A thing that i find cringy is the ammount of minors that get banned For accessing pornographic material.

Just to keep it short:
How do they manage to catch them?

I know that if you get hacked and they troubleshoot your account, they can check your age and that and stuff.

And do local authorities get notified since accessing pornography underage is illegal?

[Update]
I just looked back into the fourm and started to question myself, how i managed to screw up a simple question. With words that don’t even fit in good description. God i am such an idiot.

Suppose it just one of those nights.

What're they gonna do, arrest the kids?

Put the kids behind bars for looking at pictures!

ancient chirrnese secret

I don't know why the concept of minors being banned on pornographic websites is "cringe", as it's more just a cause for alarm over how simple it is for children to see things they aren't meant to. I mean really, the first time I looked at porn online was when I was 9 years old. Now it's even easier for this to happen.

The topic title is about minors on this site, yet you haven't actually spoken about anything relevant to e621. This isn't technically a porn site anyway. There's just the potential for access to explicit material and users are required to be over 18. That's all. Anyone that gets banned here for being underage is because they are found straight up admitting it. There is no other way to do it given that e621 registering doesn't require people to submit their age.

Also, who is "they?" The admins? It's equally as unethical for site staff to hack an individuals account on a website, as it is when anyone else does it, so I don't think that's how anyone gets caught. If someone was found to be looking at porn underage and reported to local police, then I suppose contacting the parents would be the best course of action. Although, it's clear that they probably don't care, given that it was allowed to happen in the first place.

TwistedLogik said:
Although, it's clear that they probably don't care, given that it was allowed to happen in the first place.

[Rolls off of the floor.]
[Uprights chair.]
[Sits.]
[Wipes eye.]
Haha, hoo, oh man. You do not understand just how clever children can be about escaping limits.

There is exactly one way a parent could possibly stop their kids from finding porn on the internet, if the kid wants to find it, and that's to monitor the child every minute of every day. Even, by which I mean especially, during bedtime when the adults do eventually sleep for a few hours.

The best you could hope for would be to mitigate the risks to an acceptable degree and try to direct the kid's attention elsewhere.

ikdind said:
[Rolls off of the floor.]
[Uprights chair.]
[Sits.]
[Wipes eye.]
Haha, hoo, oh man. You do not understand just how clever children can be about escaping limits.

There is exactly one way a parent could possibly stop their kids from finding porn on the internet, if the kid wants to find it, and that's to monitor the child every minute of every day. Even, by which I mean especially, during bedtime when the adults do eventually sleep for a few hours.

The best you could hope for would be to mitigate the risks to an acceptable degree and try to direct the kid's attention elsewhere.

Funny.

I'm well aware kids can circumvent their own parents will. I was thinking more about certain functions, such as blockers that can applied to the broadband package they have. It's possible to disable access to sensitive content within your home entirely, even when children aren't able to be watched over. Anyone really concerned might choose to use these and would serve as a solution to OP's topic.

The way they admit it is what confuses me more than anything. Back when I was first looking at porn on my loud ass dial up connection talking was the furthest thing from my mind.

Story.Com said:
How do they manage to catch them?

The poof knows all.

Story.Com said:
I know that if you get hacked and they troubleshoot your account, they can check your age and that and stuff.

Your account can't get hacked. You can only give out your password and then someone uses the password.

Story.Com said:
And do local authorities get notified since accessing pornography underage is illegal?

We report minors accessing the site to the FBI who investigates it and puts the minors in juvie (Juvenile Detention).

@Chaser
Send them straight to the noose.

Chaser said:
We report minors accessing the site to the FBI who investigates it and puts the minors in juvie (Juvenile Detention).

Truly?

Doomguy666 said:
Truly?

They probably also message their parents and their friends and tell them how they were looking up furry porn underage and got caught

we are the FBI actually

Execute them. Quickly and thoroughly.

This thread.

Knotty_Curls said:
we are the FBI actually

Knotty_Curls is Flamboyant Birb Inquisition confirmed. But we already knew that.

TwistedLogik said:
Funny.

I'm well aware kids can circumvent their own parents will. I was thinking more about certain functions, such as blockers that can applied to the broadband package they have. It's possible to disable access to sensitive content within your home entirely, even when children aren't able to be watched over. Anyone really concerned might choose to use these and would serve as a solution to OP's topic.

Porn filters offered by the ISP are about as effective as teaching abstinence only to prevent teenage pregnancies.

Ikdind said it best, whatever "protections" you put up, kids will simply google "how to avoid kid protection" or will ask their peers.

While children looking at nastyness on the web is far from desireable, children aren't little porcelain figures that will break as soon as they see a dick or a pussy.
I am, admittedly, a bit worried about kids finding hardcore fetish stuff though, but as i said earlier, a willing kid will find a way.
Talking with them about it might help, but it might also set off curiosity about the subject matter.
Scaring them off (children will believe almost anything) might work better, but it could fire back on you later in their life.

As for reporting it to the police, it might be more trouble than it's worth. The police will probably do a half-assed job and the parents might roll their eyes or they could beat the kid later and traumatise him/her more than any porn ever could.

Story.Com said:
A thing that i find cringy is the ammount of minors that get banned For accessing pornographic material.

Just to keep it short:
How do they manage to catch them?

I know that if you get hacked and they troubleshoot your account, they can check your age and that and stuff.

And do local authorities get notified since accessing pornography underage is illegal?

Implementing a system that will always prevent unauthorized access is as possible as the upload filters the boomers from the EU parlament want to implement, or as possible as blocking off all of Internet piracy.

AKA Impossible to accomplish. There will always be a way to circumvent the blockades, and the blockades themselves will never work perfectly all the time.

Dogenzaka said:
Execute them. Quickly and thoroughly.

That will teach them.

NotMeNotYou said:
Porn filters offered by the ISP are about as effective as teaching abstinence only to prevent teenage pregnancies.

From a quick survey, that was the impression I had gotten, but I wasn't going to claim any sort of authoritative position on it. It seems like ISPs rely on parents to provide all the blacklist criteria, which means a site like e621, unless the parent already knows to look for it, is rarely going to appear.

However, if I'm mistaken and ISPs allow parents to subscribe to crowd-sourced, curated lists of sites (similar to AdBlock Plus), then that's probably going to provide robust protection as long as the child is on that ISP. I just didn't see any evidence of that being available.

Of course, then you have the question of whether the child will escape their parents' ISP. I can see 2 other wifi spots from my location, relatively sparsely populated though it is. Both are "secured", but I'm not hip to the latest developments in wifi security. Not my wheelhouse. It would be very easy to imagine kids in apartment buildings or in more populated neighborhoods having access to at least one unsecured wifi that doesn't enforce a blacklist.

And I wouldn't trust blacklist software on the device itself for spit. Kids will be able to circumvent that, no problem.

ikdind said:
From a quick survey, that was the impression I had gotten, but I wasn't going to claim any sort of authoritative position on it. It seems like ISPs rely on parents to provide all the blacklist criteria, which means a site like e621, unless the parent already knows to look for it, is rarely going to appear.

However, if I'm mistaken and ISPs allow parents to subscribe to crowd-sourced, curated lists of sites (similar to AdBlock Plus), then that's probably going to provide robust protection as long as the child is on that ISP. I just didn't see any evidence of that being available.

Of course, then you have the question of whether the child will escape their parents' ISP. I can see 2 other wifi spots from my location, relatively sparsely populated though it is. Both are "secured", but I'm not hip to the latest developments in wifi security. Not my wheelhouse. It would be very easy to imagine kids in apartment buildings or in more populated neighborhoods having access to at least one unsecured wifi that doesn't enforce a blacklist.

And I wouldn't trust blacklist software on the device itself for spit. Kids will be able to circumvent that, no problem.

Even the ISP based blocking is trivial to circumvent. Be it with the data plan on your phone, a simple DNS change on your PC (DNS blocking is still the most common form these filters use), or a proxy/VPN that simply routes the traffic through a non-blocked IP.

All of those options are easy to accomplish for any PC novice with the ability to read 5 minutes of step-by-step instructions off of google.

This thread is a dumpster fire. Parents who really care will find a way to stop their kids. Kids who really care will find a way around any barrier. Staff here is doing a pretty damn good job with keeping up with kiddies. There's no solid on when, if ever, is an acceptable age to start viewing pornography, so it's easiest to just do what won't get you in legal trouble if you run a site with adult content on it. Simple as that.

furry-fuckboy said:
This thread is a dumpster fire. Parents who really care will find a way to stop their kids. Kids who really care will find a way around any barrier. Staff here is doing a pretty damn good job with keeping up with kiddies. There's no solid on when, if ever, is an acceptable age to start viewing pornography, so it's easiest to just do what won't get you in legal trouble if you run a site with adult content on it. Simple as that.

> dumpster fire

I thought it was fucking hilarious.

TwistedLogik said:
I thought it was fucking hilarious.

Yeah, but still a dumpster fire

Pyke said:
What're they gonna do, arrest the kids?

AoBird said:
Put the kids behind bars for looking at pictures!

Don't give the old or new prude/puritan morons any ideas please! They already arrest and charge minors as adults, for the production and possession of child porn, for taking/having nude selfies of themselves! And distribution if they send it to their BF/GF. Not to mention getting the other one (usually BF/male only) for "receiving" CP too.

I mean just thinking about it makes your head want to explode! A minor, charged as an adult, for corruption of a minor. (themselves)

TwistedLogik said:
Funny.

I'm well aware kids can circumvent their own parents will. I was thinking more about certain functions, such as blockers that can applied to the broadband package they have. It's possible to disable access to sensitive content within your home entirely, even when children aren't able to be watched over. Anyone really concerned might choose to use these and would serve as a solution to OP's topic.

Eh. Just secure the router and whitelist pages you want your kid accessing.
Lower restrictions as kid gets more responsible and knowledgeable about internet dangers.

Random said:
Eh. Just secure the router and whitelist pages you want your kid accessing.
Lower restrictions as kid gets more responsible and knowledgeable about internet dangers.

As NotMeNotYou said, they could easily just change their DNS settings and get around it, and if you're blocking URLs then it's more than likely through DNS.

As an example, a school can implement a block on websites and it'll have been broken within the day, at least at my school it was anyway, then by the next day everyone knew how to get around it.

Considering that it'd be like that in most schools, I'd imagine that a child would at least try the same technique while at home. The only way to block them completely is to disconnect the internet and never let them on a pc. Even if they don't know how to get around a block, you can bet that someone they know will tell them. Not to mention, as NMNY also said, a free VPN takes about five minutes to set up.

To sum up everything.

The only way to keep kids "pure" is to be a super parent who knows how to direct their child's interests away from porn & fears towards porn, &/or just deny internet access until puberty &/or sufficient internet/electronic knowledge is achieved, all while having the backbone to give "the talk".

The talk always helps, unless your local school has sex ed, then you can be lazy about it, like my parents were. XD

This doesn't even account for scams & 1337 h4x you have to teach them to avoid.

Wow, people, do you plan to go to Olympics with that logic? Because those are impressive leaps.

Let's all take two steps back:

TwistedLogik said:
I don't know why the concept of minors being banned on pornographic websites is "cringe", as it's more just a cause for alarm over how simple it is for children to see things they aren't meant to. I mean really, the first time I looked at porn online was when I was 9 years old. Now it's even easier for this to happen.

And that is bad because... Why, exactly?
Yes, we all have heard those political spiels about "kids watching porn is awful", but I, for one, never saw any evidence supporting this assertion. Is there any study that shows any adverse effects directly attributable to watching porn from early age?

ChainedDragon said:
Wow, people, do you plan to go to Olympics with that logic? Because those are impressive leaps.

Let's all take two steps back:
And that is bad because... Why, exactly?
Yes, we all have heard those political spiels about "kids watching porn is awful", but I, for one, never saw any evidence supporting this assertion. Is there any study that shows any adverse effects directly attributable to watching porn from early age?

I wouldn't know. I'm referring to society's view in general, as appose to my own when I said that.
Although, I think viewing this kind of content at such a young age can distort their realistic view os sexual activity.

ChainedDragon said:

And that is bad because... Why, exactly?
Yes, we all have heard those political spiels about "kids watching porn is awful", but I, for one, never saw any evidence supporting this assertion. Is there any study that shows any adverse effects directly attributable to watching porn from early age?

The problem, I believe, is learning from porn, because porn is an extremely unrealistic depiction of sex. And this is where the age thing gets so backwards, because learning sex-ed from porn is just as bad if you're 9, 18 or 28. While a kid who's had proper sex-ed from their parents at a young age can watch porn without believing that their future gf will appreciate surprise unprotected anal, or even worse, beloeve that they are expected[\i] to like it.

ChainedDragon said:
Is there any study that shows any adverse effects directly attributable to watching porn from early age?

Several actually.

a lot of pornography depicts very unhealthy relationships, and is aimed to be a barrage of arousing images (as in, when you are having sex, chances are, you are not also in a position to see pussy, ass, and tits all at the same time.) and, in many bases, pornography is degrading towards women and reinforces the idea that women as "supposed" to be cockhungry fucksluts or whatever....

Especially for impressionable young people, it can be a bit jarring to realize that real sexual exploration is a lot of fumbling in the dark. (also, that the average penis is way smaller than the films show, and the average girl does not have a porn star build, etc)

I'm behind the idea that kids should be allowed to explore sexuality at a younger age then we would prefer, ("you're not allowed to have a boyfriend until you're 18").... but pornography, intended for adults, is not the best way to allow them that exploration.

ChainedDragon said:
Wow, people, do you plan to go to Olympics with that logic? Because those are impressive leaps.

Let's all take two steps back:
And that is bad because... Why, exactly?
Yes, we all have heard those political spiels about "kids watching porn is awful", but I, for one, never saw any evidence supporting this assertion. Is there any study that shows any adverse effects directly attributable to watching porn from early age?

Porn addiction mostly. The TL;DR is that it functions similar to regular sex addiction, as pornography is considered a supernormal stimulus.

TwistedLogik said:
Although, I think viewing this kind of content at such a young age can distort their realistic view os sexual activity.

Like viewing My Little Pony is "distorting their realistic view of" social dynamics within equine herds? Or viewing Home Alone is "distorting their realistic view of" fighting against burglary? =)

ChainedDragon said:
Like viewing My Little Pony is "distorting their realistic view of" social dynamics within equine herds? Or viewing Home Alone is "distorting their realistic view of" fighting against burglary? =)

How is that even relevant or comparable in the slightest? I don't even know if I should take you seriously. Porn is often set in scenarios where a child might not be able to tell the difference between what is to be expected in sex and what is more extreme and only part of a performance. It's purely aimed at an adult audience. This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

ChainedDragon said:
Like viewing My Little Pony is "distorting their realistic view of" social dynamics within equine herds? Or viewing Home Alone is "distorting their realistic view of" fighting against burglary? =)

and yet porn has actually heavily influenced how people view stuff related to sex. for example average sized penis is often seen as small because porn features mostly people with exceptionally large dicks, people find anything but extremely tiny or completely missing labia minora repusive because a whole lot of porn actors have their labias surgically trimmed, people legit think that women are always supposed to moan and scream at full volume while having sex, people expect women by default to be hairless like babies down there because porn actor women shave everything before shooting.... the list just goes on. people with very little to no experience in sex will rarely understand how extremely unrealistic porn is.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
The problem, I believe, is learning from porn,

And stop right there. Before you go any further with that line of reasoning, you have to prove that such learning actually happens. And there is no proof of that. It's a pure conjecture.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
While a kid who's had proper sex-ed from their parents at a young age can watch porn without believing that their future gf will appreciate surprise unprotected anal, or even worse, beloeve that they are expected[\i] to like it.

All that is true and all that is not an argument against minors being exposed to porn - it is an argument for minors getting proper sexual education. Without it pitiful ignorants (as in every other area of life) will find a way to screw up, porn or no porn.

SnowWolf said:
Several actually.

[Citation needed]

SnowWolf said:
a lot of pornography depicts very unhealthy relationships, and is aimed to be a barrage of arousing images (as in, when you are having sex, chances are, you are not also in a position to see pussy, ass, and tits all at the same time.)

A lot of cartoons for children depicts very unhealthy relationships (from domestic abuse to outright premeditated murder), and is aimed to be a barrage of arousing images (as in, in the course of your life, chances are, you are not in a position to see your detractors going down in green flames while their castles crumble to ruins.) Yet for some reason I do not see children "learning" anything from that.

SnowWolf said:
and, in many bases, pornography is degrading towards women and reinforces the idea that women as "supposed" to be cockhungry fucksluts or whatever....

Especially for impressionable young people, it can be a bit jarring to realize that real sexual exploration is a lot of fumbling in the dark. (also, that the average penis is way smaller than the films show, and the average girl does not have a porn star build, etc)

Again, all that is not an argument against minors being exposed to porn - it is an argument for minors getting proper. Sexual. Education.

SnowWolf said:
I'm behind the idea that kids should be allowed to explore sexuality at a younger age then we would prefer, ("you're not allowed to have a boyfriend until you're 18").... but pornography, intended for adults, is not the best way to allow them that exploration.

And? If a kid is smart enough to get to the porn site - that kid is smart enough for a sex-ed. If anything, "going to porn site" should be used[/i] as indication to start said sex-ed, not proscribed as something forbidden and "totally not something everyone do anyway".

NotMeNotYou said:
Porn addiction mostly. The TL;DR is that it functions similar to regular sex addiction, as pornography is considered a supernormal stimulus.

That article provides exactly no proof and makes no assertion about anything regarding minors being exposed to porn. Addiction does not come from simple exposure, the article itself claims as much: "Coleman has considered hypersexuality to be driven by the need to reduce some type of anxiety, not by sexual desire". Anxiety. An external cause. You get anxiety first, and then you seek among known stimuli the one or several that would help you to alleviate said anxiety. Have you not watched porn - you would've ended up gambling, drinking alcohol, whatever. Blocking porn does nothing other than switching addiction to some other stimulus.

ChainedDragon said:
That article provides exactly no proof and makes no assertion about anything regarding minors being exposed to porn. Addiction does not come from simple exposure, the article itself claims as much: "Coleman has considered hypersexuality to be driven by the need to reduce some type of anxiety, not by sexual desire". Anxiety. An external cause. You get anxiety first, and then you seek among known stimuli the one or several that would help you to alleviate said anxiety. Have you not watched porn - you would've ended up gambling, drinking alcohol, whatever. Blocking porn does nothing other than switching addiction to some other stimulus.

Sure, how many kids do you know with easy access to gambling (loot crates excluded) or alcohol? It's entirely trivial to gain access to copious amounts of porn, it's a lot harder to get the same level of satisfaction from other sources, especially if you have no income and aren't an adult yet. And, unsurprisingly, teenagers that already have anxiety, and there's a few of them, are going to trend towards the things they can gain access to, which would be most likely be food or porn.

ChainedDragon said:
And stop right there. Before you go any further with that line of reasoning, you have to prove that such learning actually happens. And there is no proof of that. It's a pure conjecture.

I'm lazy, so I shouldn't have posted in the first place, but read what the others said. And please skip the "I know I'm right but let's read the other's arguments just to shit at them" attitude, because that helps nobody.

TwistedLogik said:
How is that even relevant or comparable in the slightest?

Simple. Your argument is an enthymeme . Its unstated premise is "kids learn by simply watching something". I show that this is not the case by providing a counterexample.

TwistedLogik said:
Porn is often set in scenarios where a child might not be able to tell the difference between what is to be expected in sex and what is more extreme and only part of a performance. It's purely aimed at an adult audience. This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

This concept isn't difficult to understand and also built on a lot of assumptions. One of those - "children are worse than adults at telling apart what is realistic and what is only a part of a performance". Remember, those are not some toddlers, we are speaking of kids smart enough to purposefully use PC and Internet to seek porn. Do not think so low of them. Kids are not idiots (at least not any more so than adults, maybe even less).

hiekkapillu said:
and yet porn has actually heavily influenced how people view stuff related to sex.

And you say so based on what data exactly? There were no representative and robust statistics about that kind of questions. Attention-grabbing articles in entertainment magazines are not data.

hiekkapillu said:
for example average sized penis is often seen as small

hiekkapillu said:
people find anything but extremely tiny or completely missing labia minora repusive

hiekkapillu said:
people legit think that women are always supposed to moan and scream at full volume while having sex,

hiekkapillu said:
people expect women by default to be hairless like babies down there

What? Where? From whom do you even get all this? Celibate monks? Pimple-ridden virgins? Our esteemed users?
Seriously, what is the source of all this supposed "data"?

hiekkapillu said:
people with very little to no experience in sex will rarely understand how extremely unrealistic porn is.

And the problem is..? Either they'll get the experience, and those delusions will go away, or they will stay virgins, and those delusions would be entirely irrelevant.

NotMeNotYou said:
Sure, how many kids do you know with easy access to gambling (loot crates excluded) or alcohol?

I would like to add to this list "nicotine". And my answer is "way more than I would like to ever know".

NotMeNotYou said:
It's entirely trivial to gain access to copious amounts of porn, it's a lot harder to get the same level of satisfaction from other sources, especially if you have no income and aren't an adult yet. And, unsurprisingly, teenagers that already have anxiety, and there's a few of them, are going to trend towards the things they can gain access to, which would be most likely be food or porn.

That's a fine argument, actually. But it misses the point: by "shielding" those teens from porn society would not get healthier teens (which is implied goal of all this "war on porn"), it would get differently diseased teens. Why? Because "watching porn" in this case is compensatory behaviour. And such behaviour does not simply die due to unavailability - it gets replaced by another compensatory behaviour.

Also, there are three other recourses in case of anxiety, to which teens have more than abundant access:
1) Video games.
2) Hurting self (aka self-harm).
3) Hurting others (aka bullying).
Are those (along with binge-eating) really any better than porn?

Porn addiction isn't a thing.

Here's the wikipedia article on porn addiction.

When I went to the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality a few years ago, porn addiction was one of the things that a few of the presentations talked about. I didn't see a single exception to the consensus that porn addiction doesn't exist.

Now, of course, overwatching pornography can cause negative effects, but it is distinct from, and not classified as, an addiction.

There is a fair bit of research on this point, but allow me to link a couple.

Modulation of late positive potentials by sexual images in problem users and controls inconsistent with 'porn addiction'

The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Review of the ‘Pornography Addiction’ Model

being a furry is like being trans.

the transition is a lot more comfortable and effective if you start it young, but it's a bit unethical to at that age

FurryMcFuzzball said:
being a furry is like being trans.

the transition is a lot more comfortable and effective if you start it young, but it's a bit unethical to at that age

This conversation is spicy enough already. Please, could you not try to say things which are almost certain to turn up the heat even further? Especially when they are hardly relevant to the discussion at hand.

Lol, thinking minors accessing porn is somehow a problem of the modern age. Porn cache in the woods existed long before that. Spying on people before that.

As long the ban hammer is swung swiftly that's all that needs to happen. Filters are easily passed, and requiring identification just sends them over to sites with extreme content that lack those requirements - the Internets endless you aren't going to stop some site hosting content.

I will laugh when the UK eventually turns into a reminder on what happened with ashleymadison when You ID yourself online. UK solution to be managed by a company with many breeches in the past; its gonna be a riot.

This thread is heading into flamewille faster and faster -.-

ChainedDragon said:
Or viewing Home Alone is "distorting their realistic view of" fighting against burglary? =)

I'm just gonna say, my brother and I saw those in theaters. I distinctly remember the two of us setting up death traps around the house "in case of a burglar" before my dad figured out what we were up to.

So.

Yes.

Kids are impressionable.

(also, my niece and her friends totally played my little pony and learned a lot about being nice and getting along. Pretty cool, actually. AND they got to pretend to be heroes AND princesses, and have cool magical powers so that they could save people in trouble AND still do neat things like make art, or be smart. Seriously: they learned a lot from my little pony, AND from having conversations with the adults around them about MLP.

ChainedDragon said:
And stop right there. Before you go any further with that line of reasoning, you have to prove that such learning actually happens.

Yes. Prove that children are impressionable and learn things.

Oh.

[Citation needed]

Did you know that you're quite rude?

Okay.

Let me start with a big one over here. In instances of child-on-child sexual abuse (that is, the scenario where one child coerces, threatens, forces or manipulates another child to engage in sexual play for the intention of achieving an sexual stimulation), many of the instigators have been, themselves, abused by an adult. However, in many cases, this is a result of the child being exposed to pornography. Showing a child pornography is also considered to be a form of sexual grooming--that is is, preparing them for sexual assault or exploitation. Y'know, because they're learning that it's okay to do those things. but SURE, let's ay that's a little bit of a stretch.

after doing a really, really quick google search you couldn't do yourself.

this Study emphasizes that pornography can shape sexual practices and is associated with unsafe sexual health practices such as not using condoms and unsafe anal and vaginal sex, and that pornography may strengthen attitudes supportive of sexual violence and violence against women. and goes into detail about the "social scripts" that we learn through observation of the world.

Oh. what's a social script? It's a series of behaviors/actions/consequences that are expected to happen in a particular situation. We learn these, through living our lives: on our first day of school, we don't know what to expect. Within a short time, we understand what our teacher expect from us. When we graduate to a new teacher, it can be difficult if transition from a more free and casual environment, to a more restrictive one. (For example, going from a 'relaxed' teacher to a super strict teacher ... or going from a younger student grade to an older one where the teacher expects you to quiet down quicker, and be on task a greater percentage of the time.)

If you see a kid goofing off in the classroom, you expect them to get in trouble when the teacher walks in. WHen you go to a restaurant, you have expectations of how a member of the staff will interact with you.

So, pornography fucks with kid's ability to build social scripts about sexual activity, leaning thigns like "women say no when they mean yes" and "men cannot control themselves, once aroused." As well, effecting the idea of what 'normal' sex acts are. For example "deep fellatio" is shown in many pornographic videos and is not something that is casually performed by the average woman.

here, have another webpage from the American Bar Association -- there are extensive footnotes linking multiple studies.

A lot of cartoons for children depicts very unhealthy relationships (from domestic abuse to outright premeditated murder), and is aimed to be a barrage of arousing images (as in, in the course of your life, chances are, you are not in a position to see your detractors going down in green flames while their castles crumble to ruins.) Yet for some reason I do not see children "learning" anything from that.

This basically proves to me you don't spend ANY time around kids. Parents spend--or should spend-- a lot of time with their kids talking to them about the differences in fantasy and reality.

Regarding unheathy relationships - most cartoons show those as unhealthy and undesirable. They understand the concept of a bad guy because of that whole social scripts thing. That said, the fact that SOME cartoons do this does not mean it does not leave an impression on children.

for example, there's a kid's show called Caillou.

It's about a 4 year old boy exploring the world around him and dealing with typical 4 year old kid problems, like learning to deal with emotions. Except it does a very poor job: Caillou throws many temper tantrums aand whines CONSTANTLY, yet rarely faces consequence for this. I know several moms who have banned Caillou from their houses, because their kids were learning that it was okay to be a whiney little shit. (suposedly they changed this attitude in newer episodes.)

As for castles going up in green flames, that goes back to that fantasy versus reality thing. kids of an age to watch that should understand that's unrealistic.

Which is why kids being allowed to watch pornography SHOULD be of an age where they realize that pornography is unrealistic... they should not be watching it when they are still forming their social scripts on 'how to interact with the gender they are interested in in a non-platonic situation'.

Again, all that is not an argument against minors being exposed to porn - it is an argument for minors getting proper. Sexual. Education.

and I agree that kids should get a proper sexual education.

See also, the last line of my original post "I'm behind the idea that kids should be allowed to explore sexuality at a younger age then we would prefer ... but pornography, intended for adults, is not the best way to allow them that exploration."

I would very much prefer a proper sexual education.

I would also like it if pornography was "bad" in that respect, so that being exposed to it, as a child, would not be so damaging to the child and their social developments. (and adults for that matter.)

But the fact remains that right now, children do NOT get that sexual education and the majority of pornography does not promote good sexual behavior.

And? If a kid is smart enough to get to the porn site - that kid is smart enough for a sex-ed. If anything, "going to porn site" should be used[/i] as indication to start said sex-ed, not proscribed as something forbidden and "totally not something everyone do anyway".

And I agree. Go get societal change started, then.

ChainedDragon said:
And you say so based on what data exactly? There were no representative and robust statistics about that kind of questions. Attention-grabbing articles in entertainment magazines are not data.

Hi. Can I jsut say I have known many women who have experienced shame about what their vulva looked like because they should they looked 'freakish'?
That I have been asked, several times, if I was enjoying sexual activity because I wasn't being especially verbal in my pleasure?

What? Where? From whom do you even get all this? Celibate monks? Pimple-ridden virgins? Our esteemed users?

I'm not goign to fucking google this FOR YOU, again. but there are plenty of data and studies done out there.

Also, if 95% of the pussies or dicks you've seen look a certain way, it can be very uncomfortable to realize you look a different way, OR when you see someone who's body is different.

All you need to do is google for a moment and you'll find hundreds of pages and discussions talking about people who are concerned because their labia looks weird, or their penis does something different.

And the problem is..? Either they'll get the experience, and those delusions will go away, or they will stay virgins, and those delusions would be entirely irrelevant.

Okay. No. That's fucked up.

SEe, this isn't a one sided problem. this isn't just about poor little boys learning about the world of sex via pornography.

Girls watch porn too. and they also learn these things, like "any woman should be able to deep throat a 8 inch dick" and "it's fine for a man to choke a woman during sex." and whatnot. They ALSO learn these behaviors and it results in two people trying to have sex in a way that really doesn't fucking work.

and no one wants to say "when we had sex, I didn't enjoy it" ... in fact, as a culture, we're kind of afraid to critisize our partner's technique at all.

Also, let me point out that when having sex, as long as the penis is inside and moving, there is stimulation. For someone with a vagina, this stimulation may not be anywhere near enough to orgasm. Clitoral stimulation, g-spot stimulation, breast stimulatio... all of these things may play into having an orgasm for a person with a vulva. Pornography typically shows penetration as being MASSIVELY pleasurable for a woman, enough to orgasm by. Which... is false.
When porn DOES show clitoral stimulation, it often depicts someone going to TOWN on it like they're in the middle of a GNARLY guitar solo.

That will work for some women, but, er, most of us? no.

And then you have a group of people who've had sex, but didn't enjoy it like the movies said they would and they figure something is wrong with them, and they don't know how to correct the problem. Seriously, they don't even have the basis talking things out eith their partner.

media depicts sex as a silent clashing of bodies, or of "yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah oooh fuck yeah" ... as opposed to what it SHOULD be which is more of a dialog and regular adjustments to make sure everything is working right.

I"m on a women's group on facebook and every few months or so, someoen posts something like. "When I have sex, it kind of hurts. I think it's because my boyfriend does XXXXXX... what should I do?" and the answer is ALWAYS "talk to him" ... then abot a week later they come back, and are really excited because they TALKED ABOUT SEX and then they HAD SEX! and it was GREAT because they COMMUNICATED. and they both had a GREAT TIME and it was BETTER!!!

*sigh*

pornography doens't just affect young men. it affects ALL young people.
It is not a woman's job to instruct a man how to have sex correctly.

rysyN said:
Lol, thinking minors accessing porn is somehow a problem of the modern age. Porn cache in the woods existed long before that. Spying on people before that.

part of the problem is that modern pornography is not representative of actual sexual relationships. It's not "OMG BOOBIES" -- it's the unrealistic examples set forth.

The porn cache in the woods was still images, not videos, not audio, not full plots and stories. Peeping on people also gave you realistic expectations: that was REALLY the girl next door and her REAL body--not a pornstarlette with the perfect body, letting you see e v e r y t h i n g. That was really the girl next door and her boyfriend, going slowly through natural stages of kissing and groping and foreplay, rather than "strip, blow job, touch boobs once or twice maybe, PENETRATION YEAH FUCK THAT PUSSY UUUHN YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH"

and before peeping... well, what we know of as "privacy" is a very modern concept and for a huge chunk of human history, being nude in public, or having sex in public was not unusual. I mean, with 8 kids, and one sleeping room... it happened. There's been pushback about "decency" and "public morality" here and there, but society was in general quite different.

I havn't given this article a full read over, but it's pretty neat! WOn't vouch entirely for it's accuracy, or the length of the article, but...

Reddit's "ask historians" subreddit has also had some interesting explorations into this concept too.

SnowWolf said:

You're speaking walls of text to a brick wall^{[citation needed][citation needed]}

But I admire your enthusiasm :D

Whenever this topic comes up, it makes me wonder how many people just...forget what it is like to be a kid. I was a highly sheltered kid, and not only did I figure out how to access erotic material entirely without help, but was producing my own erotic artwork and writing even before I figured that out. Sex drive isn't something that magically turns on on your 18th birthday.

I'm not saying this means we should let minors have unfettered access to porn, but I think calling even regular access to erotic material in the teen years "traumatizing" says more about your views of sex than it does about the kids. The only sex-related trauma I experienced was from religious fundamentalism (sexual desire was SINFUL) and from unsafe masturbation techniques.

This thread became a big yikes real fast.
SnowWolf doing the good business as always though

Clawdragons said:
Porn addiction isn't a thing.

Whether the psych community acknowledges it yet or not, many people's experience with porn is consistent with addiction. For many it's compulsive, it's harmful, it's quick and easy access to a powerful reward pathway, and it's a very difficult habit to drop. This feels like splitting hairs.

I'm not saying this is an easy, clear-cut debate, nor am I advocating for minors of all ages to have complete and unrestricted access to porn, however I'm personally convinced that, for teenagers at least, the dangers of viewing porn are overblown to say the least.

No matter what fancy jargon is used to dress it up, the main anti-porn argument always boils down to the issue of people imitating bad or unrealistic behavior (this argument is often directed at adults as well as minors). Yet every time a serious study on the subject is published, they always seem to conclude that if they can indeed mesure an effect, it's usually relatively small and only with particular types of individuals.

Independently of anything we might learn from lab experiments, if we accept the anti-porn arguments as true, then we should, quite logically, be seeing the devastating effects of unmitigated porn-viewing all around us, right now. The 1970s saw an unprecedented surge in porn production. In the past 20 years, the entire planet has had access to free, unlimited porn of every kind possible, on a scale nobody would have dared imagine even recently.

If porn had any consequent negative impact on relationships, on esteem for women, on sexual and social behavior... Then where are they ? Shouldn't there be at least some visible statistical correlation between levels of rape, sexual violence, sexism, sexual and romantic satisfaction, etc, and the sudden, massive influx of pornography on society ?

There doesn't seem to be. In fact, the opposite appears to be true. After centuries marked by strict and discriminatory social norms, a huge cultural shift happened at the end of the 1960s, with massive social and sexual revolutions which led to general shift towards a more tolerant, open society, one far more respectful of individual rights (more equality for women, not least sexually, as well as for racial and sexual minorities).

Porn wasn't an obstacle to this shift. It went hand in hand with it. Porn broke taboos, and contributed to normalizing sexual behavior viewed as harmful, shameful and deviant, like masturbation and anal sex. People became less afraid and ashamed to explore their sexuality beyond missionary in dark for the sole purpose of reproduction. And I'm not of the opinion that this is a bad thing !

I don't think that the nigh pornless world of yesteryear has any moral lessons to give us when it comes to decent social relations and sexual behavior. Until very recently, violent, unhappy relationships were the norm, incest was rampant, consent was barely an afterthought, love even more so, and drunkenly beating one's wife before raping her was just "Thursday evening".

What's true at a historical scale can also be verified geographically. Generally speaking, the more a particular society or group is hostile to pornography, the more restrictive and intolerant they tend to be when it comes to sexual issues - as with social and gender issues (just an example to make myself clear of what I mean: compare the Netherlands to say, Saudi Ariaba ?).

Again, I'm not saying I believe porn is harmless and should be shown to kids in schools or anything (I'll admit that stuff like porn discouraging condom use is a real problem, and I certainly don't think young kids should be exposed to it, nor any minor without the maturity to fully understand that porn is fictional).

But in short, I'd rather live in world where some determined minors are able to watch porn than one where porn is seen as a terrible evil, sex is equally bad, and everyone suffers from frustration, shame, depression, anxiety, and self-hatred issues from oppressed sexual desires and urges, as in the good old days.

Anyway that's just my two cents, this is just my own personal viewpoint and I don't intend to make anyone angry or upset.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
You're speaking walls of text to a brick wall^{[citation needed][citation needed]}

But I admire your enthusiasm :D

<3

Pyke said:
This thread became a big yikes real fast.
SnowWolf doing the good business as always though

<3 <3

LoneWolf343 said:
Whenever this topic comes up, it makes me wonder how many people just...forget what it is like to be a kid. I was a highly sheltered kid, and not only did I figure out how to access erotic material entirely without help, but was producing my own erotic artwork and writing even before I figured that out. Sex drive isn't something that magically turns on on your 18th birthday.

I'm not saying this means we should let minors have unfettered access to porn, but I think calling even regular access to erotic material in the teen years "traumatizing" says more about your views of sex than it does about the kids. The only sex-related trauma I experienced was from religious fundamentalism (sexual desire was SINFUL) and from unsafe masturbation techniques.

I don't really think you read the thread, honestly. Most of us are in favor of the idea of kids having access to a sexual education, something many kids don't have available.

The argument is largely that pornography has regrettable behaviors in it that can lead to a false idea of how romantic/intimate interactions should go. (Case in point: I watched a lot of movies as a teen. they did not prepare me to be an adult. Pornography does not prepare teenagers to be good romantic partners either)

Honestly, I'd be all for letting teenagers have access to "safe" pornographic materials. Low-to-moderate kink (that's a very vague statement,
Everyone has a different idea of what "moderate" kink would mean) ... fun positions that are REALISTIC (I haven't tried it, but when I look at post #545364... it looks pretty uncomfortable to me. Boobs in my face, slightly restrictive breathing maybe, and several muscles groups that might be stretched or damaged), communication during sex, demonstrative consent. Realistic bodies, etc.

But what pornography *IS* is not what sex with your partner should be. There's some great porn out there, but a LOT of it is focused on male pleasure over female pleasure. (seriously: I can't count the number of videos I've watched where the girl yells 'fuck yeah" a lot, but doesn't ever seem to get anywhere, except on her knees so he can cum on her face. (and yes, the act of making porn is pretty unerotic, so it's not surprising that the girls don't REALLY cum, but they don't even PRETEND to in a lot of videos. it's all about the penis and pleasuring it.)

Religious fundamentalism is pretty damaging, see previous statement about SAFE pornography, rather than... whatever came out of Germany or Japan and is trending on Hamsterhub or whatever.

Index said:
Whether the psych community acknowledges it yet or not, many people's experience with porn is consistent with addiction. For many it's compulsive, it's harmful, it's quick and easy access to a powerful reward pathway, and it's a very difficult habit to drop. This feels like splitting hairs.

If it were consistent with addiction, then you would think that the research done on it would show that, rather than failing to find any such evidence. Did you take a look at the articles I linked? It's not like the topic hasn't been studied - it has been, and the addiction position was not evidenced.

Insisting that it is an addiction despite the failure of evidence to support that position and against the recommendation of peer reviewed literature is, to me, not super different from claiming anthropogenic climate change isn't real. There's a scientific consensus, and you run contrary to it. If you're fine with that, and want to reject science, more power to you, but as far as the evidence goes, and as far as I'm concerned, you're wrong.

You can argue that pornography use can have negative effects without arguing it is specifically an addiction. It's not a bacterial infection, an allergy, or a prion disease either.

Index said:
Whether the psych community acknowledges it yet or not, many people's experience with porn is consistent with addiction. For many it's compulsive, it's harmful, it's quick and easy access to a powerful reward pathway, and it's a very difficult habit to drop. This feels like splitting hairs.

Maybe the psych community hasn't acknowledged it because they understand that the problem is with the patient being unable to regulate his compulsions and not with the object of his addiction. Basically anything that causes a dopamine reaction is potentially addictive to people with impulse dysfunction, so just trying to identify addictive behavior by calling it "X addiction" is a bottomless well of red herrings.

SnowWolf said:
Honestly, I'd be all for letting teenagers have access to "safe" pornographic materials. Low-to-moderate kink (that's a very vague statement,
Everyone has a different idea of what "moderate" kink would mean) ... fun positions that are REALISTIC (I haven't tried it, but when I look at post #545364... it looks pretty uncomfortable to me. Boobs in my face, slightly restrictive breathing maybe, and several muscles groups that might be stretched or damaged), communication during sex, demonstrative consent. Realistic bodies, etc.

Uuuuuuh...a rating system for porn?

"Aw, man, Super Butt Frenzy is a Restricted title, which means I would have to watch it with Mom!"

(On a serious note, I wasn't talking to anyone in particular, just something I've noticed whenever the "Save the Children's Virgin Eyes!" debacle resurfaces.)

SnowWolf should write a book someday, the zest and talent are there :3

LoneWolf343 said:
Uuuuuuh...a rating system for porn?

"Aw, man, Super Butt Frenzy is a Restricted title, which means I would have to watch it with Mom!"

(On a serious note, I wasn't talking to anyone in particular, just something I've noticed whenever the "Save the Children's Virgin Eyes!" debacle resurfaces.)

Man, I think it would be fabulous to live in that society. I mean. not because of the 'watching porn with kids' aspect, but in order for that word to be 'real'... sexuality has to be an open discussion topic. Having an conversation with your mom about anal sex is AWKWARD, but not unusual. It seems like it would have the potential to be a far more healthy culture over all, compared to the current culture where one hand says "Sex is bad, ABSTAIN PURE PRECIOUS SOULS BEFORE SATAN TAKES YOU" and the other hand says "BE SEXY AND ATTRACTIVE AND HAWT AND FUN! BE FUN!" and another hand says "BUT NOT TOO FUN YOU SLUT."

That said, tha'ts like.... a hundred years of social development away. at least. c_c

Haljkljavahlibrz said:
SnowWolf should write a book someday, the zest and talent are there :3

Technically I already have ;)
And edited about 3 or 4 others....

and have a few more simmering on the backburner~ :3

but thank you, that comment basically made my day :D

SnowWolf said:
Man, I think it would be fabulous to live in that society. I mean. not because of the 'watching porn with kids' aspect, but in order for that word to be 'real'... sexuality has to be an open discussion topic. Having an conversation with your mom about anal sex is AWKWARD, but not unusual. It seems like it would have the potential to be a far more healthy culture over all, compared to the current culture where one hand says "Sex is bad, ABSTAIN PURE PRECIOUS SOULS BEFORE SATAN TAKES YOU" and the other hand says "BE SEXY AND ATTRACTIVE AND HAWT AND FUN! BE FUN!" and another hand says "BUT NOT TOO FUN YOU SLUT."

That said, tha'ts like.... a hundred years of social development away. at least. c_c

Technically I already have ;)
And edited about 3 or 4 others....

and have a few more simmering on the backburner~ :3

but thank you, that comment basically made my day :D

A lot of the anhedonic attitudes have more to do with certain people's special interests/agendas than with religion, philosophy or some other. And the relationship between all those through the ages is a really fascinating topic (though too long for this thread obv).

Ps. I'm always glad to have cheered someone up<3, mind me asking what the books are about?

Clawdragons said:
There's a scientific consensus, and you run contrary to it. If you're fine with that, and want to reject science, more power to you, but as far as the evidence goes, and as far as I'm concerned, you're wrong.

I did look at your links. Aside from your messages, I haven't seen any mention of a "scientific consensus" that pornography addiction does not exist. And I can find articles too:

Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update - "The review leads to the conclusion that Internet pornography addiction fits into the addiction framework and shares similar basic mechanisms with substance addiction."

Pornography addiction – a supranormal stimulus considered in the context of neuroplasticity - "evidence increasingly supports the description of CSBs as an addiction."

Most of what I'm seeing is that there is no consensus, yet - even in the Wikipedia article you linked. A few presentations at a conference isn't a consensus. In the absence of a consensus, I'll rely on my own experience and the experiences of those in my community, which are entirely in line with addiction and not compulsion. But you're free to ignore that if you like - it's not scientific.

Psychology isn't my field, so I'll withhold my other thoughts for now. Where can I read about this scientific consensus?

Haljkljavahlibrz said:
A lot of the anhedonic attitudes have more to do with certain people's special interests/agendas than with religion, philosophy or some other. And the relationship between all those through the ages is a really fascinating topic (though too long for this thread obv).

But it really is facinating! I could talk for hours about this sort of stuff :D

Ps. I'm always glad to have cheered someone up<3, mind me asking what the books are about?

<3

The book I wrote was a ... hmm... historical lesbian romance, with ships and pirates and some supernatural aspects as well. I like it, but the marketing for it was shit, so I'm reworking it. <3

The books I edited were written by friends of mine: Urban fantasies (werewolves and vampires, mostly) with Lesbian protagonists, but not focusing on romance aspects. Really good stories, at least in my opinion.

The one I'm working on now.... I've been world building for a series of paranormal romance novels (shifters/werewolves, mostly, but also fae and other 'wild' creatures)... Havn't put pen to paper yet, but I have a lot of structure in mind <3

That said, I had a wonderful idea the other day for a different story, but it's still bubbling about.

I've got a lot of ideas, many of them not-romance novels, but romance is a pretty popular genre and honestly, I'd love to be able to afford a vacation at some point.

Sweet :) i wish you all the luck in your writing endeavors, and thank you kindly for responding <3

SnowWolf said:
I'm just gonna say, my brother and I saw those in theaters. I distinctly remember the two of us setting up death traps around the house "in case of a burglar" before my dad figured out what we were up to.

So.

Yes.

Kids are impressionable.

So. No. Anecdotal evidence is fallacious.

SnowWolf said:
(also, my niece and her friends totally played my little pony and learned a lot about being nice and getting along. Pretty cool, actually. AND they got to pretend to be heroes AND princesses, and have cool magical powers so that they could save people in trouble AND still do neat things like make art, or be smart. Seriously: they learned a lot from my little pony, AND from having conversations with the adults around them about MLP.

Were you or they respectively old enough by then to purposefully search Internet for something?

SnowWolf said:
Yes. Prove that children are impressionable and learn things.

No. Prove that younger children are learning things independently of their caregivers' actions. Or, alternatively, prove that adolescents (the ones searching Internet for porn) are incapable of discerning reality and fantasy.

SnowWolf said:
Did you know that you're quite rude?

Not rude. Laconic .

SnowWolf said:
Let me start with a big one over here. In instances of child-on-child sexual abuse (that is, the scenario where one child coerces, threatens, forces or manipulates another child to engage in sexual play for the intention of achieving an sexual stimulation), many of the instigators have been, themselves, abused by an adult. However, in many cases, this is a result of the child being exposed to pornography. Showing a child pornography is also considered to be a form of sexual grooming--that is is, preparing them for sexual assault or exploitation. Y'know, because they're learning that it's okay to do those things.

They do not learn it from porn here. They learn it from their caregivers. Porn is merely an illustrative material in this context.

SnowWolf said:
but SURE, let's ay that's a little bit of a stretch.

No. That's not a little bit of a stretch - that's a different point entirely.

SnowWolf said:
after doing a really, really quick google search you couldn't do yourself.

Aren't you a bit vain thinking that I have not studied materials like the ones you provide?

SnowWolf said:
this Study emphasizes that pornography can shape sexual practices and is associated with unsafe sexual health practices such as not using condoms and unsafe anal and vaginal sex, and that pornography may strengthen attitudes supportive of sexual violence and violence against women. and goes into detail about the "social scripts" that we learn through observation of the world.

Yeah, right, because people out there haven't learned the very same behaviours for generations prior to the invention of Internet.

Also, have you even read the full text ? Like how this is just a meta-analysis of different other studies, how those initial studies are suffering from things like "negativity and sexual morality bias" and how all of those rely completely on self-reports, which is another can of worms ?

SnowWolf said:
Oh. what's a social script?

The root of humans' bad faith .

SnowWolf said:
It's a series of behaviors/actions/consequences that are expected to happen in a particular situation. We learn these, through living our lives: on our first day of school, we don't know what to expect. Within a short time, we understand what our teacher expect from us. When we graduate to a new teacher, it can be difficult if transition from a more free and casual environment, to a more restrictive one. (For example, going from a 'relaxed' teacher to a super strict teacher ... or going from a younger student grade to an older one where the teacher expects you to quiet down quicker, and be on task a greater percentage of the time.)

If you see a kid goofing off in the classroom, you expect them to get in trouble when the teacher walks in. WHen you go to a restaurant, you have expectations of how a member of the staff will interact with you.

Maybe you do. I do not. Having expectations towards humans is the first step to unpleasant surprises. I prefer to be ready for whatever may happen. But that's a tangent.

SnowWolf said:
So, pornography fucks with kid's ability to build social scripts about sexual activity,

No. Stigmatization of sexual activity in abrahamism-based societies "fucks with kid's ability to build social scripts about sexual activity", not pornography. Pornography never makes claims of being "realistic", much less "educational".

SnowWolf said:
leaning thigns like "women say no when they mean yes" and "men cannot control themselves, once aroused."

Sure, again, because it was totally not a thing for centuries before the advent of Internet.

SnowWolf said:
As well, effecting the idea of what 'normal' sex acts are. For example "deep fellatio" is shown in many pornographic videos and is not something that is casually performed by the average woman.

And exactly how many of the kids said "yeah, I think that deep fellatio is normal and can be performed by the average woman"?

SnowWolf said:
here, have another webpage from the American Bar Association -- there are extensive footnotes linking multiple studies.

You know about that Hegel's Law regarding transition from quantity to quality? Here it is not the case. Those "multiple studies" are ridiculous: they take correlation for causation and make sweeping overgeneralisations:

"Media has a tremendous capacity to teach"? Kids of which age and with which level of consumption?

"Excessive media use, particularly where the content is violent, gender-stereotyped, and/or sexually explicit, skews children’s world view, increases high-risk behaviors, and alters their capacity for successful and sustained human relationships." - an interesting hypothesis. Here is another one: maybe these kids learn that from their caregivers and then consume media that agrees with their pre-existing views? But no, let's not even consider any alternative explanation, since we all already know what answer should this study produce.

SnowWolf said:
This basically proves to me you don't spend ANY time around kids. Parents spend--or should spend-- a lot of time with their kids talking to them about the differences in fantasy and reality.

Then you should check your modus ponens - it gives you false readings.

You again mixing up different age categories. I remember my time in school, both as a schoolboy and much later - as a teacher (during my days as a university student). Kids at that age already can distinguish fantasy and reality very well, more so, than many adults (on a completely unrelated note: did you know that 4 out of 10 Americans believe in strict creationism ?).

SnowWolf said:
Regarding unheathy relationships - most cartoons show those as unhealthy and undesirable.

Most cartoons show that "disagreeing with protagonist" => "bad guy" => "termination with extreme prejudice", regardless of how right that bad guy actually was.

SnowWolf said:
for example, there's a kid's show called Caillou.

It's about a 4 year old boy exploring the world around him and dealing with typical 4 year old kid problems, like learning to deal with emotions. Except it does a very poor job: Caillou throws many temper tantrums aand whines CONSTANTLY, yet rarely faces consequence for this. I know several moms who have banned Caillou from their houses, because their kids were learning that it was okay to be a whiney little shit. (suposedly they changed this attitude in newer episodes.)

Shouldn't those moms also ban themselves for not teaching their offspring how not to be a whiney little shit? Oh, but what am I saying, of course humans themselves are never to blame for what happens in their lives, aren't they? =)

SnowWolf said:
As for castles going up in green flames, that goes back to that fantasy versus reality thing. kids of an age to watch that should understand that's unrealistic.

Oh, so now they understand. You realize that you cannot have it both ways, don't you? Decide already, when exactly that marvellous transformation from non-discernment to discernment between fantasy and reality actually happens, because otherwise your point is inconsistent with itself.

SnowWolf said:
Which is why kids being allowed to watch pornography SHOULD be of an age where they realize that pornography is unrealistic...

And that age is..?

SnowWolf said:
But the fact remains that right now, children do NOT get that sexual education and the majority of pornography does not promote good sexual behavior.

Yes, and the fact remains that right now, adults do NOT get that dietology education and the majority of food adverts do not promote good food behaviour.
And the fact remains that right now, adults do NOT get that financial education and the majority of credit services adverts do not promote good financial behaviour.
And the fact remains that right now, adults do NOT get that political education and the majority of politicians campaigns do not promote good political behaviour.

So... Where are the proposals to ban junk food, credit cards and populists? Those are (and this is supported by statistics) far more real and far more dangerous phenomena that any amount of porn.

SnowWolf said:
And I agree. Go get societal change started, then.

No. "For if the low men do not value the Master and do not love the Foundation - The Wise One leaves them; for he does not treasure a communion with such men." (Tao Te Ching, Paragraph 27)

Or, if you prefer, "Let the dead bury the dead." (Luke 9:60)

My point is not about how one should correct the masses. My point is about how, when the masses commit yet another idiocy, one should not follow them in that idiocy.

SnowWolf said:
That I have been asked, several times, if I was enjoying sexual activity because I wasn't being especially verbal in my pleasure?

That's may have nothing to do with porn - just individual variation. For example, in my experience some women are very vocal about their excitement (sheesh, just remembering this makes my ears hurt). And anyway, anecdotal evidence, again.

SnowWolf said:
I'm not goign to fucking google this FOR YOU, again. but there are plenty of data and studies done out there.

Oh, you totally are, my dear SnowWolf , you totally are =)
And proper studies this time, not politically-charged conservative nonsense. Because this nonsense I have already seen.

SnowWolf said:
Also, if 95% of the pussies or dicks you've seen look a certain way,

And how that would be possible? Do you think that people out there watch each porn video 19 times before switching to something else? Because last time I checked, there was quite an assortment of anatomical features in that kind of video.

SnowWolf said:
All you need to do is google for a moment and you'll find hundreds of pages and discussions talking about people who are concerned because their labia looks weird, or their penis does something different.

And that, again, has nothing to do with porn and everything to do with lack of sex-ed, specifically - sexual anatomy.

SnowWolf said:
Okay. No. That's fucked up.

SEe, this isn't a one sided problem. this isn't just about poor little boys learning about the world of sex via pornography.

Again. This has nothing to do with any kind of learning and everything to do with just blindly floundering in the sea of ignorance grasping at any straw. Whether this would be porn or some toilet wall graffiti - does not matter.

SnowWolf said:
Also, let me point out that when having sex, as long as the penis is inside and moving, there is stimulation. For someone with a vagina, this stimulation may not be anywhere near enough to orgasm. Clitoral stimulation, g-spot stimulation, breast stimulatio... all of these things may play into having an orgasm for a person with a vulva.

dutifully jotting notes for future reference
Meh, probably should add "proper prelude" and also "correct utterances for more aurally-inclined ones". But continue =)

SnowWolf said:
media depicts sex as a silent clashing of bodies, or of "yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah oooh fuck yeah" ... as opposed to what it SHOULD be which is more of a dialog and regular adjustments to make sure everything is working right.

I"m on a women's group on facebook and every few months or so, someoen posts something like. "When I have sex, it kind of hurts. I think it's because my boyfriend does XXXXXX... what should I do?" and the answer is ALWAYS "talk to him" ... then abot a week later they come back, and are really excited because they TALKED ABOUT SEX and then they HAD SEX! and it was GREAT because they COMMUNICATED. and they both had a GREAT TIME and it was BETTER!!!

And that is not to be blamed on porn at all. Because we all know the real culprit behind the lack of communication in relationships (sexual or otherwise). And this is the idea of romantic love .

SnowWolf said:
pornography doens't just affect young men. it affects ALL young people.

Pornography doesn't affect anyone like that. Ignorance does. Imagine: if porn would magically disappear overnight - would it fix even one of all those issues?

SnowWolf said:
It is not a woman's job to instruct a man how to have sex correctly.

Now this is nonsense. What does that even mean - "have sex correctly"? Correctly according to what? Some international standard? Technical manual? Abstract platonic ideal of "having sex"?

No, sex is conventional. And you cannot have a convention unless you manage your expectations properly.

SnowWolf said:
The porn cache in the woods was still images, <...> but society was in general quite different.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is our prime example of the Golden Age fallacy . Do go on, tell us, that in those days it was all safety procedures, mutual respect and efficient communication all the way. Was it?

SnowWolf said:
I havn't given this article a full read over, but it's pretty neat! WOn't vouch entirely for it's accuracy, or the length of the article, but...

It is strictly eurocentric, and it lumps together disparate concepts of privacy, sexuality, nudity and stigmatization of those.

SnowWolf said:
Reddit's "ask historians" subreddit has also had some interesting explorations into this concept too.]
Same there.

They gonna get an ass whoopin'

ChainedDragon said:

...I can't even. And let me tell ya, I'm pretty good at even-ing, so that's saying something!

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
...I can't even. And let me tell ya, I'm pretty good at even-ing, so that's saying something!

This.

ChainedDragon said:
Not rude.

Yes, rude. Rude enough that you're actually countering any good that your rules of logic might otherwise do.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
...I can't even.

CCoyote said:
Rude enough that you're actually countering any good that your rules of logic might otherwise do.

I'm with these two. Rude enough to derail the thread.

Take it from someone who's... become emotionally invested in a few too many arguments and is trying to do better. It's never a good sign when you're arguing with almost every sentence of a post, in dozens of individual pieces, using terse, individual statements. It signals that you're not reading to understand or communicate and are not arguing in good faith or with due consideration -- but instead, that you're only reading to reply.

Whether this accurately represents your intent is irrelevant; textual structure carries inherent meaning of which one needs to be mindful. Consider a scene like this: If someone were trying to explain their position and you kept jumping in every other sentence to interrupt them, even on the little minor bits, that would be obviously rude. This is how you are presenting yourself.

Oh, and...

Concise. Addresses the full text. Possibly humorous. Colored with insult. That's classic Sparta, in a nutshell, not least of all because it's based on an actual quote.

ikdind said:
It's never a good sign when you're arguing with almost every sentence of a post, in dozens of individual pieces, using terse, individual statements. It signals that you're not reading to understand or communicate and are not arguing in good faith or with due consideration -- but instead, that you're only reading to reply.

Whether this accurately represents your intent is irrelevant; textual structure carries inherent meaning of which one needs to be mindful. Consider a scene like this: If someone were trying to explain their position and you kept jumping in every other sentence to interrupt them, even on the little minor bits, that would be obviously rude. This is how you are presenting yourself.

Wrong. On several accounts.

First. As the field of semantics teaches us - there are no such thing as an "inherent meaning" - all meanings are ascribed, not immanent. A string of characters is just that - a string of characters. Your ascribing of rudeness to it is your choice, not a result of some "inherentness".

Second. Your analogy is incorrect. Communication via speech and communication via writing are not analogous to each other. You cannot trivially stop your collocutor or rewind him as needed. This creates limitations. In written conversation there are no such problems.

As for the form itself (point-couterpoint) - it is chosen out of consideration towards our readers. Have you ever tried to read, say, The Philosophy of Poverty by Proudhon and then the answer to it - The Poverty of Philosophy by Marx? To do so to full extent you would need to effectively memorize all points made by Proudhon and then counterpose them to the points made by Marx. That's a lot of memorizing, retaining and recalling of information. To spare our audience such an exercise in futility I bundle each point and its respective counterpoint in small neat packages, suited for clip thinking of modern public.

You think this is bad? Then consider the alternative: imagine a colony. A colony of aspen trees, with their roots spreading ever further, drawing from epistemology, history, ethics, developmental psychology, biology, dozens of its trunks reaching up with syllogisms, inferences, inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning and myriads of different forms of computational logic, its crowns intertwined into an impenetrable canopy of counter-intuitive conclusions. This is how my thoughts would look like unless I reduce them to separate points and serve those to you piece by piece.

ikdind said:
Oh, and...

This would be laconic.

I'd forgotten the first half of your post, so couldn't make sense of the second.

Concise. Addresses the full text. Possibly humorous. Colored with insult. That's classic Sparta, in a nutshell, not least of all because it's based on an actual quote.

No. It would not be laconic - it would be moronic. You again refuse to realize the difference between spoken and written word. "I'd forgotten the first half of your post"? Congratulations, you have shown that you
1) Have memory capacity of an amoeba.
2) Have reading skills so low, that you cannot even go back and reread whatever that is which you have already forgotten.
It could (and could not) have worked in speech, it surely does not work in writing.

@ChainedDragon dude