone my age!" (It's complete speculation from me though.)


jesterzog Fight the light


[ Parent ]
Ah, memories... (3.80 / 5) (#37)
by Joshua on Tue Jan 02, 2001 at 10:58:15 AM EST

The Internet wasn't like it is today when I was that age, but I get the feeling that curious children might be even more interested in looking for child porn in particular. eg. "Hey, it's someone my age!" (It's complete speculation from me though.)

I am currently 19, and when I first got on the internet, I was 12. I got on the internet for one reason alone... the porn. Hell, I was twelve years old, I could barely think of anything other than sex! Could you at 12?! It wasn't so easy back then of course. I had a UNIX shell account on a local ISP with a 2400 baud modem. My friend James and I tought ourselves enough UNIX to use choosenews, tin, uudecode and sz. We then had to get a DOS program to view them. Damn, I learned a lot.

But anyway, the point I wanted to make was that when I first started to download porn, I was looking for pictures of girls in the 16 year old range. This made perfect sense at the time, because I wanted young girls, girls my own age, because I was young. James ended up with pictures of Keanu Reeves, and ended up coming out of the closet. There is nothing wrong with kids looking at pictures of people without clothes on, or people having sex. Sex is very very very normal. People do it all over the world all the fucking time, and I think hiding it is rediculous. It won't hurt kids to see it, infact, they'll probably be better educated and a lot less sexually repressed.

I'm very much a fan of the naturism point of view, and I have every intension of raising my kids to understand that having no clothes on is the bodies normal state, and there is nothing wrong with that at all. And that sex is something that people need to be responsible about, but should most certainly enjoy as often as they want to.

Joshua

[ Parent ]

Russian drinking (3.55 / 9) (#15)
by davidduncanscott on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 08:46:50 PM EST

I'm glad that your family has given you a good perspective on alcohol, but since you mentioned your Russian background I have to say that Russian society in general seems to make a rather bad case for this, given statistics like
The Russian Health Ministry estimates consumption in 1996 was 18 liters of pure alcohol per adult. That is pure alcohol, which is the rough equivalent of 38 liters of 100-proof vodka per person a year.
That's about what, 2-1/2 quarts per month, as a national average? That might be just a little too everyday and normal.

(Got that quote from CNN. Also some interesting comments from the The RAND Corp)

[ Parent ]

Gnh, again pr0n regulation (2.72 / 11) (#14)
by Aatos_ on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 08:35:41 PM EST

-1 For this one as this is mostly a american phenomenon. Why can't you just be open and normal about sex like the rest of the world ;-)

Parental guidence (3.91 / 12) (#16)
by simmons75 on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 09:55:04 PM EST

I even hear parents screaming for this (and please realise that I have a USA bias :-) and all I can think is, "but where are you when your kids are trolling for porn?" Here in the U.S., at least, we have people who are willing to blame the Internet, television, movies, video games, etc. for everything their kids do. I think it's time to stop passing laws against the scapegoats and start holding the guilty party responsible--lousy parents.
poot!
So there.

vague term (3.33 / 6) (#17)
by mikpos on Sun Dec 31, 2000 at 09:56:00 PM EST

"Adult site" is a very vague term, and could mean just about anything. No matter what aspect of sex we're talking about, though, a good parent should be have a role in it. The poll option about the parent "supervising" might be a bit too restrictive depending on the situation; often proper parenting will take "supervising" to a remote position, which I don't think would be "supervising" anymore.

Anyway, children are curious about sex. They're curious about what TV is talking about, about what they're going through, about what they're thinking about. Sites like All About Sex seem idellic: they're more informative, more interactive, safer, and, to a child, probably more attractive, than a pr0n site. They satisfy the child's curiosity to some extent and leave him with a balanced and well-reasoned view of sex.

p.s. I am drunk so please excuse my incoherency.

How? (3.00 / 7) (#19)
by chuckus on Mon Jan 01, 2001 at 01:25:13 AM EST

There have been a lot of comments stating that parents should just help their children deal with porn instead of censoring it. But how? Do they surf porn with them? I think that many parents themselves were brought up shunning porn. Okay, I don't know what else to say now.

Bad science. (4.11 / 9) (#20)
by Apuleius on Mon Jan 01, 2001 at 02:25:43 AM EST

Apple: the number of minors who visited any adult site this year, measured by surveying a sample of minors and extrapolating the percentage of the sample onto the general web-using minor population.

Orange: the number of unique visitors at a music site, probably ascertained by number of unique user ID cookies issued.

Scientists who play like this with figures lose their tenure...


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)

Sex is supposed to be fun. (4.00 / 11) (#22)
by Holloway on Mon Jan 01, 2001 at 04:54:33 AM EST

Censorship because of looking at porn? Um, porn is good. It's just two humans going at each other - maybe more or less or with toys. Ho-hum. I mean these kids are hunting pr0n out and the internet is one of the safest places to look. Schooling/parents can be rather incompetent for some. When young I was curious about sex. Pictures and video didn't pervert me into some sex-crazed deviant.

(it's not a complete sexual education but sexual images throughout tv/movie media and such, it's definitely part of it)

It's just sex. Not a problem. Let kids satisfy their curiosity, and I doubt there's any parent who doesn't know about the sea of porn online. Perhaps they think it's better restricted - educate that it isn't.

(paedo, snuff, anything forced - is another matter entirely, of course)


== Human's wear pants, if they don't wear pants they stand out in a crowd. But if a monkey didn't wear pants it would be anonymous

Why porn? (3.66 / 9) (#23)
by goosedaemon on Mon Jan 01, 2001 at 09:05:30 AM EST

Certainly parents should be involved with this aspect of their children's ... uh, maturing process. But focus shouldn't be lost on other aspects. Like ... uh ... violence, drugs, other people?


This is a surprise? (3.90 / 10) (#24)
by Greyjack on Mon Jan 01, 2001 at 12:14:32 PM EST

When I was in the mentioned demographic a decade or two ago, we'd steal copies of Playboy and Penthouse from the neighbors and go over to my friend Howie's to sneak a look at his Dad's porno movies.

This is pretty much the same thing. It's just easier than it used to be. Society has the taboos, kids have the curiosity and the innate drive to test the rules, etc etc etc, they'll seek out the porn. American society is particularly bent--we push sexuality hard in advertising, marketing, music, the culture at large, but god forbid anything involving genitalia in either image or word. (To quote Maude Lebowski: "The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina.")

(The web, if you ask me, actually lessens the fun factor a bit--was more of a challenge, and thus more of a thrill, when we actually absconded with a magazine vs. today's typing in www.persiankitty.com or whatever).

--
Here is my philosophy: Everything changes (the word "everything" has just changed as the word "change" has: it now means "no change") --Ron Padgett


Viewing porn is actually good for most of them (4.33 / 9) (#28)
by Sheepdot on Mon Jan 01, 2001 at 02:37:17 PM EST

When having sex is the other option, I'm sure most parents would rather have their children at home. I'd like to see if someone would take a poll (no one would ever do this) asking one simple question to parents:

"Would you rather catch your teenage son/daughter having sex, or masturbating to porn on the Internet?".

Of course the pollee would just request a "Neither" option.

I am not saying that all 27.5% of those minors listed have the option of having sex as easily as looking at porn on the Internet. I am also not saying that they all masturbate to Internet porn. I think we were all teenagers at one point, and some of k5 might still be, so ask yourself this:

"As a teenager, would you have been more likely to have been caught having sex, or masturbating to porn on the Internet? (or porn mags for those of you that are older)"

If this post gives you a knee-jerk reaction, remember that sex-related stuff, especially masturbation, is very touchy for most people. No one knows why.


Kids viewing porn on the net | 39 comments (38 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!