# Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?



## Delta4Embassy

No. 

Google and read any and every .edu site with a paper about it to your heart's content. Been studying the question for decades and the even the Reagan Administration studied the question, came back with "no" and let the matter drop (silently not publishing the results either by the by.)

Just as violent movies and videogames doesn't then translate into real-world acting out of violent fantasies (as evidenced by such content availability in other countries,) pornography doesn't then result in minors acting out what they saw. Will always be able to find a news item suggesting otherwise, but this is not scientificly valid so much as sensationalism and fear-mongering. 

"Research shows that healthy sexual development includes natural curiosity about sexuality. Retrospective studies show that accidental exposure to real-life scenes of sexuality does not harm children. Our survey shows that age of first exposure to pornography does not correlate with negative attitudes towards women. Studies with non-explicit representations of sexuality show that young people who seek out sexualised representations tend to be those with a pre-existing interest in sexuality. *These studies also suggest that current generations of children are no more sexualised than previous generations, that they are not innocent about sexuality, and that a key negative effect of this knowledge is the requirement for them to feign ignorance in order to satisfy adults expectations of them.* Research also suggests important differences between pre- and post-pubescent attitudes towards pornography, and that pornography is not addictive."
Does pornography harm young people? | QUT ePrints

"A vocal segment of the population has serious concerns about the effect of pornography in society and challenges its public use and acceptance. This manuscript reviews the major issues associated with the availability of sexually explicit material. *It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.*"
Pacific Center for Sex and Society - Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review

"Most of the recent studies in this field have been correlational. That means you ask a sample of young people whether they've seen pornography, or how often, and then ask them what they think of sex or gender role attitudes, for example.

*But it is not possible to establish causation from correlational studies, and to say whether pornography is changing or reinforcing attitudes.*

"That is the real next step that research needs to take," says Horvath, "to try to identify which came first.""
BBC News - Do we know whether pornography harms people?

Thta's the most important part above, 'it's not possible to establish causation from correlation.' Ethics limit what you can investigate as in you can't expose subjects to particularly violent pornography tosee if it harms them, because what if it does? So you can't scientificly investigate whether porn harms children because to find out you have to expose potentially harmful things to children. Catch-22.

What we can and have discovered if where porn is widely available, sex crimes go down. Where porn is banned and restricted it goes up. When children are raised in nudist enviroments, they don't suffer the same stress over their developing bodies as their clothes-wearing counterparts.

I get people here will opt to make political hay out of this on both sides of the poltical divide while choosing to ignore the research and facts, this is not for them but people more interested in being right than popular.


----------



## jillian

"children" shouldn't be viewing pornography

pornography is not harmful to adults unless, like any other addiction, it impedes the viewer's real life.

and "sex crimes" are not about sex, but are about violence.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Prove why not.

Porn isn't addictive. 

True.


----------



## GISMYS

pornography is  harmful  TO ANYONE AND EVERYONE. TRASH IN=TRASH OUT.


----------



## Valerie

Delta4Embassy said:


> Been studying the question for decades...





creeeepy.....


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Valerie said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been studying the question for decades...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creeeepy.....
Click to expand...


Meant scientists, but come to think of it, am 43 so ya a couple decades.  My primary interest is in fact sexuality. I maintain most of the human condition goes back to sex and sexuality. It's why we've evolved as far as we have - to be able to pass on our genes and reproduce. Everything else is incidental.


----------



## Freemason9

Pornography can have a negative effect on how men relate to women sexually; their expections from pornographic material seldom are met in real relationships. In the case of young children, this can have a profound effect.

Men who were exposed to a lot of pornography before having real sex, for example, expect (1) to ejaculate on a woman's face, (2) believe that average penis size is much larger that it really is, (3) believe it is somewhat acceptable to take photos of lovers and distribute them, (4) have poor understandings of what most women actually desire, and (5) need visual stimulation over activity to reach sexual arousal. And those are just a few things.

Pornography is fine in moderation, but it does indeed become a substitute for sex in some cases. It does mess up kids, because this culture teaches them that sex is bad from an early age--pornography creates confusion and neuroses in these cases.


----------



## auditor0007

Freemason9 said:


> Pornography can have a negative effect on how men relate to women sexually; their expections from pornographic material seldom are met in real relationships. In the case of young children, this can have a profound effect.
> 
> Men who were exposed to a lot of pornography before having real sex, for example, expect (1) to ejaculate on a woman's face, (2) believe that average penis size is much larger that it really is, (3) believe it is somewhat acceptable to take photos of lovers and distribute them, (4) have poor understandings of what most women actually desire, and (5) need visual stimulation over activity to reach sexual arousal. And those are just a few things.
> 
> Pornography is fine in moderation, but it does indeed become a substitute for sex in some cases. It does mess up kids, because this culture teaches them that sex is bad from an early age--pornography creates confusion and neuroses in these cases.



Saved me from having to make a long post.  I definitely agree.  Sex in porn videos is not a normal view of sex between consenting adults, at least for most people.  For young people not having ever experienced sex, it gives them the wrong impression of what sex is and how it should be.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

> ... Just as violent movies and videogames doesn't then translate into real-world acting out of violent fantasies ...



Except that we see evidence to the contrary. We see evidence that some people do become addicted and/or changed by violence in movies and/or videogames. Same with porn. 

I watch movies and TV shows that I would never allow a young child to watch. The Walking Dead comes to mind. Horribly violent but worse is that it literally dehumanized those who are being slaughtered in worst ways imaginable. And yet, I know of parents who let their very young kids watch that while they would go ballistic if that same child was watching porn. 

Just as with most porn, violence and video games don't show the world as it really is and young people can't always make that determination.


----------



## Toro

Of course not. 

I looked at porn when I was a kid, and now I look at it for only 4-6 hours a day!


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Luddly Neddite said:


> ... Just as violent movies and videogames doesn't then translate into real-world acting out of violent fantasies ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that we see evidence to the contrary. We see evidence that some people do become addicted and/or changed by violence in movies and/or videogames. Same with porn.
> 
> I watch movies and TV shows that I would never allow a young child to watch. The Walking Dead comes to mind. Horribly violent but worse is that it literally dehumanized those who are being slaughtered in worst ways imaginable. And yet, I know of parents who let their very young kids watch that while they would go ballistic if that same child was watching porn.
> 
> Just as with most porn, violence and video games don't show the world as it really is and young people can't always make that determination.
Click to expand...


Asian and European countries have identical access if not superior to violent media yet don't show the same violent outbreaks we see in the US. Same with porn. What happens in the US is exceptional and odd. I'm willing to say here and now that in our role as world police man, and last remaining superpower, we're driving our people clinically insane. Constant wars, claims of exceptionalism, do as we say not as we do mentality, and more guns than people. It's driving us mad.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Delta4Embassy said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Just as violent movies and videogames doesn't then translate into real-world acting out of violent fantasies ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that we see evidence to the contrary. We see evidence that some people do become addicted and/or changed by violence in movies and/or videogames. Same with porn.
> 
> I watch movies and TV shows that I would never allow a young child to watch. The Walking Dead comes to mind. Horribly violent but worse is that it literally dehumanized those who are being slaughtered in worst ways imaginable. And yet, I know of parents who let their very young kids watch that while they would go ballistic if that same child was watching porn.
> 
> Just as with most porn, violence and video games don't show the world as it really is and young people can't always make that determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asian and European countries have identical access if not superior to violent media yet don't show the same violent outbreaks we see in the US. Same with porn. What happens in the US is exceptional and odd. I'm willing to say here and now that in our role as world police man, and last remaining superpower, we're driving our people clinically insane. Constant wars, claims of exceptionalism, do as we say not as we do mentality, and more guns than people. It's driving us mad.
Click to expand...


Good point.

Canada has guns but they don't murder each other the way we do in the US. 

At the end of WWII, other countries invested in their own people, their own future. That's why they have better medicine that we do and why they take month long vacations. We invested in our military and we still do. 

We have absolutely no use for more tanks and ships but you'd never know it. The Repubs and the RWs here are constantly saying we should buy more of what we don't need or use.


----------



## Toro

Luddly Neddite said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that we see evidence to the contrary. We see evidence that some people do become addicted and/or changed by violence in movies and/or videogames. Same with porn.
> 
> I watch movies and TV shows that I would never allow a young child to watch. The Walking Dead comes to mind. Horribly violent but worse is that it literally dehumanized those who are being slaughtered in worst ways imaginable. And yet, I know of parents who let their very young kids watch that while they would go ballistic if that same child was watching porn.
> 
> Just as with most porn, violence and video games don't show the world as it really is and young people can't always make that determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asian and European countries have identical access if not superior to violent media yet don't show the same violent outbreaks we see in the US. Same with porn. What happens in the US is exceptional and odd. I'm willing to say here and now that in our role as world police man, and last remaining superpower, we're driving our people clinically insane. Constant wars, claims of exceptionalism, do as we say not as we do mentality, and more guns than people. It's driving us mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> Canada has guns but they don't murder each other the way we do in the US.
> 
> At the end of WWII, other countries invested in their own people, their own future. That's why they have better medicine that we do and why they take month long vacations. We invested in our military and we still do.
> 
> We have absolutely no use for more tanks and ships but you'd never know it. The Repubs and the RWs here are constantly saying we should buy more of what we don't need or use.
Click to expand...


Canada has a lot of long guns but handguns are highly restricted.


----------



## dilloduck

jillian said:


> "children" shouldn't be viewing pornography
> 
> pornography is not harmful to adults unless, like any other addiction, it impedes the viewer's real life.
> 
> and "sex crimes" are not about sex, but are about violence.



then why is something sexual always involved ?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

dilloduck said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> "children" shouldn't be viewing pornography
> 
> pornography is not harmful to adults unless, like any other addiction, it impedes the viewer's real life.
> 
> and "sex crimes" are not about sex, but are about violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why is something sexual always involved ?
Click to expand...


Sex crimes are not "sexual". 

Actually, just the opposite.


----------



## dilloduck

Luddly Neddite said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> "children" shouldn't be viewing pornography
> 
> pornography is not harmful to adults unless, like any other addiction, it impedes the viewer's real life.
> 
> and "sex crimes" are not about sex, but are about violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why is something sexual always involved ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex crimes are not "sexual".
> 
> Actually, just the opposite.
Click to expand...


intercourse isn't sexual ?   fondling a child isn't sexual ?  please explain.


----------



## Zmrzlina

For many young men and women, pornography is their first exposure to sexuality and will form their opinions considering intimacy.  This is not a reason for any sort of additional legislation but perhaps parents should be teaching young adults what to expect from a healthy relationship instead of having them gain misinformation from their peers and pornography.


----------



## Big Black Dog

Porn has no redeeming social value and is nothing more than smut.


----------



## PixieStix

Porn denigrates the viewer as well as the viewee. The people who are being viewed are victims of porn IMHO. 

I believe sex crimes are indeed about sex

Brain Chemicals and Porn Addiction: Science Shows How Porn Harms Us


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Luddly Neddite said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> "children" shouldn't be viewing pornography
> 
> pornography is not harmful to adults unless, like any other addiction, it impedes the viewer's real life.
> 
> and "sex crimes" are not about sex, but are about violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why is something sexual always involved ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex crimes are not "sexual".
> 
> Actually, just the opposite.
Click to expand...


Sex crime refers to assaults (violence) directed specificly at parts of the body assiciated with sexual behaviours. They aren't 'sexual acts,' they're simply being directed at the genitals, buttocks, and female breasts.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Big Black Dog said:


> Porn has no redeeming social value and is nothing more than smut.



Really? So everywhere that had bans on porn, then legalized it and saw drops in sex-crimes were flukes?

Legalizing pornography: Lower sex crime rates? Study carried out in Czech Republic shows results similar to those in Japan and Denmark -- ScienceDaily

"Could legalizing pornography legal lead to lower rates of sex crimes? A new study tackles this controversial question. Results from the Czech Republic showed that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. In addition, the study finds that the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible."

And conversely, everywhere that had porn widely available, then banned it saw rises in sex crimes like in Denmark in the 70s.


----------



## dilloduck

Delta4Embassy said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> then why is something sexual always involved ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crimes are not "sexual".
> 
> Actually, just the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex crime refers to assaults (violence) directed specificly at parts of the body assiciated with sexual behaviours. They aren't 'sexual acts,' they're simply being directed at the genitals, buttocks, and female breasts.
Click to expand...


Rape isn't a sexual act ?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

dilloduck said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crimes are not "sexual".
> 
> Actually, just the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crime refers to assaults (violence) directed specificly at parts of the body assiciated with sexual behaviours. They aren't 'sexual acts,' they're simply being directed at the genitals, buttocks, and female breasts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rape isn't a sexual act ?
Click to expand...


Strictly speaking no it's not. Psychologically it's not an attempt at sexual gratification so much as aggressive display. And this is recognized in legal circles too. 

Be like punching or kicking someone in the groin. That's not seeking sexual gratification but assaulting someone ina  vulnerable spot on the body, just as men often assault women in their most vulnerable spots. And instead of using their feet, or hands, they use their penises.


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> then why is something sexual always involved ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crimes are not "sexual".
> 
> Actually, just the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex crime refers to assaults (violence) directed specificly at parts of the body assiciated with sexual behaviours. They aren't 'sexual acts,' they're simply being directed at the genitals, buttocks, and female breasts.
Click to expand...


Some people over think a glass of water. 

Committing violence against a part of the body that involves a sexual organ, is in fact about sex.


----------



## dilloduck

Delta4Embassy said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crime refers to assaults (violence) directed specificly at parts of the body assiciated with sexual behaviours. They aren't 'sexual acts,' they're simply being directed at the genitals, buttocks, and female breasts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape isn't a sexual act ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strictly speaking no it's not. Psychologically it's not an attempt at sexual gratification so much as aggressive display. And this is recognized in legal circles too.
> 
> Be like punching or kicking someone in the groin. That's not seeking sexual gratification but assaulting someone ina  vulnerable spot on the body, just as men often assault women in their most vulnerable spots. And instead of using their feet, or hands, they use their penises.
Click to expand...


Word games-    Fondling children ?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

PixieStix said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crimes are not "sexual".
> 
> Actually, just the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crime refers to assaults (violence) directed specificly at parts of the body assiciated with sexual behaviours. They aren't 'sexual acts,' they're simply being directed at the genitals, buttocks, and female breasts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people over think a glass of water.
> 
> Committing violence against a part of the body that involves a sexual organ, is in fact about sex.
Click to expand...


Sorry but you're wrong. Google "is rape about sex?" and educate yourself. If educating yourself is appealing at any rate.


----------



## Sherry

Delta4Embassy said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crime refers to assaults (violence) directed specificly at parts of the body assiciated with sexual behaviours. They aren't 'sexual acts,' they're simply being directed at the genitals, buttocks, and female breasts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people over think a glass of water.
> 
> Committing violence against a part of the body that involves a sexual organ, is in fact about sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but you're wrong. Google "is rape about sex?" and educate yourself. If educating yourself is appealing at any rate.
Click to expand...


Who gives a shit about the perspective of the criminal...for a rape survivor, it's a violent sexual act.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

The criminal knows why they did it, and it's they who often report it's about control and dominance, not gratification. As among prisoners, and married spouses (husband rape et al.)

This is gonna boil down to which of the two camps your wanna side with. And as is often the case it's entirely possibly both are right.


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crime refers to assaults (violence) directed specificly at parts of the body assiciated with sexual behaviours. They aren't 'sexual acts,' they're simply being directed at the genitals, buttocks, and female breasts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people over think a glass of water.
> 
> Committing violence against a part of the body that involves a sexual organ, is in fact about sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but you're wrong. Google "is rape about sex?" and educate yourself. If educating yourself is appealing at any rate.
Click to expand...


Why would I want to google that and justify an act so depraved that it should sicken any human alive. Especially toward a child.

Stop justifying the sex part of this depravity


----------



## Sherry

Delta4Embassy said:


> The criminal knows why they did it, and it's they who often report it's about control and dominance, not gratification. As among prisoners, and married spouses (husband rape et al.)
> 
> This is gonna boil down to which of the two camps your wanna side with. And as is often the case it's entirely possibly both are right.



Being in control and dominant can be gratifying.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

PixieStix said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people over think a glass of water.
> 
> Committing violence against a part of the body that involves a sexual organ, is in fact about sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but you're wrong. Google "is rape about sex?" and educate yourself. If educating yourself is appealing at any rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I want to google that and justify an act so depraved that it should sicken any human alive. Especially toward a child.
> 
> Stop justifying the sex part of this depravity
Click to expand...


Yes, heaven forbid people talking about things ever bother studying them. You must be a Republican.


----------



## Sherry

Delta4Embassy said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but you're wrong. Google "is rape about sex?" and educate yourself. If educating yourself is appealing at any rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I want to google that and justify an act so depraved that it should sicken any human alive. Especially toward a child.
> 
> Stop justifying the sex part of this depravity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, heaven forbid people talking about things ever bother studying them. You must be a Republican.
Click to expand...


You must be a douche bag.


----------



## Chuckt

Delta4Embassy said:


> Prove why not.
> 
> Porn isn't addictive.
> 
> True.



We know people addicted by porn.


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but you're wrong. Google "is rape about sex?" and educate yourself. If educating yourself is appealing at any rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I want to google that and justify an act so depraved that it should sicken any human alive. Especially toward a child.
> 
> Stop justifying the sex part of this depravity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, heaven forbid people talking about things ever bother studying them. You must be a Republican.
Click to expand...


You must be a weirdo, with too much time on his hands.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Delta4Embassy said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but you're wrong. Google "is rape about sex?" and educate yourself. If educating yourself is appealing at any rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I want to google that and justify an act so depraved that it should sicken any human alive. Especially toward a child.
> 
> Stop justifying the sex part of this depravity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, heaven forbid people talking about things ever bother studying them. You must be a Republican.
Click to expand...


And, how does education "justify" anything at all?

I am continually surprised at the ignorance from the right. Simply put, not all sex is about sex and not all porn is bad.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Chuckt said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove why not.
> 
> Porn isn't addictive.
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know people addicted by porn.
Click to expand...


It does not follow that all who look at porn are addicted.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Chuckt said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove why not.
> 
> Porn isn't addictive.
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know people addicted by porn.
Click to expand...


Two kinds of addiction: physical and psychological. Physical's like heroin, cocaine, meth. Psychological addiction can be to anything including a glass of water. So in the sense than we can become psychologically addicted to anything, yes, porn is addictive. But not really.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

PixieStix said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I want to google that and justify an act so depraved that it should sicken any human alive. Especially toward a child.
> 
> Stop justifying the sex part of this depravity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, heaven forbid people talking about things ever bother studying them. You must be a Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be a weirdo, with too much time on his hands.
Click to expand...


Says the person with three times my posts.


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, heaven forbid people talking about things ever bother studying them. You must be a Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a weirdo, with too much time on his hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the person with three times my posts.
Click to expand...


I have been here 5 years, moron. I come here for fun. Not to "educate" others on what to think about child rape and other depravity


----------



## Delta4Embassy

5 years? and you blast me for too much time on my hands? Mmkay. Pot calling the kettle black methinks. 

Anyhoo, if you can't discuss a topic without making it personal maybe you should find an easier site? Or group on this one.


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> 5 years? and you blast me for too much time on my hands? Mmkay. Pot calling the kettle black methinks.
> 
> Anyhoo, if you can't discuss a topic without making it personal maybe you should find an easier site? Or group on this one.



You are the one that made it personal, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen


----------



## dilloduck

Delta4Embassy said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> then why is something sexual always involved ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crimes are not "sexual".
> 
> Actually, just the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex crime refers to assaults (violence) directed specificly at parts of the body assiciated with sexual behaviours. They aren't 'sexual acts,' they're simply being directed at the genitals, buttocks, and female breasts.
Click to expand...


Wrong----a sex crime does not have to involve assault --educate yourself.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

dilloduck said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crimes are not "sexual".
> 
> Actually, just the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crime refers to assaults (violence) directed specificly at parts of the body assiciated with sexual behaviours. They aren't 'sexual acts,' they're simply being directed at the genitals, buttocks, and female breasts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong----a sex crime does not have to involve assault --educate yourself.
Click to expand...


Didn't say it did. Was referring to the aforementioned usage of the term. But you knew that, you're just kissing ass.


----------



## Rikurzhen

jillian said:


> and "sex crimes" are not about sex, but are about violence.



Dogma. Liberal dogma.

Look at the age range of female sex crimes victims. 80% of attacks are on women under the age of 30. Girls ages 16-19 are four times more likely than the general population to be victims of sexual assault.

Rape is mostly about sex. Date rape is all about sex. Some rapes though are about violence, to dehumanize the woman.

Those girls between 16-19 are in social environments with boys of the age, horny buggers all. Those guys aren't out there focused on punching women, they're out to get poon-tang and matters spiral out of control.


----------



## BluesMistress

Luddly Neddite said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I want to google that and justify an act so depraved that it should sicken any human alive. Especially toward a child.
> 
> Stop justifying the sex part of this depravity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, heaven forbid people talking about things ever bother studying them. You must be a Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, how does education "justify" anything at all?
> 
> I am continually surprised at the ignorance from the right. Simply put, not all sex is about sex and not all porn is bad.
Click to expand...


It may not be about sex to the rapist but it sure is hell is about sex to the victim. Enough to change the woman and children sex lives forever. 
Children are now viciously raping other children on the school bus. Where are the learning this stuff. Movies, games and porn in the web???


----------



## Rikurzhen

Freemason9 said:


> Pornography can have a negative effect on how men relate to women sexually; their expections from pornographic material seldom are met in real relationships. In the case of young children, this can have a profound effect.



We can say the same about women and romance novels, romantic comedies, and female peer networks.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Rikurzhen said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> and "sex crimes" are not about sex, but are about violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogma. Liberal dogma.
> 
> Look at the age range of female sex crimes victims. 80% of attacks are on women under the age of 30. Girls ages 16-19 are four times more likely than the general population to be victims of sexual assault.
> 
> Rape is mostly about sex. Date rape is all about sex. Some rapes though are about violence, to dehumanize the woman.
> 
> Those girls between 16-19 are in social environments with boys of the age, horny buggers all. Those guys aren't out there focused on punching women, they're out to get poon-tang and matters spiral out of control.
Click to expand...


Like I said, boils down to which side you choose to come down on. And it's possible both are right.


----------



## dilloduck

Delta4Embassy said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crime refers to assaults (violence) directed specificly at parts of the body assiciated with sexual behaviours. They aren't 'sexual acts,' they're simply being directed at the genitals, buttocks, and female breasts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong----a sex crime does not have to involve assault --educate yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say it did. Was referring to the aforementioned usage of the term. But you knew that, you're just kissing ass.
Click to expand...


LOL kissing ass ?  It's your quote !


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove why not.
> 
> Porn isn't addictive.
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know people addicted by porn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two kinds of addiction: physical and psychological. Physical's like heroin, cocaine, meth. Psychological addiction can be to anything including a glass of water. So in the sense than we can become psychologically addicted to anything, yes, porn is addictive. But not really.
Click to expand...


Skimmed by this did ya?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-harm-children-who-view-it-2.html#post9562722


----------



## Delta4Embassy

dilloduck said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong----a sex crime does not have to involve assault --educate yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say it did. Was referring to the aforementioned usage of the term. But you knew that, you're just kissing ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL kissing ass ?  It's your quote !
Click to expand...


Which you misrepresented out of context to the prior usage I refered to.


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crime refers to assaults (violence) directed specificly at parts of the body assiciated with sexual behaviours. They aren't 'sexual acts,' they're simply being directed at the genitals, buttocks, and female breasts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong----a sex crime does not have to involve assault --educate yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say it did. Was referring to the aforementioned usage of the term. But you knew that, you're just kissing ass.
Click to expand...


You claim I made things personal. But you are the one who makes these kinds of statements when people are sincerely giving their thoughts on this thread. What is your problem. You can't get enough people to agree with this garbage thinking?


----------



## Rikurzhen

Luddly Neddite said:


> Canada has guns but they don't murder each other the way we do in the US.



Their black and Hispanic populations are miniscule. Our homicide rate is 5.1 per 100,000. Canada's homicide rate is 1.6 per 100,000. Our white homicide rate is 2.5 per 100,000. Our white homicide rate is almost identical to Finland's homicide rate.

Yes, 2.5 is greater than 1.6 but that's still still within the range seen within European nations. Our white homicide rate is lower than that of Estonia or Lithuania or Latvia, for instance.



> At the end of WWII, other countries invested in their own people, their own future. That's why they have better medicine.



They have different population demographics and that's reflected in their medical outcomes.


----------



## dilloduck

Delta4Embassy said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say it did. Was referring to the aforementioned usage of the term. But you knew that, you're just kissing ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL kissing ass ?  It's your quote !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you misrepresented out of context to the prior usage I refered to.
Click to expand...


and just whose ass do you claim I am kissing ?-pretty questionable accusation to be making out of the blue -----


----------



## Luddly Neddite

BluesMistress said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, heaven forbid people talking about things ever bother studying them. You must be a Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, how does education "justify" anything at all?
> 
> I am continually surprised at the ignorance from the right. Simply put, not all sex is about sex and not all porn is bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may not be about sex to the rapist but *it sure is hell is about sex to the victim. Enough to change the woman and children sex lives forever. *
> Children are now viciously raping other children on the school bus. Where are the learning this stuff. Movies, games and porn in the web???
Click to expand...


I agree but that's not what I said.


----------



## Howey

Pornographic is sooo underrated compared to the real thing.

As far as children?  Like sex, we shouldn't shield them from reality, but have a rational discussion with them when the subject comes up.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

PixieStix said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know people addicted by porn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two kinds of addiction: physical and psychological. Physical's like heroin, cocaine, meth. Psychological addiction can be to anything including a glass of water. So in the sense than we can become psychologically addicted to anything, yes, porn is addictive. But not really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skimmed by this did ya?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-harm-children-who-view-it-2.html#post9562722
Click to expand...


Oh, and here I thought it'd be some silly pseudoscientific site. Glad to see it's totally reliable,
Brain Chemicals and Porn Addiction: Science Shows How Porn Harms Us

You're entitled to your opinions. I suppose, you're entitled to perpetuate nonsense too. But quackery is easy to refute, as are sites with bad science (like in previous discussions on the subject of 'do homosexuals make good parents?' and people citing 'evidence' they don't from similar religious websites and their sources for their positions which the scientific community have tossed out as invalid science.)

As to this subject, actual science as well as statistical analysis have PROVEN time and time again, that pornography availability LOWERS sexual crimes. Bans of it results in INCREASED sex crimes. 

Can link to some bs fundy site all you like, but when people go to them and see sections "banning porn and lust" or w/e it said they'll know it's not a site to put any faith in (pun intended.)


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Howey said:


> Pornographic is sooo underrated compared to the real thing.
> 
> As far as children?  Like sex, we shouldn't shield them from reality, but have a rational discussion with them when the subject comes up.



Have enjoyed both and I gotta say, no one ever got HIV from porn.


----------



## dilloduck

Delta4Embassy said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pornographic is sooo underrated compared to the real thing.
> 
> As far as children?  Like sex, we shouldn't shield them from reality, but have a rational discussion with them when the subject comes up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have enjoyed both and I gotta say, no one ever got HIV from porn.
Click to expand...


Ass kissing  ??


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pornographic is sooo underrated compared to the real thing.
> 
> As far as children?  Like sex, we shouldn't shield them from reality, but have a rational discussion with them when the subject comes up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have enjoyed both and I gotta say, *no one ever got HIV from porn*.
Click to expand...


Not even the ones in the porn? Are you kidding me? You only think about porn as what it does for you and what it does not do to you? Typical liberal thinking. Selfish...............


----------



## PixieStix

dilloduck said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL kissing ass ?  It's your quote !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which you misrepresented out of context to the prior usage I refered to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and just whose ass do you claim I am kissing ?-pretty questionable accusation to be making out of the blue -----
Click to expand...


It is a liberal tactic, when someone asks questions that they cannot answer. They become defensive and project


----------



## Delta4Embassy

BluesMistress said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, heaven forbid people talking about things ever bother studying them. You must be a Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, how does education "justify" anything at all?
> 
> I am continually surprised at the ignorance from the right. Simply put, not all sex is about sex and not all porn is bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may not be about sex to the rapist but it sure is hell is about sex to the victim. Enough to change the woman and children sex lives forever.
> Children are now viciously raping other children on the school bus. Where are the learning this stuff. Movies, games and porn in the web???
Click to expand...


That the victim's think of it as sex is unfortunate. This issue comes up in religious circles when people get raped too. Those who place great value on their virginity worrying if they're raped they're no longer virgins to which I've always counselled, 

"Virginity is not a matter of your hymen being intact. A woman's hymen breaks down with time naturally as she goes through puberty and her body begins producing estrogen thinning the hymen's membrane. In time it disappears by itself. Thus having it punctured by rape doesn't mean you're not a virgin any longer. Virgininty can only be given away, not taken."

Thus likening rape to a sexual act like consensual intercourse isn't how we should be thinking of it.


----------



## dilloduck

Delta4Embassy said:


> BluesMistress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, how does education "justify" anything at all?
> 
> I am continually surprised at the ignorance from the right. Simply put, not all sex is about sex and not all porn is bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may not be about sex to the rapist but it sure is hell is about sex to the victim. Enough to change the woman and children sex lives forever.
> Children are now viciously raping other children on the school bus. Where are the learning this stuff. Movies, games and porn in the web???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the victim's think of it as sex is unfortunate. This issue comes up in religious circles when people get raped too. Those who place great value on their virginity worrying if they're raped they're no longer virgins to which I've always counselled,
> 
> "Virginity is not a matter of your hymen being intact. A woman's hymen breaks down with time naturally as she goes through puberty and her body begins producing estrogen thinning the hymen's membrane. In time it disappears by itself. Thus having it punctured by rape doesn't mean you're not a virgin any longer. Virgininty can only be given away, not taken."
> 
> Thus likening rape to a sexual act like consensual intercourse isn't how we should be thinking of it.
Click to expand...


No one is likening the rape to consensual intercourse you fool.


----------



## Rikurzhen

What people don't pay much attention to is that the rise of porn has occurred at the same time that women have been "liberated."

Is this correlation mere coincidence or are the two linked together causally?

I'm inclined towards the causal model. More male losers in the mating game, especially as the period of singlehood has been expanded. With more male losers we see a rise in porn consumption as a substitute for women.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

PixieStix said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pornographic is sooo underrated compared to the real thing.
> 
> As far as children?  Like sex, we shouldn't shield them from reality, but have a rational discussion with them when the subject comes up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have enjoyed both and I gotta say, *no one ever got HIV from porn*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even the ones in the porn? Are you kidding me? You only think about porn as what it does for you and what it does not do to you? Typical liberal thinking. Selfish...............
Click to expand...


Thought the masturbation reference was obvious. 

As my posts about being against abortion, pro death penalty, and other things should indicate, I'm not a liberal. Or if I am, I'm not a very good liberal.  But of course, attempting to discredit people smarter than you by calling them liberal and hoping no one knows better is a pitiful tactic used by stupid people often.


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> BluesMistress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, how does education "justify" anything at all?
> 
> I am continually surprised at the ignorance from the right. Simply put, not all sex is about sex and not all porn is bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may not be about sex to the rapist but it sure is hell is about sex to the victim. Enough to change the woman and children sex lives forever.
> Children are now viciously raping other children on the school bus. Where are the learning this stuff. Movies, games and porn in the web???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the victim's think of it as sex is unfortunate. This issue comes up in religious circles when people get raped too. Those who place great value on their virginity worrying if they're raped they're no longer virgins to which I've always counselled,
> 
> "Virginity is not a matter of your hymen being intact. A woman's hymen breaks down with time naturally as she goes through puberty and her body begins producing estrogen thinning the hymen's membrane. In time it disappears by itself. Thus having it punctured by rape doesn't mean you're not a virgin any longer. Virgininty can only be given away, not taken."
> 
> Thus likening rape to a sexual act like consensual intercourse isn't how we should be thinking of it.
Click to expand...


Well, that is just dumb. Your argument is slowly disappearing by itself


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Rikurzhen said:


> What people don't pay much attention to is that the rise of porn has occurred at the same time that women have been "liberated."
> 
> Is this correlation mere coincidence or are the two linked together causally?
> 
> I'm inclined towards the causal model. More male losers in the mating game, especially as the period of singlehood has been expanded. With more male losers we see a rise in porn consumption as a substitute for women.



'Rise of porn...' Goes back to ancient times as evidenced by uncovered murals at Pompei. To say nothing of even older cave paintings by 'cavemen' and in ancient Egypt as well. Porn isn't new. VCRs are.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

PixieStix said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesMistress said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may not be about sex to the rapist but it sure is hell is about sex to the victim. Enough to change the woman and children sex lives forever.
> Children are now viciously raping other children on the school bus. Where are the learning this stuff. Movies, games and porn in the web???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the victim's think of it as sex is unfortunate. This issue comes up in religious circles when people get raped too. Those who place great value on their virginity worrying if they're raped they're no longer virgins to which I've always counselled,
> 
> "Virginity is not a matter of your hymen being intact. A woman's hymen breaks down with time naturally as she goes through puberty and her body begins producing estrogen thinning the hymen's membrane. In time it disappears by itself. Thus having it punctured by rape doesn't mean you're not a virgin any longer. Virgininty can only be given away, not taken."
> 
> Thus likening rape to a sexual act like consensual intercourse isn't how we should be thinking of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that is just dumb. Your argument is slowly disappearing by itself
Click to expand...


Dumb? So you agree with Sharia Law that a raped woman should be punished for being raped?


----------



## dilloduck

Delta4Embassy said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> What people don't pay much attention to is that the rise of porn has occurred at the same time that women have been "liberated."
> 
> Is this correlation mere coincidence or are the two linked together causally?
> 
> I'm inclined towards the causal model. More male losers in the mating game, especially as the period of singlehood has been expanded. With more male losers we see a rise in porn consumption as a substitute for women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Rise of porn...' Goes back to ancient times as evidenced by uncovered murals at Pompei. To say nothing of even older cave paintings by 'cavemen' and in ancient Egypt as well. Porn isn't new. VCRs are.
Click to expand...


Rise--not invention------you're sinking quickly.


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy is just too smart for me. 

I get the eww factor in most of his threads


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the victim's think of it as sex is unfortunate. This issue comes up in religious circles when people get raped too. Those who place great value on their virginity worrying if they're raped they're no longer virgins to which I've always counselled,
> 
> "Virginity is not a matter of your hymen being intact. A woman's hymen breaks down with time naturally as she goes through puberty and her body begins producing estrogen thinning the hymen's membrane. In time it disappears by itself. Thus having it punctured by rape doesn't mean you're not a virgin any longer. Virgininty can only be given away, not taken."
> 
> Thus likening rape to a sexual act like consensual intercourse isn't how we should be thinking of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that is just dumb. Your argument is slowly disappearing by itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb? So you agree with Sharia Law that a raped woman should be punished for being raped?
Click to expand...


Where did I say anything remotely like that? Are you also insane, as well as a master of diversion... you mad bro?


----------



## dilloduck

PixieStix said:


> Delta4Embassy is just too smart for me.
> 
> I get the eww factor in most of his threads



I'm outta here---doesnt' know what he's talking about and I hate to see people squirm.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

PixieStix said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that is just dumb. Your argument is slowly disappearing by itself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb? So you agree with Sharia Law that a raped woman should be punished for being raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything remotely like that? Are you also insane, as well as a master of diversion... you mad bro?
Click to expand...


I don't get mad discussing this topic. Other topics like Israel might get a my heart beating faster, but not this.

Saying that not thinking of rape as a sexual act as I demonstrated is "dumb" means you're taking the opposite position, that it is. Which according to Islamic Law means the victim is guilty of adultery and could be executed for it. 

And yes, I'm WAY smarder than you.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

dilloduck said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy is just too smart for me.
> 
> I get the eww factor in most of his threads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm outta here---doesnt' know what he's talking about and I hate to see people squirm.
Click to expand...


It's a wise opponent who knows when to throw in the towel.


----------



## dilloduck

Delta4Embassy said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy is just too smart for me.
> 
> I get the eww factor in most of his threads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm outta here---doesnt' know what he's talking about and I hate to see people squirm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a wise opponent who knows when to throw in the towel.
Click to expand...


unfortunately you missed your chance a long time ago.


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb? So you agree with Sharia Law that a raped woman should be punished for being raped?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything remotely like that? Are you also insane, as well as a master of diversion... you mad bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get mad discussing this topic. Other topics like Israel might get a my heart beating faster, but not this.
> 
> Saying that not thinking of rape as a sexual act as I demonstrated is "dumb" means you're taking the opposite position, that it is. Which according to Islamic Law means the victim is guilty of adultery and could be executed for it.
> 
> And yes, I'm WAY smarder than you.
Click to expand...


Oh goody, and a narcissist too


----------



## dblack

Delta4Embassy said:


> Prove why not.
> 
> Porn isn't addictive.
> 
> True.



Sex is an incredibly powerful force in society. Giving a child access to this kind of power, before they are mature enough to handle it, and understand what it means, is dangerous in my view. It's little like letting kids play with guns.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

PixieStix said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything remotely like that? Are you also insane, as well as a master of diversion... you mad bro?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get mad discussing this topic. Other topics like Israel might get a my heart beating faster, but not this.
> 
> Saying that not thinking of rape as a sexual act as I demonstrated is "dumb" means you're taking the opposite position, that it is. Which according to Islamic Law means the victim is guilty of adultery and could be executed for it.
> 
> And yes, I'm WAY smarder than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goody, and a narcissist too
Click to expand...


Nah. Not this month at least.  Not shaving or cutting my hair though I badly need to do both. Rapidly taking on the visage of (as my brother has remarked) Ted Kozinsky <sp> The Unabomber. (when they caught him anyway)

Besides, I know how to swim. ...Nacissus reference.


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get mad discussing this topic. Other topics like Israel might get a my heart beating faster, but not this.
> 
> Saying that not thinking of rape as a sexual act as I demonstrated is "dumb" means you're taking the opposite position, that it is. Which according to Islamic Law means the victim is guilty of adultery and could be executed for it.
> 
> And yes, I'm WAY smarder than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody, and a narcissist too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah. Not this month at least.  Not shaving or cutting my hair though I badly need to do both. Rapidly taking on the visage of (as my brother has remarked) Ted Kozinsky <sp> The Unabomber. (when they caught him anyway)
> 
> Besides, I know how to swim. ...Nacissus reference.
Click to expand...


Why? You waiting to be caught for something?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

dblack said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove why not.
> 
> Porn isn't addictive.
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is an incredibly powerful force in society. Giving a child access to this kind of power, before they are mature enough to handle it, and understand what it means, is dangerous in my view. It's little like letting kids play with guns.
Click to expand...


Valid opinion, and in societies/cultures decidely anti-sexed like our's I'd agree with it. But in those where the human body isn't seen as sinful in its' naked and natural form, and sex isn't considered sinful I don't think the same is true. 

So long as we continue our Puritanical roots, what's true in other cultures will never be true in our own.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

PixieStix said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody, and a narcissist too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. Not this month at least.  Not shaving or cutting my hair though I badly need to do both. Rapidly taking on the visage of (as my brother has remarked) Ted Kozinsky <sp> The Unabomber. (when they caught him anyway)
> 
> Besides, I know how to swim. ...Nacissus reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? You waiting to be caught for something?
Click to expand...


No..(raises finger to point at head wondering if he's being messed with) It's because of my hair?


----------



## Inevitable

dilloduck said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crimes are not "sexual".
> 
> Actually, just the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crime refers to assaults (violence) directed specificly at parts of the body assiciated with sexual behaviours. They aren't 'sexual acts,' they're simply being directed at the genitals, buttocks, and female breasts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong----a sex crime does not have to involve assault --educate yourself.
Click to expand...

Yes they do.


----------



## Inevitable

Delta4Embassy said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. Not this month at least.  Not shaving or cutting my hair though I badly need to do both. Rapidly taking on the visage of (as my brother has remarked) Ted Kozinsky <sp> The Unabomber. (when they caught him anyway)
> 
> Besides, I know how to swim. ...Nacissus reference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You waiting to be caught for something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No..(raises finger to point at head wondering if he's being messed with) It's because of my hair?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is much value in discussing such things with pixistix. He/she has already stated that she believes sex crimes are mostly about the sex.


----------



## Inevitable

If rape was about sex why wouldn't everybody rape somebody? We all like having sex right?


----------



## Rikurzhen

Inevitable said:


> If rape was about sex why wouldn't everybody rape somebody? We all like having sex right?



If rape is about violence, then why bother with the rape at all when a punch in the face is far more efficient at expressing the violence?

If rape isn't about sex then why are the targets of rape all women who are in the prime of their sexual attractiveness rather than women who are older, more powerful and in positions to piss people off?

How much societal aggravation do 16 year old girls cause compared to professional harridan feminists?


----------



## Inevitable

Rikurzhen said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> If rape was about sex why wouldn't everybody rape somebody? We all like having sex right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If rape is about violence, then why bother with the rape at all when a punch in the face is far more efficient at expressing the violence?
> 
> If rape isn't about sex then why are the targets of rape all women who are in the prime of their sexual attractiveness rather than women who are older, more powerful and in positions to piss people off?
> 
> How much societal aggravation do 16 year old girls cause compared to professional harridan feminists?
Click to expand...

Tu quoque fallacy. Avoiding my criticism by posting criticism.

Sorry, this is a logical fallacy and hasno relevance to my post.


----------



## Rikurzhen

Inevitable said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> If rape was about sex why wouldn't everybody rape somebody? We all like having sex right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If rape is about violence, then why bother with the rape at all when a punch in the face is far more efficient at expressing the violence?
> 
> If rape isn't about sex then why are the targets of rape all women who are in the prime of their sexual attractiveness rather than women who are older, more powerful and in positions to piss people off?
> 
> How much societal aggravation do 16 year old girls cause compared to professional harridan feminists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tu quoque fallacy. Avoiding my criticism by posting criticism.
> 
> Sorry, this is a logical fallacy and hasno relevance to my post.
Click to expand...


People don't rape each other because sex involves mutual consent. Rape can be about sex and not caring about consent. 

Commerce is about the trade of money for goods/services. Theft is about the taking of goods/services without bothering to pay. At the heart of both activities are goods/services. 

A customers wants goods/services. A thief wants goods/services. A man wants sex. A rapist wants sex. A customer pays for goods/services, a thief doesn't. A man acquires consent to sex, a rapist doesn't.

To say that rape is motivated by violence tees up the question of why the rapist, motivated by violence, bothers with rape instead of a more clear-cut expression of violence?


----------



## Chuckt

Luddly Neddite said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove why not.
> 
> Porn isn't addictive.
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know people addicted by porn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not follow that all who look at porn are addicted.
Click to expand...


Define addiction.  Psychiatry defines alcoholics as anyone who has one drink as being an alcoholic.


----------



## Chuckt

Howey said:


> Pornographic is sooo underrated compared to the real thing.
> 
> As far as children?  Like sex, we shouldn't shield them from reality, but have a rational discussion with them when the subject comes up.



Like most people would date a porn star?


----------



## Chuckt

Delta4Embassy said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two kinds of addiction: physical and psychological. Physical's like heroin, cocaine, meth. Psychological addiction can be to anything including a glass of water. So in the sense than we can become psychologically addicted to anything, yes, porn is addictive. But not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skimmed by this did ya?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-harm-children-who-view-it-2.html#post9562722
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and here I thought it'd be some silly pseudoscientific site. Glad to see it's totally reliable,
> Brain Chemicals and Porn Addiction: Science Shows How Porn Harms Us
> 
> You're entitled to your opinions. I suppose, you're entitled to perpetuate nonsense too. But quackery is easy to refute, as are sites with bad science (like in previous discussions on the subject of 'do homosexuals make good parents?' and people citing 'evidence' they don't from similar religious websites and their sources for their positions which the scientific community have tossed out as invalid science.)
> 
> As to this subject, actual science as well as statistical analysis have PROVEN time and time again, that pornography availability LOWERS sexual crimes. Bans of it results in INCREASED sex crimes.
Click to expand...


If bans of it results in increased sex crimes then that should tell you that porn is addicting.


----------



## Chuckt

Delta4Embassy said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pornographic is sooo underrated compared to the real thing.
> 
> As far as children?  Like sex, we shouldn't shield them from reality, but have a rational discussion with them when the subject comes up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have enjoyed both and I gotta say, no one ever got HIV from porn.
Click to expand...


50 Shades of Grey library book tests positive for HERPES and COCAINE | Mail Online


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> No.
> 
> Google and read any and every .edu site with a paper about it to your heart's content. Been studying the question for decades and the even the Reagan Administration studied the question, came back with "no" and let the matter drop (silently not publishing the results either by the by.)
> 
> Just as violent movies and videogames doesn't then translate into real-world acting out of violent fantasies (as evidenced by such content availability in other countries,) pornography doesn't then result in minors acting out what they saw. Will always be able to find a news item suggesting otherwise, but this is not scientificly valid so much as sensationalism and fear-mongering.
> 
> "Research shows that healthy sexual development includes natural curiosity about sexuality. Retrospective studies show that accidental exposure to real-life scenes of sexuality does not harm children. Our survey shows that age of first exposure to pornography does not correlate with negative attitudes towards women. Studies with non-explicit representations of sexuality show that young people who seek out sexualised representations tend to be those with a pre-existing interest in sexuality. *These studies also suggest that current generations of children are no more sexualised than previous generations, that they are not innocent about sexuality, and that a key negative effect of this knowledge is the requirement for them to feign ignorance in order to satisfy adults expectations of them.* Research also suggests important differences between pre- and post-pubescent attitudes towards pornography, and that pornography is not addictive."
> Does pornography harm young people? | QUT ePrints
> 
> "A vocal segment of the population has serious concerns about the effect of pornography in society and challenges its public use and acceptance. This manuscript reviews the major issues associated with the availability of sexually explicit material. *It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.*"
> Pacific Center for Sex and Society - Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review
> 
> "Most of the recent studies in this field have been correlational. That means you ask a sample of young people whether they've seen pornography, or how often, and then ask them what they think of sex or gender role attitudes, for example.
> 
> *But it is not possible to establish causation from correlational studies, and to say whether pornography is changing or reinforcing attitudes.*
> 
> "That is the real next step that research needs to take," says Horvath, "to try to identify which came first.""
> BBC News - Do we know whether pornography harms people?
> 
> Thta's the most important part above, 'it's not possible to establish causation from correlation.' Ethics limit what you can investigate as in you can't expose subjects to particularly violent pornography tosee if it harms them, because what if it does? So you can't scientificly investigate whether porn harms children because to find out you have to expose potentially harmful things to children. Catch-22.
> 
> What we can and have discovered if where porn is widely available, sex crimes go down. Where porn is banned and restricted it goes up. When children are raised in nudist enviroments, they don't suffer the same stress over their developing bodies as their clothes-wearing counterparts.
> 
> I get people here will opt to make political hay out of this on both sides of the poltical divide while choosing to ignore the research and facts, this is not for them but people more interested in being right than popular.








Yes, it does.  Demonstrably so.  In fact it is one of the tactics that pedophiles use to try and abuse the children who are unfortunately their target.  It is called "sexualizing children" and it is a crime for a reason.


----------



## Inevitable

Rikurzhen said:


> People don't rape each other because sex involves mutual consent. Rape can be about sex and not caring about consent.


Or sexual assault is normally fixated on there being no consent. 



> Commerce is about the trade of money for goods/services. Theft is about the taking of goods/services without bothering to pay. At the heart of both activities are goods/services.
> 
> A customers wants goods/services. A thief wants goods/services. A man wants sex. A rapist wants sex. A customer pays for goods/services, a thief doesn't. A man acquires consent to sex, a rapist doesn't.


So explain why they have a fixation on nit having consent or do you believe that every man is simply a rapist that found consent?

[QUOT]To say that rape is motivated by violence tees up the question of why the rapist, motivated by violence, bothers with rape instead of a more clear-cut expression of violence?[/QUOTE]That really begs the question. If sexual assault was motivated by sex why aren't we all "rapists?'

Why couldn't a rapist simply find someone willing, there are plenty out there.

Psychologists analyze this. Most of them agree it's about power and control. Hence people that commit sexual assault aren't interested in being given control they are interested in taking control. In many cases it's about dominance and even initiation rights.


----------



## Rikurzhen

Inevitable said:


> Psychologists analyze this. Most of them agree it's about power and control.



What you're seeing there is motivated reasoning. 



> Hence people that commit sexual assault aren't interested in being given control they are interested in taking control. In many cases it's about dominance and even initiation rights.



So all of those rapes against 16-19 year old women are committed by boys focused on "taking control" but this outlook on life evaporates as they mature? Or something?

Your hypothesis doesn't align with the facts. We understand that young men are horn-dogs. You ignore that and paint them as warriors interesting in suppressing women. That's a battlecry that resonates with feminists whose entire raison d'être is to advance the notion that modernity is about misogyny and just coincidentally, young men are the most aggressive believers in suppressing women's power, they really don't want to hear women roar, and so they rape them to inflict violence on them or something. This is all a very convoluted explanation because it's not resonant with the facts on the ground.


----------



## Inevitable

Rikurzhen said:


> What you're seeing there is motivated reasoning.


Or a fixation.



> So all of those rapes against 16-19 year old women are committed by boys focused on "taking control" but this outlook on life evaporates as they mature? Or something?


You are going to have to be more specific.



> Your hypothesis doesn't align with the facts. We understand that young men are horn-dogs.


So why don't they all commit sexual assaults?


> You ignore that and paint them as warriors interesting in suppressing women. That's a battlecry that resonates with feminists whose entire raison d'être is to advance the notion that modernity is about misogyny and just coincidentally, young men are the most aggressive believers in suppressing women's power, they really don't want to hear women roar, and so they rape them to inflict violence on them or something. This is all a very convoluted explanation because it's not resonant with the facts on the ground.


I Agree, your link to some political partisan garbage is just that.

It isn't about feminism, or politics, it's about reality. I am sorry it resonates with feminists and that gives you some unknown issue.

Why do you seek out some political agenda in reality? It simply isn't there.

If rape was about sex, there is an extremely simple solution. Masturbate, find someone that will consent. I think it's a fixation, and that is pretty much what the psychological world has concluded.


----------



## Chuckt

Delta4Embassy said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Porn has no redeeming social value and is nothing more than smut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So everywhere that had bans on porn, then legalized it and saw drops in sex-crimes were flukes?
> 
> Legalizing pornography: Lower sex crime rates? Study carried out in Czech Republic shows results similar to those in Japan and Denmark -- ScienceDaily
> 
> "Could legalizing pornography legal lead to lower rates of sex crimes? A new study tackles this controversial question. Results from the Czech Republic showed that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. In addition, the study finds that the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible."
> 
> And conversely, everywhere that had porn widely available, then banned it saw rises in sex crimes like in Denmark in the 70s.
Click to expand...


Children can't consent.  It is illegal.


----------



## DriftingSand

Zmrzlina said:


> For many young men and women, pornography is their first exposure to sexuality and will form their opinions considering intimacy.  This is not a reason for any sort of additional legislation but perhaps parents should be teaching young adults what to expect from a healthy relationship instead of having them gain misinformation from their peers and pornography.



Yup. Moral parents are a child's first line of defense against a depraved world.  We have to learn to be in the world but not of the world.  We won't be able to shield kids from all evil but we can teach them how to deal with it and overcome it.  Less TV and more Bible time with the family.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Howey said:


> Pornographic is sooo underrated compared to the real thing.
> 
> As far as children?  Like sex, we shouldn't shield them from reality, but have a rational discussion with them when the subject comes up.



Agree but look at the backward attitude we see here. People can't even talk rationally here and actually believe that porn causes HIV. 

It always amazes me to see how ignorant and afraid of sex people are.


----------



## DriftingSand

> Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?



Absolutely!!!  A child should have the right to maintain his or her innocence for as long as possible.  We don't give kids booze, cigarettes, mind-altering drugs, etc.  I think a person would be better off in the long run if he or she NEVER watched porn even as an adult.  I won't say that I've never watched it but it has always affected my conscience in an adverse way. I feel guilty.  I also believe that the porn industry exploits young individuals who are down and out.  It's the truly ugly side of Capitalism.  I believe in the Free Market but not at the expense of a person's soul.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Rikurzhen said:


> What people don't pay much attention to is that the rise of porn has occurred at the same time that women have been "liberated."
> 
> Is this correlation mere coincidence or are the two linked together causally?
> 
> I'm inclined towards the causal model. More male losers in the mating game, especially as the period of singlehood has been expanded. With more male losers we see a rise in porn consumption as a substitute for women.



No. Porn is as old as sex and has been found in archeological digs going back to the beginning of humanity. As Delta said, porn has been found in the very earliest cave paintings and Egypitan digs. And look at what has bee found in Pompeii. 

Nor is porn for men only. Ancient dildos and  porn for women have been found by archeologists that are just as old as what has been found for men.


----------



## DriftingSand

By the way ... who in hell would even consider watching a porno with a child?  Why would anyone even consider the question in the first place?


----------



## dilloduck

Inevitable said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex crime refers to assaults (violence) directed specificly at parts of the body assiciated with sexual behaviours. They aren't 'sexual acts,' they're simply being directed at the genitals, buttocks, and female breasts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong----a sex crime does not have to involve assault --educate yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they do.
Click to expand...


Mere possession of child pornography is a sex crime.


----------



## DriftingSand

Luddly Neddite said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pornographic is sooo underrated compared to the real thing.
> 
> As far as children?  Like sex, we shouldn't shield them from reality, but have a rational discussion with them when the subject comes up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree but look at the backward attitude we see here. People can't even talk rationally here and actually believe that porn causes HIV.
> 
> It always amazes me to see how ignorant and afraid of sex people are.
Click to expand...


Are you basically saying that you would present porn to a child?  That is the topic of the OP and you do seem to be agreeable!!!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Rikurzhen said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> If rape was about sex why wouldn't everybody rape somebody? We all like having sex right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If rape is about violence, then why bother with the rape at all when a punch in the face is far more efficient at expressing the violence?
> 
> If rape isn't about sex then why are the targets of rape all women who are in the prime of their sexual attractiveness rather than women who are older, more powerful and in positions to piss people off?
> 
> How much societal aggravation do 16 year old girls cause compared to professional harridan feminists?
Click to expand...


Rape is about power. Not sex. 

Rapists target all sorts of victims of all ages and degrees of "attractiveness". Old women in wheelchairs are raped as well as prepubescent girls. 

"Feminism"  is a life philosophy, a belief that all people, male and female, are equal. Men can be and are "feminist", just as women can be and are.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Chuckt said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pornographic is sooo underrated compared to the real thing.
> 
> As far as children?  Like sex, we shouldn't shield them from reality, but have a rational discussion with them when the subject comes up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have enjoyed both and I gotta say, no one ever got HIV from porn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 Shades of Grey library book tests positive for HERPES and COCAINE | Mail Online
Click to expand...


And that proves what?

I've read that most of our paper money tests positive for cocaine. If true, it doesn't mean that we're all using cocaine.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Chuckt said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know people addicted by porn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does not follow that all who look at porn are addicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define addiction.  Psychiatry defines alcoholics as anyone who has one drink as being an alcoholic.
Click to expand...


I'm not a psychiatrist and you're a religious fanatic. 

That means neither of us is qualified to make psychiatric judgments.


----------



## dilloduck

Luddly Neddite said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> If rape was about sex why wouldn't everybody rape somebody? We all like having sex right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If rape is about violence, then why bother with the rape at all when a punch in the face is far more efficient at expressing the violence?
> 
> If rape isn't about sex then why are the targets of rape all women who are in the prime of their sexual attractiveness rather than women who are older, more powerful and in positions to piss people off?
> 
> How much societal aggravation do 16 year old girls cause compared to professional harridan feminists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rape is about power. Not sex.
> 
> Rapists target all sorts of victims of all ages and degrees of "attractiveness". Old women in wheelchairs are raped as well as prepubescent girls.
> 
> "Feminism"  is a life philosophy, a belief that all people, male and female, are equal. Men can be and are "feminist", just as women can be and are.
Click to expand...


Rape is about power AND sex. If no sexual contact is made it is an assault--not a rape.
Rape is forced sex without consent.
I dont' care how many times you try to attempt it you simply can't take the sex out of a sex crime. They call them sex offenders for a reason.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

DriftingSand said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pornographic is sooo underrated compared to the real thing.
> 
> As far as children?  Like sex, we shouldn't shield them from reality, but have a rational discussion with them when the subject comes up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree but look at the backward attitude we see here. People can't even talk rationally here and actually believe that porn causes HIV.
> 
> It always amazes me to see how ignorant and afraid of sex people are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you basically saying that you would present porn to a child?  That is the topic of the OP and you do seem to be agreeable!!!
Click to expand...

 [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION]

Leave it to a "christian" to introduce LIES about another poster.


----------



## Howey

Rikurzhen said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> If rape was about sex why wouldn't everybody rape somebody? We all like having sex right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If rape is about violence, then why bother with the rape at al when a punch in the face is far more efficient at expressing the violence?
> 
> If rape isn't about sex then why are the targets of rape all women who are in the prime of their sexual attractiveness rather than women who are older, more powerful and in positions to piss people off?
> 
> How much societal aggravation do 16 year old girls cause compared to professional harridan feminists?
Click to expand...


There are so many ignorant misconceptions in this post I don't know where to start. 

Do you really think only pretty young women get raped?


----------



## Pennywise

Porn is poison; it objectifies the human body, removing any sense of emotional attachment to the act of sex. Sex is not simply a physical exercise; it is a highly stimulative engagement that encompasses deep physical and emotional sensors.

Sex as sport destroys people, and the continued use of pornography as a stimulant dulls the senses, requiring greater and greater heights of debauchery to gain pleasure, and leads to deviant lifestyles and a perverse attitude about perversions. Break down the walls of decency, and nothing is off limits, including the sick notion of porn being good for kids.


----------



## Howey

Pennywise said:


> Porn is poison; it objectifies the human body, removing any sense of emotional attachment to the act of sex. Sex is not simply a physical exercise; it is a highly stimulative engagement that encompasses deep physical and emotional sensors.
> 
> Sex as sport destroys people, and the continued use of pornography as a stimulant dulls the senses, requiring greater and greater heights of debauchery to gain pleasure, and leads to deviant lifestyles and a perverse attitude about perversions. Break down the walls of decency, and nothing is off limits, including the sick notion of porn being good for kids.




Are you saying you never rubbed one off to the latest Playmate centerfold?


----------



## DriftingSand

Luddly Neddite said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree but look at the backward attitude we see here. People can't even talk rationally here and actually believe that porn causes HIV.
> 
> It always amazes me to see how ignorant and afraid of sex people are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you basically saying that you would present porn to a child?  That is the topic of the OP and you do seem to be agreeable!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION]
> 
> Leave it to a "christian" to introduce LIES about another poster.
Click to expand...


You equate a simple question to a "lie?"  The phrase "you seem" is a statement of fact?  You really are an idiot!


----------



## DriftingSand

Howey said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Porn is poison; it objectifies the human body, removing any sense of emotional attachment to the act of sex. Sex is not simply a physical exercise; it is a highly stimulative engagement that encompasses deep physical and emotional sensors.
> 
> Sex as sport destroys people, and the continued use of pornography as a stimulant dulls the senses, requiring greater and greater heights of debauchery to gain pleasure, and leads to deviant lifestyles and a perverse attitude about perversions. Break down the walls of decency, and nothing is off limits, including the sick notion of porn being good for kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you never rubbed one off to the latest Playmate centerfold?
Click to expand...


Have you?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

DriftingSand said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you basically saying that you would present porn to a child?  That is the topic of the OP and you do seem to be agreeable!!!
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION]
> 
> Leave it to a "christian" to introduce LIES about another poster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You equate a simple question to a "lie?"  The phrase "you seem" is a statement of fact?  You really are an idiot!
Click to expand...


This is what I hate about the phony christians here. They wave their bibles around but have no honesty and no integrity. 

Call this one out on a lie and, instead of doing the honorable thing - apologizing for his disgusting post - he resorts to name calling.


----------



## Chuckt

Luddly Neddite said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION]
> 
> Leave it to a "christian" to introduce LIES about another poster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You equate a simple question to a "lie?"  The phrase "you seem" is a statement of fact?  You really are an idiot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I hate about the phony christians here. They wave their bibles around but have no honesty and no integrity.
> 
> Call this one out on a lie and, instead of doing the honorable thing - apologizing for his disgusting post - he resorts to name calling.
Click to expand...


The standard is grace through faith which is the Biblical standard and not your standard.
Second, I didn't see a single thing wrong with what he said.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Chuckt said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> You equate a simple question to a "lie?"  The phrase "you seem" is a statement of fact?  You really are an idiot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I hate about the phony christians here. They wave their bibles around but have no honesty and no integrity.
> 
> Call this one out on a lie and, instead of doing the honorable thing - apologizing for his disgusting post - he resorts to name calling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The standard is grace through faith which is the Biblical standard and not your standard.
> Second, I didn't see a single thing wrong with what he said.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what your bible stuff is saying and, since I live in the real world, I don't really care.

You're just as lacking in basic honesty and integrity so of course you don't see anything wrong with hinting that I'm a pedophile/child predator. 

Why is it that "christians" think that when it comes to basic human decency, they should get a pass? They'll rant and rave about how holier than thou they are and then, in a different thread, they'll call for the death of child refugees. 

I am so proud that I'm not one of them.


----------



## Howey

DriftingSand said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Porn is poison; it objectifies the human body, removing any sense of emotional attachment to the act of sex. Sex is not simply a physical exercise; it is a highly stimulative engagement that encompasses deep physical and emotional sensors.
> 
> Sex as sport destroys people, and the continued use of pornography as a stimulant dulls the senses, requiring greater and greater heights of debauchery to gain pleasure, and leads to deviant lifestyles and a perverse attitude about perversions. Break down the walls of decency, and nothing is off limits, including the sick notion of porn being good for kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you never rubbed one off to the latest Playmate centerfold?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you?
Click to expand...


no.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

Pennywise said:


> Porn is poison; it objectifies the human body, removing any sense of emotional attachment to the act of sex. Sex is not simply a physical exercise; it is a highly stimulative engagement that encompasses deep physical and emotional sensors.
> 
> Sex as sport destroys people, and the continued use of pornography as a stimulant dulls the senses, requiring greater and greater heights of debauchery to gain pleasure, and leads to deviant lifestyles and a perverse attitude about perversions. Break down the walls of decency, and nothing is off limits, including the sick notion of porn being good for kids.




Why do people believe that sex must always be about "emotional attachment" rather than something to be used to for physical pleasure?

Only an ignorant, indoctrinated fool believes that they "have to love" every person they choose to fuck.  So many extremely stimulating and exciting sensations can be experienced through sex... and many are more enjoyable when you do not "love" the person you are sexually exploring with.

What is "wrong" with indulging in sex?  Nothing.  

What is "wrong" with a "deviant" sexual lifestyle?  Nothing.

What is "wrong" with "breaking down the walls of decency", and acting as though "nothing is off limits"?  

Nothing.  

How else can a human expect to truly understand what freedom is?  

True freedom is unattainable.  But we can take for ourselves what freedoms are possible for us... even if it is frowned upon by society.  Even if it is against the law.  Even if it is forbidden by religion.

Porn is not "good" for kids and it is not "bad" for them either.  Always in black and white it must be for you people.  

Use your own judgement.  Do what you Will, but be mindful of the potential consequences of your actions.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Chuckt said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Skimmed by this did ya?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-harm-children-who-view-it-2.html#post9562722
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and here I thought it'd be some silly pseudoscientific site. Glad to see it's totally reliable,
> Brain Chemicals and Porn Addiction: Science Shows How Porn Harms Us
> 
> You're entitled to your opinions. I suppose, you're entitled to perpetuate nonsense too. But quackery is easy to refute, as are sites with bad science (like in previous discussions on the subject of 'do homosexuals make good parents?' and people citing 'evidence' they don't from similar religious websites and their sources for their positions which the scientific community have tossed out as invalid science.)
> 
> As to this subject, actual science as well as statistical analysis have PROVEN time and time again, that pornography availability LOWERS sexual crimes. Bans of it results in INCREASED sex crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If bans of it results in increased sex crimes then that should tell you that porn is addicting.
Click to expand...


Faulty logic. It's more like when people can't enduldge their fantasies via porn and masturbation, they seek the real thing. 

In Denmark in the mid 70s full blown child pornography was legal. Once it got banned, sex crimes against children spiked upwards.


----------



## Chuckt

Goddess_Ashtara said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Porn is poison; it objectifies the human body, removing any sense of emotional attachment to the act of sex. Sex is not simply a physical exercise; it is a highly stimulative engagement that encompasses deep physical and emotional sensors.
> 
> Sex as sport destroys people, and the continued use of pornography as a stimulant dulls the senses, requiring greater and greater heights of debauchery to gain pleasure, and leads to deviant lifestyles and a perverse attitude about perversions. Break down the walls of decency, and nothing is off limits, including the sick notion of porn being good for kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people believe that sex must always be about "emotional attachment" rather than something to be used to for physical pleasure?
> 
> Only an ignorant, indoctrinated fool believes that they "have to love" every person they choose to fuck.  So many extremely stimulating and exciting sensations can be experienced through sex... and many are more enjoyable when you do not "love" the person you are sexually exploring with.
Click to expand...


What you are teaching yourselves and others is that you can get something for nothing from people.  I knew some women who said they couldn't do that to a guy (because there are emotional attachments) from sex.

When you have sex with someone and then meet that person who measures up to be a spouse, what happens if they never measure up sexually to those you messed with?  You end up either marrying or not marrying and damaging that person because he or she isn't enough sexually.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Pennywise said:


> Porn is poison; it objectifies the human body, removing any sense of emotional attachment to the act of sex. Sex is not simply a physical exercise; it is a highly stimulative engagement that encompasses deep physical and emotional sensors.
> 
> Sex as sport destroys people, and the continued use of pornography as a stimulant dulls the senses, requiring greater and greater heights of debauchery to gain pleasure, and leads to deviant lifestyles and a perverse attitude about perversions. Break down the walls of decency, and nothing is off limits, including the sick notion of porn being good for kids.



Facts don't support your assertions. In countries where sex is acceptable as pleasure, and porn isn't restricted (at least not to the extent it is here in the US,) porn doesn't have negative impacts or consequences. Quite the opposite. It results in people viewing one another as potential friends and lovers, not potential threats.

I study a great deal about the origin of violence and how sexuality plays a role in criminal behaviours. In cultures that celebrate sexuality instead of repressing it (like in the US) there's FAR less violent crime. More a country represses 'feel-good' activities like sex, the more violent they tend to be as evidenced by statistics. In other words, the most sexually liberal nations are also the least violent, whereas the most sexually repressive countries are also the most violent. 

Bit of a read, and this is actually the short verion of it, but,
Article: Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence

Shows how cultures which suppress/repress pleasure whether sexual or innocent physical contact are the most violent, and vice-versa.


----------



## Pennywise

You don't have to repress sexual pleasure, there is a time and place for it and it's a beautiful thing. I'm not much interested though in the ideas of a weirdo bisexual, thanks anyway.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Chuckt said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If bans of it results in increased sex crimes then that should tell you that porn is addicting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faulty logic. It's more like when people can't enduldge their fantasies via porn and masturbation, they seek the real thing.
> 
> In Denmark in the mid 70s full blown child pornography was legal. Once it got banned, sex crimes against children spiked upwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're an advocate of the illegal?
Click to expand...


Silly question. Of course I'm not. But if it were legal I wouldn't then be an advocate of something illegal. Get it?  Shoulda said 'immoral' or something like that.

I'm an advocate and proponent of whatever works. Banning pornograhy results in more, not less, sex crimes against women and children. So I'm naturally against that. Study after scientific study shows that making pornography available results in less sex crime. Insofar as child pornography goes by it's very nature it's victimizing children so that can't ever be 'good.' But with modern CGI, fake children can be depicted without involving actual people at all. If a pedophile can satisfy themselves via such media let them. Better that than having em perv kids in bathing suits and the like on so-called 'non-nude preteen' sites. Where such 'replacement stimulation' is available, sex crimes directed at children decline. If it works, do it. At least try it and watch the statistics, if they go down let it stand, if not re-ban it and come up with something else. But the current trend of restricting anything those in power don't like regardless of the facts and statistical evidence to the contrary is simply insuring more women and children become victims. The point's supposed to be reducing victimization and crime, not making more of it.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Chuckt said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If bans of it results in increased sex crimes then that should tell you that porn is addicting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faulty logic. It's more like when people can't enduldge their fantasies via porn and masturbation, they seek the real thing.
> 
> In Denmark in the mid 70s full blown child pornography was legal. Once it got banned, sex crimes against children spiked upwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're an advocate of the illegal?
Click to expand...


There it is again -

A really vile accusation couched as an innocent question. 

Are you going to accuse him of being a child predator too?


----------



## Wry Catcher

In my opinion porn is boring and much of it is more about power and control than about mutual pleasure and shared intimacy.  Of course, soap operas and much of what is on the TV (the truth be told much of what is posted on the USMB is boring, hackneyed and insipid). is boring too. 

Friends with benefits isn't just the stuff of fiction.  It's too bad the pious and usually self righteous hypocrites make sexual experience with a willing partner out to be 'sinful'.  It can be fun, educational and the stuff of long term non judgmental relationships. Even after the 'benefits' have ended, the intimacy - in the sexual sense have long past - and friendship can be lifelong even when both have married others and raised families.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Chuckt said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're an advocate of the illegal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly question. Of course I'm not. But if it were legal I wouldn't then be an advocate of something illegal. Get it?  Shoulda said 'immoral' or something like that.
> 
> I'm an advocate and proponent of whatever works. Banning pornograhy results in more, not less, sex crimes against women and children. So I'm naturally against that. Study after scientific study shows that making pornography available results in less sex crime. Insofar as child pornography goes by it's very nature it's victimizing children so that can't ever be 'good.' But with modern CGI, fake children can be depicted without involving actual people at all. If a pedophile can satisfy themselves via such media let them. Better that than having em perv kids in bathing suits and the like on so-called 'non-nude preteen' sites. Where such 'replacement stimulation' is available, sex crimes directed at children decline. If it works, do it. At least try it and watch the statistics, if they go down let it stand, if not re-ban it and come up with something else. But the current trend of restricting anything those in power don't like regardless of the facts and statistical evidence to the contrary is simply insuring more women and children become victims. The point's supposed to be reducing victimization and crime, not making more of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you going to become a sex offender because you aren't getting that which is illegal?
Click to expand...


You really are the lowest kind of scum.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

GreenBean said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Porn is poison; it objectifies the human body, removing any sense of emotional attachment to the act of sex. Sex is not simply a physical exercise; it is a highly stimulative engagement that encompasses deep physical and emotional sensors.
> 
> Sex as sport destroys people, and the continued use of pornography as a stimulant dulls the senses, requiring greater and greater heights of debauchery to gain pleasure, and leads to deviant lifestyles and a perverse attitude about perversions. Break down the walls of decency, and nothing is off limits, including the sick notion of porn being good for kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts don't support your assertions. In countries where sex is acceptable as pleasure, and porn isn't restricted (at least not to the extent it is here in the US,) porn doesn't have negative impacts or consequences. Quite the opposite. It results in people viewing one another as potential friends and lovers, not potential threats.
> 
> I study a great deal about the origin of violence and how sexuality plays a role in criminal behaviours. In cultures that celebrate sexuality instead of repressing it (like in the US) there's FAR less violent crime. More a country represses 'feel-good' activities like sex, the more violent they tend to be as evidenced by statistics. In other words, the most sexually liberal nations are also the least violent, whereas the most sexually repressive countries are also the most violent.
> 
> Bit of a read, and this is actually the short verion of it, but,
> Article: Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence
> 
> Shows how cultures which suppress/repress pleasure whether sexual or innocent physical contact are the most violent, and vice-versa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4:  In countries where sex is acceptable as pleasure, and porn isn't restricted (at least not to the extent it is here in the US,) porn doesn't have negative impacts or consequences. Quite the opposite. It results in people viewing one another as potential friends and lovers, not potential threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Mean like in the Afghanistan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means "boy player." The men like to boast about it.  ...... Addressing the loathsome mistreatment of Afghan women remains a primary goal for coalition governments, as it should be. ................But what about the boys, thousands upon thousands of little boys who are victims of serial rape over many years, destroying their lives - and Afghan society........ Cardinalli said. "I'm continually haunted by what I saw." .... As one boy, in tow of a man he called "my lord," told the Reuters reporter: "Once I grow up, I will be an owner, and I will have my own boys."
> 
> 
> Afghanistan's dirty little secret - SFGate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Just Curious Delta - you claim to have a military background - is that correct ?  Did you ever serve in Afghanistan ?*
Click to expand...


Afganistan was after my stint in the US Navy.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Luddly Neddite said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faulty logic. It's more like when people can't enduldge their fantasies via porn and masturbation, they seek the real thing.
> 
> In Denmark in the mid 70s full blown child pornography was legal. Once it got banned, sex crimes against children spiked upwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're an advocate of the illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There it is again -
> 
> A really vile accusation couched as an innocent question.
> 
> Are you going to accuse him of being a child predator too?
Click to expand...


It's ok, not like I expected a meeting of the minds or anything online. But I always hope what people read from me will worm its' way into their minds and they'll then spend some time thinking of things in new ways. 

Could just accept things and not bother, but then I'd feel guilty for not doing what I could. 

Prolly knows better than level accusations overtly, seem to recall something about that in the Rules.  ...Oh! Unless you were trying tog et him to break it?


----------



## DriftingSand

Luddly Neddite said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION]
> 
> Leave it to a "christian" to introduce LIES about another poster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You equate a simple question to a "lie?"  The phrase "you seem" is a statement of fact?  You really are an idiot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I hate about the phony christians here. They wave their bibles around but have no honesty and no integrity.
> 
> Call this one out on a lie and, instead of doing the honorable thing - apologizing for his disgusting post - he resorts to name calling.
Click to expand...


Interestingly, you didn't deny my initial inquiry.  All I'm saying is that your posts SEEM (look the word up) to indicate that you are in agreement with the OP.  If you are then there's something wrong with you.  If not ... then there's hope.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Delta4Embassy said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're an advocate of the illegal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is again -
> 
> A really vile accusation couched as an innocent question.
> 
> Are you going to accuse him of being a child predator too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's ok, not like I expected a meeting of the minds or anything online. But I always hope what people read from me will worm its' way into their minds and they'll then spend some time thinking of things in new ways.
> 
> Could just accept things and not bother, but then I'd feel guilty for not doing what I could.
> 
> Prolly knows better than level accusations overtly, seem to recall something about that in the Rules.  ...Oh! Unless you were trying tog et him to break it?
Click to expand...


They both have already broken the rules. They did that with their first accusation. Just below your post, notice how Drifting Sand does it again with his nasty little inference that since I didn't say what he thinks I should have, I'm guilty of something.

This is why I hate these phony christians with their bible thumping and lies.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Only thing wrong here is claiming my OP is wrong. Statistics are on my side if you ever bothered to look at them. Go ahead an google "does porn harm children who view it?" Results include:

"Outrage As Judge Tells The Truth About Child Pornography
32 comments, 14 called-out
Comment Now
Follow Comments Following Comments Unfollow Comments
Comment Now
Follow Comments Following Comments Unfollow Comments

Were well aware that the availability of pornography is at an all time high these days. What might be less obvious is that the level of sexual crime is falling, falling like a stone actually, and has been for well over a decade. Economists posit that theres a link between these two things: that the technology of the internet has made the porn more available and this has led to a reduction in the level of meatspace sexual violence. In the jargon the question is whether porn and sexual violence are complements or substitutes. Does the first encourage the second or does it in some manner replace it?

The truth is always going to be complex: for some people will undoubtedly act out what they see while for others the fantasy replaces the real world activity. What wed like to know is what is the overall effect? Or if you prefer, which effect predominates? The general supposition (backed by good evidence) is that porn is a substitute for the sexual violence, even while it may in certain cases prompt it. So far so good, this is reasonably well known."
Outrage As Judge Tells The Truth About Child Pornography - Forbes

Does pornography harm young people?
"Our survey shows that age of first exposure to pornography does not correlate with negative attitudes towards women."
Does pornography harm young people? | QUT ePrints

"Substance Abuse and Exposure to Pornography
While there is strong research to support the association between violent crime and alcohol use, the association between sexual offending and substance abuse is not fully established...
...Other Characteristics Common to Sexually Abusive Youth
Sexually abusive youth share other common characteristics, including:

  # high rates of learning disabilities and academic dysfunction (30 to 60 percent) (Awad and Saunders, 1991, Hunter and Goodwin, 1992, Epps, 1991);
  # the presence of other behavioral health problems, including substance abuse and conduct disorders (up to 80 percent have the same diagnosable psychiatric disorder) (Kavoussi et al, 1988); and
  # observed difficulties with impulse control and judgment (Smith et al, 1987, Epps, 1991, Vizard et al, 1995)."
CSOM Publications


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Luddly Neddite said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> There it is again -
> 
> A really vile accusation couched as an innocent question.
> 
> Are you going to accuse him of being a child predator too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok, not like I expected a meeting of the minds or anything online. But I always hope what people read from me will worm its' way into their minds and they'll then spend some time thinking of things in new ways.
> 
> Could just accept things and not bother, but then I'd feel guilty for not doing what I could.
> 
> Prolly knows better than level accusations overtly, seem to recall something about that in the Rules.  ...Oh! Unless you were trying tog et him to break it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They both have already broken the rules. They did that with their first accusation. Just below your post, notice how Drifting Sand does it again with his nasty little inference that since I didn't say what he thinks I should have, I'm guilty of something.
> 
> This is why I hate these phony christians with their bible thumping and lies.
Click to expand...


Didn't see the infraction, but I started skipping over a couple people since being a weird bisexual nothing I say is gonna convince them so not much reason reading them any more


----------



## Howey

luddly neddite said:


> delta4embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luddly neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> there it is again -
> 
> a really vile accusation couched as an innocent question.
> 
> Are you going to accuse him of being a child predator too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's ok, not like i expected a meeting of the minds or anything online. But i always hope what people read from me will worm its' way into their minds and they'll then spend some time thinking of things in new ways.
> 
> Could just accept things and not bother, but then i'd feel guilty for not doing what i could.
> 
> Prolly knows better than level accusations overtly, seem to recall something about that in the rules.  ...oh! Unless you were trying tog et him to break it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they both have already broken the rules. They did that with their first accusation. Just below your post, notice how drifting sand does it again with his nasty little inference that since i didn't say what he thinks i should have, i'm guilty of something.
> 
> This is why i hate these phony christians with their bible thumping and lies.
Click to expand...


*they might as well give the forum back to jimnyc.

*


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Delta4Embassy said:


> Only thing wrong here is claiming my OP is wrong. Statistics are on my side if you ever bothered to look at them. Go ahead an google "does porn harm children who view it?" Results include:
> 
> "Outrage As Judge Tells The Truth About Child Pornography
> 32 comments, 14 called-out
> Comment Now
> Follow Comments Following Comments Unfollow Comments
> Comment Now
> Follow Comments Following Comments Unfollow Comments
> 
> Were well aware that the availability of pornography is at an all time high these days. What might be less obvious is that the level of sexual crime is falling, falling like a stone actually, and has been for well over a decade. Economists posit that theres a link between these two things: that the technology of the internet has made the porn more available and this has led to a reduction in the level of meatspace sexual violence. In the jargon the question is whether porn and sexual violence are complements or substitutes. Does the first encourage the second or does it in some manner replace it?
> 
> The truth is always going to be complex: for some people will undoubtedly act out what they see while for others the fantasy replaces the real world activity. What wed like to know is what is the overall effect? Or if you prefer, which effect predominates? The general supposition (backed by good evidence) is that porn is a substitute for the sexual violence, even while it may in certain cases prompt it. So far so good, this is reasonably well known."
> Outrage As Judge Tells The Truth About Child Pornography - Forbes
> 
> Does pornography harm young people?
> "Our survey shows that age of first exposure to pornography does not correlate with negative attitudes towards women."
> Does pornography harm young people? | QUT ePrints
> 
> "Substance Abuse and Exposure to Pornography
> While there is strong research to support the association between violent crime and alcohol use, the association between sexual offending and substance abuse is not fully established...
> ...Other Characteristics Common to Sexually Abusive Youth
> Sexually abusive youth share other common characteristics, including:
> 
> # high rates of learning disabilities and academic dysfunction (30 to 60 percent) (Awad and Saunders, 1991, Hunter and Goodwin, 1992, Epps, 1991);
> # the presence of other behavioral health problems, including substance abuse and conduct disorders (up to 80 percent have the same diagnosable psychiatric disorder) (Kavoussi et al, 1988); and
> # observed difficulties with impulse control and judgment (Smith et al, 1987, Epps, 1991, Vizard et al, 1995)."
> CSOM Publications



Your mistake was in introducing facts and expecting an adult discussion.

The weirdos, like Drifting and Chuck get their facts from the likes of Westboro. Not surprising, their lies have caught on in two other threads.


----------



## Howey

Luddly Neddite said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only thing wrong here is claiming my OP is wrong. Statistics are on my side if you ever bothered to look at them. Go ahead an google "does porn harm children who view it?" Results include:
> 
> "Outrage As Judge Tells The Truth About Child Pornography
> 32 comments, 14 called-out
> Comment Now
> Follow Comments Following Comments Unfollow Comments
> Comment Now
> Follow Comments Following Comments Unfollow Comments
> 
> Were well aware that the availability of pornography is at an all time high these days. What might be less obvious is that the level of sexual crime is falling, falling like a stone actually, and has been for well over a decade. Economists posit that theres a link between these two things: that the technology of the internet has made the porn more available and this has led to a reduction in the level of meatspace sexual violence. In the jargon the question is whether porn and sexual violence are complements or substitutes. Does the first encourage the second or does it in some manner replace it?
> 
> The truth is always going to be complex: for some people will undoubtedly act out what they see while for others the fantasy replaces the real world activity. What wed like to know is what is the overall effect? Or if you prefer, which effect predominates? The general supposition (backed by good evidence) is that porn is a substitute for the sexual violence, even while it may in certain cases prompt it. So far so good, this is reasonably well known."
> Outrage As Judge Tells The Truth About Child Pornography - Forbes
> 
> Does pornography harm young people?
> "Our survey shows that age of first exposure to pornography does not correlate with negative attitudes towards women."
> Does pornography harm young people? | QUT ePrints
> 
> "Substance Abuse and Exposure to Pornography
> While there is strong research to support the association between violent crime and alcohol use, the association between sexual offending and substance abuse is not fully established...
> ...Other Characteristics Common to Sexually Abusive Youth
> Sexually abusive youth share other common characteristics, including:
> 
> # high rates of learning disabilities and academic dysfunction (30 to 60 percent) (Awad and Saunders, 1991, Hunter and Goodwin, 1992, Epps, 1991);
> # the presence of other behavioral health problems, including substance abuse and conduct disorders (up to 80 percent have the same diagnosable psychiatric disorder) (Kavoussi et al, 1988); and
> # observed difficulties with impulse control and judgment (Smith et al, 1987, Epps, 1991, Vizard et al, 1995)."
> CSOM Publications
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your mistake was in introducing facts and expecting an adult discussion.
> 
> The weirdos, like Drifting and Chuck get their facts from the likes of Westboro. Not surprising, their lies have caught on in two other threads.
Click to expand...


And the trolls are allowed to send an intelligent conversation in a no trolling section of the forum into troll hell.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

While I may be a bit idealistic, I'm not naive. I don't expect to change people's minds or anything, but getting things out there and into the public sphere when they can be discussed, even if nothing seems to come of it, something does. I think for a lot of subjects we come to accept whatever the dominant opinions is and if it's not something that interests us let it remain thus. Like 'is smoking bad for ya' in my other threads, and this one. Challenging the status quo is worth doing I think. As with my own religious faith, I find they get refined and improved upon the more I argue with people who don't agree with me.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

Chuckt said:


> Goddess_Ashtara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Porn is poison; it objectifies the human body, removing any sense of emotional attachment to the act of sex. Sex is not simply a physical exercise; it is a highly stimulative engagement that encompasses deep physical and emotional sensors.
> 
> Sex as sport destroys people, and the continued use of pornography as a stimulant dulls the senses, requiring greater and greater heights of debauchery to gain pleasure, and leads to deviant lifestyles and a perverse attitude about perversions. Break down the walls of decency, and nothing is off limits, including the sick notion of porn being good for kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people believe that sex must always be about "emotional attachment" rather than something to be used to for physical pleasure?
> 
> Only an ignorant, indoctrinated fool believes that they "have to love" every person they choose to fuck.  So many extremely stimulating and exciting sensations can be experienced through sex... and many are more enjoyable when you do not "love" the person you are sexually exploring with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are teaching yourselves and others is that you can get something for nothing from people.  I knew some women who said they couldn't do that to a guy (because there are emotional attachments) from sex.
> 
> When you have sex with someone and then meet that person who measures up to be a spouse, *what happens if they never measure up sexually to those you messed with*?  You end up either marrying or not marrying and damaging that person because *he or she isn't enough sexually*.
Click to expand...


Before I say "yes" to a commited relationship, I have to know that the person is mentally, physically, spiritually, and sexually capable of impressing and satisfying me, which saves me the trouble of ripping out his heart and shoving it down his throat.


----------



## NLT

Suggesting that introducing CGI children into porn for pedophiles is the most fucked up Idea I have ever heard of, what will happen when the pedos get bored with the fake children? Go out and try it on a real one? I think yes.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

As to this side-discussion about casual sex or whatever it's actually about, I think if relationships begin with sex then that's all they'll ever be about. You instantly loose you objectivity since now the person's a sex toy of sorts, not someone who's long-term ambitions mean anything to you. Why it's better for aspiring long-term relationships to put sex and physical intimacies off until much later. Figure out if their taste in music is gonna have you fantasizing about taking a baseball bat to their stereo or not first.  Pleanty of time for sex later on. But apure fuck buddy can work so long as that's all you expect of each other. Trying tog o from that to actual relationship isn't likely to work. ...imo.


----------



## PixieStix

Luddly Neddite said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> There it is again -
> 
> A really vile accusation couched as an innocent question.
> 
> Are you going to accuse him of being a child predator too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok, not like I expected a meeting of the minds or anything online. But I always hope what people read from me will worm its' way into their minds and they'll then spend some time thinking of things in new ways.
> 
> Could just accept things and not bother, but then I'd feel guilty for not doing what I could.
> 
> Prolly knows better than level accusations overtly, seem to recall something about that in the Rules.  ...Oh! Unless you were trying tog et him to break it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They both have already broken the rules. They did that with their first accusation. Just below your post, notice how Drifting Sand does it again with his nasty little inference that since I didn't say what he thinks I should have, I'm guilty of something.
> 
> This is why I hate these phony christians with their bible thumping and lies.
Click to expand...


There were no rules broken. They asked legitimate questions. It was you and delta that realized no matter how you answered the questions, you were going to acquire much ire.


----------



## NLT

Listen, luddy, I am no Christian, but discussions about Porn and Children are going to get people upset. The two dont mix well with normal people.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

NLT said:


> Suggesting that introducing CGI children into porn for pedophiles is the most fucked up Idea I have ever heard of, what will happen when the pedos get bored with the fake children? Go out and try it on a real one? I think yes.



If that's the 'most fucked up idea' you've heard you haven't studied the problem. Having done so myself the most fucked up idea I've heard is trying to ban it. If a replacement can be found that reduces victimization of children, let the pedophile have free legal access to it. 

Banning desired things NEVER works no matter what it is. Someone will always then make money providing it as with illegal types of pornography, drugs, etc..

Legal stats show when pedophiles have legal access to simulated child pornography they 'make due' with that instead of either seeking real human-involved porn, or worse, actual real-world children to victimize.  We may not like the truth, but pretending it isn't true doesn't help protect children.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

NLT said:


> Listen, luddy, I am no Christian, but discussions about Porn and Children are going to get people upset. The two dont mix well with normal people.



Why we discuss it online and not in person where people get aggitated and violent.


----------



## Coyote

*Thread has been reopened after mild cleaning.

Please be careful folks - topics involving children, sex and porn are very sensitive and get heated fast.

Just because a poster is discussing something doesn't mean they *support* something.  One of our more strict rules here is accusing or even implying that a member is a pedo, and these kinds of topics tend to bring it out.

*


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Too right. Can't fix things if you never talk about them. I'd rather fix things than ignore them and hope they go away magically.


----------



## GreenBean

Delta4Embassy said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts don't support your assertions. In countries where sex is acceptable as pleasure, and porn isn't restricted (at least not to the extent it is here in the US,) porn doesn't have negative impacts or consequences. Quite the opposite. It results in people viewing one another as potential friends and lovers, not potential threats.
> 
> I study a great deal about the origin of violence and how sexuality plays a role in criminal behaviours. In cultures that celebrate sexuality instead of repressing it (like in the US) there's FAR less violent crime. More a country represses 'feel-good' activities like sex, the more violent they tend to be as evidenced by statistics. In other words, the most sexually liberal nations are also the least violent, whereas the most sexually repressive countries are also the most violent.
> 
> Bit of a read, and this is actually the short verion of it, but,
> Article: Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence
> 
> Shows how cultures which suppress/repress pleasure whether sexual or innocent physical contact are the most violent, and vice-versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Mean like in the Afghanistan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means "boy player." The men like to boast about it.  ...... Addressing the loathsome mistreatment of Afghan women remains a primary goal for coalition governments, as it should be. ................But what about the boys, thousands upon thousands of little boys who are victims of serial rape over many years, destroying their lives - and Afghan society........ Cardinalli said. "I'm continually haunted by what I saw." .... As one boy, in tow of a man he called "my lord," told the Reuters reporter: "Once I grow up, I will be an owner, and I will have my own boys."
> 
> 
> Afghanistan's dirty little secret - SFGate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Just Curious Delta - you claim to have a military background - is that correct ?  Did you ever serve in Afghanistan ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Afganistan was after my stint in the US Navy.
Click to expand...


If you got ashore - did you ever witness what is described in the article I posted ?

[*NAVY ?! *- Afghanistan has No Coast - couldn't have been too many Naval personnel]


----------



## Delta4Embassy

GreenBean said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Mean like in the Afghanistan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Just Curious Delta - you claim to have a military background - is that correct ?  Did you ever serve in Afghanistan ?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afganistan was after my stint in the US Navy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you got ashore - did you ever witness what is described in the article I posted ?
> 
> [*NAVY ?! *- Afghanistan has No Coast - couldn't have been too many Naval personnel]
Click to expand...


I'll assume you misread that.


----------



## NLT

Delta4Embassy said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suggesting that introducing CGI children into porn for pedophiles is the most fucked up Idea I have ever heard of, what will happen when the pedos get bored with the fake children? Go out and try it on a real one? I think yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the 'most fucked up idea' you've heard you haven't studied the problem. Having done so myself the most fucked up idea I've heard is trying to ban it. If a replacement can be found that reduces victimization of children, let the pedophile have free legal access to it.
> 
> Banning desired things NEVER works no matter what it is. Someone will always then make money providing it as with illegal types of pornography, drugs, etc..
> 
> *Legal stats show when pedophiles have legal access to simulated child pornography they 'make due' with that instead of either seeking real human-involved porn, or worse, actual real-world children to victimize.*  We may not like the truth, but pretending it isn't true doesn't help protect children.
Click to expand...


Sorry but I disagree with you, I think it is sick to suggest to put CGI children in Porn, if pedophiles cannot control themselves so much that they need CGI kiddie porn, then they should be chemically castrated.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

NLT said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suggesting that introducing CGI children into porn for pedophiles is the most fucked up Idea I have ever heard of, what will happen when the pedos get bored with the fake children? Go out and try it on a real one? I think yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the 'most fucked up idea' you've heard you haven't studied the problem. Having done so myself the most fucked up idea I've heard is trying to ban it. If a replacement can be found that reduces victimization of children, let the pedophile have free legal access to it.
> 
> Banning desired things NEVER works no matter what it is. Someone will always then make money providing it as with illegal types of pornography, drugs, etc..
> 
> *Legal stats show when pedophiles have legal access to simulated child pornography they 'make due' with that instead of either seeking real human-involved porn, or worse, actual real-world children to victimize.*  We may not like the truth, but pretending it isn't true doesn't help protect children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but I disagree with you, I think it is sick to suggest to put CGI children in Porn, if pedophiles cannot control themselves so much that they need CGI kiddie porn, then they should be chemically castrated.
Click to expand...


That's a valid sentiment and opinion, but consider this: the pedophile 'making due' with simulated child porn hasn't commited a crime (assuming such content is legal where they are, it's legal federally but probably not in every state.) So punishing so-called virtuous pedophiles (it's really a thing, boggle I know) who refrain from sexual offenses against actual kids along with those who do is simply giving the non-offending pedophile a reason to go all the way isn't it? If they're gonna get lumped right in with actual offending pedophiles what incentive is their for them to keep themselves in check with 'simulated content?'


----------



## GreenBean

Delta4Embassy said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Afganistan was after my stint in the US Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you got ashore - did you ever witness what is described in the article I posted ?
> 
> [*NAVY ?! *- Afghanistan has No Coast - couldn't have been too many Naval personnel]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll assume you misread that.
Click to expand...



Yup - you're right I did missread it - *After *  your Navy stint .  So you never been there - okay


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suggesting that introducing CGI children into porn for pedophiles is the most fucked up Idea I have ever heard of, what will happen when the pedos get bored with the fake children? Go out and try it on a real one? I think yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the 'most fucked up idea' you've heard you haven't studied the problem. Having done so myself the most fucked up idea I've heard is trying to ban it. If a replacement can be found that reduces victimization of children, let the pedophile have free legal access to it.
> 
> Banning desired things NEVER works no matter what it is. Someone will always then make money providing it as with illegal types of pornography, drugs, etc..
> 
> Legal stats show when pedophiles have legal access to simulated child pornography they 'make due' with that instead of either seeking real human-involved porn, or worse, actual real-world children to victimize.  We may not like the truth, but pretending it isn't true doesn't help protect children.
Click to expand...






Pedophiles are always going to BE pedophiles.  They are not curable.  The only way that they can be dealt with and maintain safety for children is to lock them up.  Your "legal stats" are self reported, which means they are useless in a real world study.  The fact is, no pedophile will ever "make do" with fake porn and the reason for that is they know what they are doing is illegal, they just don't care.

They feel that the child loves them as well and that no matter what laws are passed they do not apply to them.


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> Too right. Can't fix things if you never talk about them. I'd rather fix things than ignore them and hope they go away magically.







Pedophilia is not "fixable".  That's the problem.  It is truly sad that an otherwise normal  productive person can't ever be allowed around children.  They just can't.  Pedophiles have a 100% recidivism rate......  It's hard to argue with facts like that.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]:
How can you expect to measure the full effects when so much of this is unconscious indirect influence?

Look at the increase in reports of rapes of drunk people being filmed on cell phone and posted and shared by others!

How do you know that  behavior isn't related to oversexualization and DESENSITIZATION?

How are we supposed to trace ALL the influences that went into that behavior?

What about internet cyberbullying, blackmail and stalking? Forcing young people to send or post more and more explicit photos of themselves once the blackmailer has some dirt on them and threatens them if they don't comply?

What about child porn and trafficking? If the effects are to feed addictions by adults, doesn't that have an effect on child victims?

Delta, if you want to do a study,
why not compare the attitudes and health of relationships of children who were brought up with
* teaching sexuality openly but with an emphasis on committed healthy partnerships vs.
* teaching sexuality without teaching kids the DIFFERENCE between ABUSIVE relationships

Then you can do a longterm study, showing the effects of 
* sharing pornography with kids that does not show committed relations, and does not teach the difference between that and open sexuality with any partners or multiple partners
* sharing marital erotic or couples pornography, even swinging, where there is still an emphasis on consensual relations, within committed partnerships or marriage.

Delta you should know that for scientific methods to work, there has to be an isolated control group, and also control the VARIABLES so you can compare the two groups.

I think you should know better than to try to interpret results from whatever is reported, without any controls of what is going in and data being collected from what cases/sources.

Anyone can derive anything you want to assume, if you conducted a study this way!
Really, Delta?
You seem smarter and more conscientious than that!

How do you think you can possible contain all the effects of sexualization and pornography?



Delta4Embassy said:


> No.
> 
> Google and read any and every .edu site with a paper about it to your heart's content. Been studying the question for decades and the even the Reagan Administration studied the question, came back with "no" and let the matter drop (silently not publishing the results either by the by.)
> 
> Just as violent movies and videogames doesn't then translate into real-world acting out of violent fantasies (as evidenced by such content availability in other countries,) pornography doesn't then result in minors acting out what they saw. Will always be able to find a news item suggesting otherwise, but this is not scientificly valid so much as sensationalism and fear-mongering.
> 
> "Research shows that healthy sexual development includes natural curiosity about sexuality. Retrospective studies show that accidental exposure to real-life scenes of sexuality does not harm children. Our survey shows that age of first exposure to pornography does not correlate with negative attitudes towards women. Studies with non-explicit representations of sexuality show that young people who seek out sexualised representations tend to be those with a pre-existing interest in sexuality. *These studies also suggest that current generations of children are no more sexualised than previous generations, that they are not innocent about sexuality, and that a key negative effect of this knowledge is the requirement for them to feign ignorance in order to satisfy adults expectations of them.* Research also suggests important differences between pre- and post-pubescent attitudes towards pornography, and that pornography is not addictive."
> Does pornography harm young people? | QUT ePrints
> 
> "A vocal segment of the population has serious concerns about the effect of pornography in society and challenges its public use and acceptance. This manuscript reviews the major issues associated with the availability of sexually explicit material. *It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.*"
> Pacific Center for Sex and Society - Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review
> 
> "Most of the recent studies in this field have been correlational. That means you ask a sample of young people whether they've seen pornography, or how often, and then ask them what they think of sex or gender role attitudes, for example.
> 
> *But it is not possible to establish causation from correlational studies, and to say whether pornography is changing or reinforcing attitudes.*
> 
> "That is the real next step that research needs to take," says Horvath, "to try to identify which came first.""
> BBC News - Do we know whether pornography harms people?
> 
> Thta's the most important part above, 'it's not possible to establish causation from correlation.' Ethics limit what you can investigate as in you can't expose subjects to particularly violent pornography tosee if it harms them, because what if it does? So you can't scientificly investigate whether porn harms children because to find out you have to expose potentially harmful things to children. Catch-22.
> 
> What we can and have discovered if where porn is widely available, sex crimes go down. Where porn is banned and restricted it goes up. When children are raised in nudist enviroments, they don't suffer the same stress over their developing bodies as their clothes-wearing counterparts.
> 
> I get people here will opt to make political hay out of this on both sides of the poltical divide while choosing to ignore the research and facts, this is not for them but people more interested in being right than popular.


----------



## emilynghiem

westwall said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too right. Can't fix things if you never talk about them. I'd rather fix things than ignore them and hope they go away magically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophilia is not "fixable".  That's the problem.  It is truly sad that an otherwise normal  productive person can't ever be allowed around children.  They just can't.  Pedophiles have a 100% recidivism rate......  It's hard to argue with facts like that.
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION] 
of the cases I've heard reports of curing people of pedophilia,
these require deep spiritual therapy, going back into the generational history of the person for deep cleansing and healing that is beyond what psychiatry teaches or practices.

One man reported being cured after 25 years.
One of my friends, who agrees that the relapse rate is strongest for these types of addictions/sicknesses, where I would say most require either constant treatment and supervision if not detention, did have at least one person become completely healed.

I believe the medical technology will be developed to diagnosis, monitor and manage these types of illness, similar to tracking the progress, remission or return of cancer in stages.

Even if these cases cannot be fully cured, they should be diagnosed for public safety, especially BEFORE any crimes or damages occur. So medical diagnosis should be perfected in order to make the process scientific, where people or family members willingly seek diagnosis and help for such conditions, and not have to violate anyone's rights legally.


----------



## rdean

Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?

Why are children viewing porn?


----------



## Howey

Coyote said:


> *Thread has been reopened after mild cleaning.
> 
> Please be careful folks - topics involving children, sex and porn are very sensitive and get heated fast.
> 
> Just because a poster is discussing something doesn't mean they *support* something.  One of our more strict rules here is accusing or even implying that a member is a pedo, and these kinds of topics tend to bring it out.
> 
> *



thanks!


----------



## Delta4Embassy

westwall said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suggesting that introducing CGI children into porn for pedophiles is the most fucked up Idea I have ever heard of, what will happen when the pedos get bored with the fake children? Go out and try it on a real one? I think yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the 'most fucked up idea' you've heard you haven't studied the problem. Having done so myself the most fucked up idea I've heard is trying to ban it. If a replacement can be found that reduces victimization of children, let the pedophile have free legal access to it.
> 
> Banning desired things NEVER works no matter what it is. Someone will always then make money providing it as with illegal types of pornography, drugs, etc..
> 
> Legal stats show when pedophiles have legal access to simulated child pornography they 'make due' with that instead of either seeking real human-involved porn, or worse, actual real-world children to victimize.  We may not like the truth, but pretending it isn't true doesn't help protect children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are always going to BE pedophiles.  They are not curable.  The only way that they can be dealt with and maintain safety for children is to lock them up.  Your "legal stats" are self reported, which means they are useless in a real world study.  The fact is, no pedophile will ever "make do" with fake porn and the reason for that is they know what they are doing is illegal, they just don't care.
> 
> They feel that the child loves them as well and that no matter what laws are passed they do not apply to them.
Click to expand...


I've posted links to scientific and legal sites with the things I mention. But I get the impression people with their minds made up don't bother looking at them. Be happy to go point by point with anyone who'd like to and give source info for everything I say, mention, or propose.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

westwall said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too right. Can't fix things if you never talk about them. I'd rather fix things than ignore them and hope they go away magically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophilia is not "fixable".  That's the problem.  It is truly sad that an otherwise normal  productive person can't ever be allowed around children.  They just can't.  Pedophiles have a 100% recidivism rate......  It's hard to argue with facts like that.
Click to expand...


I didn't introduce the pedo stuff. Would have to go back and see where the thread jumped th shark. Consequently many of my posts aren't about pedophiles or even CSA. Touched on those a bit before but not everything I then say is about those things. 

Crime is fixable. But we lack the political will to do so. As to pedophilia, you're confusing two different things, pedophilia, and child sexual abuse as with "pedophiles have a 100% recitivism rate." Being a pedophilia isn't illegal whether it's a paraphila (DSM-IV,) or sexual orientation (DSM-V.) It's no more illegal than being heterosexual or homosexual is. But adults having sexual contacts or interactions with minors below ages of consent ARE breaking laws and thus 'child sexual offenders.' Whether they're pedophiles or not isn't significant legally.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

rdean said:


> Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?
> 
> Why are children viewing porn?



Because children masturbate from the womb onwards. It's scientifically invalid to calim children aren't sexual. And part of being sexual and sexually gratifying ourselves involves fantasy and masturbation. And since ancient times people have drawn, painted, sculpted, filmed, and otherwise depicted the sexual acts for others' sexual gratification.  And because of how we make porn and nudity a secret, dirty, behind closed doors thing, children naturally wanna see what all the fuss about. As in other countries where it isn't as restricted it's much ado about nothing.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

emilynghiem said:


> Dear [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]:
> How can you expect to measure the full effects when so much of this is unconscious indirect influence?
> 
> Look at the increase in reports of rapes of drunk people being filmed on cell phone and posted and shared by others!
> 
> How do you know that  behavior isn't related to oversexualization and DESENSITIZATION?
> 
> How are we supposed to trace ALL the influences that went into that behavior?
> 
> What about internet cyberbullying, blackmail and stalking? Forcing young people to send or post more and more explicit photos of themselves once the blackmailer has some dirt on them and threatens them if they don't comply?
> 
> What about child porn and trafficking? If the effects are to feed addictions by adults, doesn't that have an effect on child victims?
> 
> Delta, if you want to do a study,
> why not compare the attitudes and health of relationships of children who were brought up with
> * teaching sexuality openly but with an emphasis on committed healthy partnerships vs.
> * teaching sexuality without teaching kids the DIFFERENCE between ABUSIVE relationships
> 
> Then you can do a longterm study, showing the effects of
> * sharing pornography with kids that does not show committed relations, and does not teach the difference between that and open sexuality with any partners or multiple partners
> * sharing marital erotic or couples pornography, even swinging, where there is still an emphasis on consensual relations, within committed partnerships or marriage.
> 
> Delta you should know that for scientific methods to work, there has to be an isolated control group, and also control the VARIABLES so you can compare the two groups.
> 
> I think you should know better than to try to interpret results from whatever is reported, without any controls of what is going in and data being collected from what cases/sources.
> 
> Anyone can derive anything you want to assume, if you conducted a study this way!
> Really, Delta?
> You seem smarter and more conscientious than that!
> 
> How do you think you can possible contain all the effects of sexualization and pornography?
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Google and read any and every .edu site with a paper about it to your heart's content. Been studying the question for decades and the even the Reagan Administration studied the question, came back with "no" and let the matter drop (silently not publishing the results either by the by.)
> 
> Just as violent movies and videogames doesn't then translate into real-world acting out of violent fantasies (as evidenced by such content availability in other countries,) pornography doesn't then result in minors acting out what they saw. Will always be able to find a news item suggesting otherwise, but this is not scientificly valid so much as sensationalism and fear-mongering.
> 
> "Research shows that healthy sexual development includes natural curiosity about sexuality. Retrospective studies show that accidental exposure to real-life scenes of sexuality does not harm children. Our survey shows that age of first exposure to pornography does not correlate with negative attitudes towards women. Studies with non-explicit representations of sexuality show that young people who seek out sexualised representations tend to be those with a pre-existing interest in sexuality. *These studies also suggest that current generations of children are no more sexualised than previous generations, that they are not innocent about sexuality, and that a key negative effect of this knowledge is the requirement for them to feign ignorance in order to satisfy adults expectations of them.* Research also suggests important differences between pre- and post-pubescent attitudes towards pornography, and that pornography is not addictive."
> Does pornography harm young people? | QUT ePrints
> 
> "A vocal segment of the population has serious concerns about the effect of pornography in society and challenges its public use and acceptance. This manuscript reviews the major issues associated with the availability of sexually explicit material. *It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.*"
> Pacific Center for Sex and Society - Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review
> 
> "Most of the recent studies in this field have been correlational. That means you ask a sample of young people whether they've seen pornography, or how often, and then ask them what they think of sex or gender role attitudes, for example.
> 
> *But it is not possible to establish causation from correlational studies, and to say whether pornography is changing or reinforcing attitudes.*
> 
> "That is the real next step that research needs to take," says Horvath, "to try to identify which came first.""
> BBC News - Do we know whether pornography harms people?
> 
> Thta's the most important part above, 'it's not possible to establish causation from correlation.' Ethics limit what you can investigate as in you can't expose subjects to particularly violent pornography tosee if it harms them, because what if it does? So you can't scientificly investigate whether porn harms children because to find out you have to expose potentially harmful things to children. Catch-22.
> 
> What we can and have discovered if where porn is widely available, sex crimes go down. Where porn is banned and restricted it goes up. When children are raised in nudist enviroments, they don't suffer the same stress over their developing bodies as their clothes-wearing counterparts.
> 
> I get people here will opt to make political hay out of this on both sides of the poltical divide while choosing to ignore the research and facts, this is not for them but people more interested in being right than popular.
Click to expand...


Will respond this when I have more time Emily. It's good and I really wanna, but am pressed for time right now. Will get it to this evening when free again. Wanted to acknowledge it though.


----------



## westwall

emilynghiem said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too right. Can't fix things if you never talk about them. I'd rather fix things than ignore them and hope they go away magically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophilia is not "fixable".  That's the problem.  It is truly sad that an otherwise normal  productive person can't ever be allowed around children.  They just can't.  Pedophiles have a 100% recidivism rate......  It's hard to argue with facts like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION]
> of the cases I've heard reports of curing people of pedophilia,
> these require deep spiritual therapy, going back into the generational history of the person for deep cleansing and healing that is beyond what psychiatry teaches or practices.
> 
> One man reported being cured after 25 years.
> One of my friends, who agrees that the relapse rate is strongest for these types of addictions/sicknesses, where I would say most require either constant treatment and supervision if not detention, did have at least one person become completely healed.
> 
> I believe the medical technology will be developed to diagnosis, monitor and manage these types of illness, similar to tracking the progress, remission or return of cancer in stages.
> 
> Even if these cases cannot be fully cured, they should be diagnosed for public safety, especially BEFORE any crimes or damages occur. So medical diagnosis should be perfected in order to make the process scientific, where people or family members willingly seek diagnosis and help for such conditions, and not have to violate anyone's rights legally.
Click to expand...








There is no case of a pedophile being cured.  There simply isn't enough oversight of those who have been "cured" to know if it was effective or not.  The pedo's refuse to grant access 24/7 so the ability to monitor is severely limited.

They are not stupid, they are just sick.  Just like sociopaths, their brains are wired differently and that can't be undone.

 [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the 'most fucked up idea' you've heard you haven't studied the problem. Having done so myself the most fucked up idea I've heard is trying to ban it. If a replacement can be found that reduces victimization of children, let the pedophile have free legal access to it.
> 
> Banning desired things NEVER works no matter what it is. Someone will always then make money providing it as with illegal types of pornography, drugs, etc..
> 
> Legal stats show when pedophiles have legal access to simulated child pornography they 'make due' with that instead of either seeking real human-involved porn, or worse, actual real-world children to victimize.  We may not like the truth, but pretending it isn't true doesn't help protect children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are always going to BE pedophiles.  They are not curable.  The only way that they can be dealt with and maintain safety for children is to lock them up.  Your "legal stats" are self reported, which means they are useless in a real world study.  The fact is, no pedophile will ever "make do" with fake porn and the reason for that is they know what they are doing is illegal, they just don't care.
> 
> They feel that the child loves them as well and that no matter what laws are passed they do not apply to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted links to scientific and legal sites with the things I mention. But I get the impression people with their minds made up don't bother looking at them. Be happy to go point by point with anyone who'd like to and give source info for everything I say, mention, or propose.
Click to expand...







My wife is a PhD psychologist and her friend is the head of the Arapahoe County (Denver Colorado) Mental Health department.  I will take their real world experience over a legal brief any day of the week.  My wife's friend WORKS with them every day, and she must stay current on the literature, and she say's they are un-curable.


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too right. Can't fix things if you never talk about them. I'd rather fix things than ignore them and hope they go away magically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophilia is not "fixable".  That's the problem.  It is truly sad that an otherwise normal  productive person can't ever be allowed around children.  They just can't.  Pedophiles have a 100% recidivism rate......  It's hard to argue with facts like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't introduce the pedo stuff. Would have to go back and see where the thread jumped th shark. Consequently many of my posts aren't about pedophiles or even CSA. Touched on those a bit before but not everything I then say is about those things.
> 
> Crime is fixable. But we lack the political will to do so. As to pedophilia, you're confusing two different things, pedophilia, and child sexual abuse as with "pedophiles have a 100% recitivism rate." Being a pedophilia isn't illegal whether it's a paraphila (DSM-IV,) or sexual orientation (DSM-V.) It's no more illegal than being heterosexual or homosexual is. But adults having sexual contacts or interactions with minors below ages of consent ARE breaking laws and thus 'child sexual offenders.' Whether they're pedophiles or not isn't significant legally.
Click to expand...







Ahhhh, but you did with your OP.  Pornography is used to "sexualize" children so that the pedophile can exploit their innocence.  Most (90%) children are repulsed by watching the sex act.  It takes a lot of work to sexualize them to where they will put up with the abuse.

The use of pornography is the second step in the pattern of abuses that lead up to full on sexual assault.


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?
> 
> Why are children viewing porn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because children masturbate from the womb onwards. It's scientifically invalid to calim children aren't sexual. And part of being sexual and sexually gratifying ourselves involves fantasy and masturbation. And since ancient times people have drawn, painted, sculpted, filmed, and otherwise depicted the sexual acts for others' sexual gratification.  And because of how we make porn and nudity a secret, dirty, behind closed doors thing, children naturally wanna see what all the fuss about. As in other countries where it isn't as restricted it's much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...







No, they don't.  They discover their genitalia around age 2 and then they forget about them till they reach puberty when hormones take over.  Your facts are not factual.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

westwall said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?
> 
> Why are children viewing porn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because children masturbate from the womb onwards. It's scientifically invalid to calim children aren't sexual. And part of being sexual and sexually gratifying ourselves involves fantasy and masturbation. And since ancient times people have drawn, painted, sculpted, filmed, and otherwise depicted the sexual acts for others' sexual gratification.  And because of how we make porn and nudity a secret, dirty, behind closed doors thing, children naturally wanna see what all the fuss about. As in other countries where it isn't as restricted it's much ado about nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  They discover their genitalia around age 2 and then they forget about them till they reach puberty when hormones take over.  Your facts are not factual.
Click to expand...



Over 10 million hits for 'fetuses filmed masturbating.' So pick one or more from sites you'll believe and get some carbons for your correction and apology.


----------



## Sherry

Delta4Embassy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because children masturbate from the womb onwards. It's scientifically invalid to calim children aren't sexual. And part of being sexual and sexually gratifying ourselves involves fantasy and masturbation. And since ancient times people have drawn, painted, sculpted, filmed, and otherwise depicted the sexual acts for others' sexual gratification.  And because of how we make porn and nudity a secret, dirty, behind closed doors thing, children naturally wanna see what all the fuss about. As in other countries where it isn't as restricted it's much ado about nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  They discover their genitalia around age 2 and then they forget about them till they reach puberty when hormones take over.  Your facts are not factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Over 10 million hits for 'fetuses filmed masturbating.' So pick one or more from sites you'll believe and get some carbons for your correction and apology.
Click to expand...


Please find a new hobby.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

westwall said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophilia is not "fixable".  That's the problem.  It is truly sad that an otherwise normal  productive person can't ever be allowed around children.  They just can't.  Pedophiles have a 100% recidivism rate......  It's hard to argue with facts like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't introduce the pedo stuff. Would have to go back and see where the thread jumped th shark. Consequently many of my posts aren't about pedophiles or even CSA. Touched on those a bit before but not everything I then say is about those things.
> 
> Crime is fixable. But we lack the political will to do so. As to pedophilia, you're confusing two different things, pedophilia, and child sexual abuse as with "pedophiles have a 100% recitivism rate." Being a pedophilia isn't illegal whether it's a paraphila (DSM-IV,) or sexual orientation (DSM-V.) It's no more illegal than being heterosexual or homosexual is. But adults having sexual contacts or interactions with minors below ages of consent ARE breaking laws and thus 'child sexual offenders.' Whether they're pedophiles or not isn't significant legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, but you did with your OP.  Pornography is used to "sexualize" children so that the pedophile can exploit their innocence.  Most (90%) children are repulsed by watching the sex act.  It takes a lot of work to sexualize them to where they will put up with the abuse.
> 
> The use of pornography is the second step in the pattern of abuses that lead up to full on sexual assault.
Click to expand...


It's one of numerous techniques child sexual abusers use to seduce their victims. But linking childhood exposure to pornography with the then victimizing of children by csa'ers is an incorrect associaiton.

Would not graphical images used in a school-setting during a sex ed class be classified 'pornographic' outside of a classroom setting? Yet we all call that sex-ed, not victimization of children being shown pornography.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

emilynghiem said:


> Dear [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]:
> How can you expect to measure the full effects when so much of this is unconscious indirect influence?
> 
> Look at the increase in reports of rapes of drunk people being filmed on cell phone and posted and shared by others!
> 
> How do you know that  behavior isn't related to oversexualization and DESENSITIZATION?
> 
> How are we supposed to trace ALL the influences that went into that behavior?
> 
> What about internet cyberbullying, blackmail and stalking? Forcing young people to send or post more and more explicit photos of themselves once the blackmailer has some dirt on them and threatens them if they don't comply?
> 
> What about child porn and trafficking? If the effects are to feed addictions by adults, doesn't that have an effect on child victims?
> 
> Delta, if you want to do a study,
> why not compare the attitudes and health of relationships of children who were brought up with
> * teaching sexuality openly but with an emphasis on committed healthy partnerships vs.
> * teaching sexuality without teaching kids the DIFFERENCE between ABUSIVE relationships
> 
> Then you can do a longterm study, showing the effects of
> * sharing pornography with kids that does not show committed relations, and does not teach the difference between that and open sexuality with any partners or multiple partners
> * sharing marital erotic or couples pornography, even swinging, where there is still an emphasis on consensual relations, within committed partnerships or marriage.
> 
> Delta you should know that for scientific methods to work, there has to be an isolated control group, and also control the VARIABLES so you can compare the two groups.
> 
> I think you should know better than to try to interpret results from whatever is reported, without any controls of what is going in and data being collected from what cases/sources.
> 
> Anyone can derive anything you want to assume, if you conducted a study this way!
> Really, Delta?
> You seem smarter and more conscientious than that!
> 
> How do you think you can possible contain all the effects of sexualization and pornography?
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Google and read any and every .edu site with a paper about it to your heart's content. Been studying the question for decades and the even the Reagan Administration studied the question, came back with "no" and let the matter drop (silently not publishing the results either by the by.)
> 
> Just as violent movies and videogames doesn't then translate into real-world acting out of violent fantasies (as evidenced by such content availability in other countries,) pornography doesn't then result in minors acting out what they saw. Will always be able to find a news item suggesting otherwise, but this is not scientificly valid so much as sensationalism and fear-mongering.
> 
> "Research shows that healthy sexual development includes natural curiosity about sexuality. Retrospective studies show that accidental exposure to real-life scenes of sexuality does not harm children. Our survey shows that age of first exposure to pornography does not correlate with negative attitudes towards women. Studies with non-explicit representations of sexuality show that young people who seek out sexualised representations tend to be those with a pre-existing interest in sexuality. *These studies also suggest that current generations of children are no more sexualised than previous generations, that they are not innocent about sexuality, and that a key negative effect of this knowledge is the requirement for them to feign ignorance in order to satisfy adults expectations of them.* Research also suggests important differences between pre- and post-pubescent attitudes towards pornography, and that pornography is not addictive."
> Does pornography harm young people? | QUT ePrints
> 
> "A vocal segment of the population has serious concerns about the effect of pornography in society and challenges its public use and acceptance. This manuscript reviews the major issues associated with the availability of sexually explicit material. *It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.*"
> Pacific Center for Sex and Society - Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review
> 
> "Most of the recent studies in this field have been correlational. That means you ask a sample of young people whether they've seen pornography, or how often, and then ask them what they think of sex or gender role attitudes, for example.
> 
> *But it is not possible to establish causation from correlational studies, and to say whether pornography is changing or reinforcing attitudes.*
> 
> "That is the real next step that research needs to take," says Horvath, "to try to identify which came first.""
> BBC News - Do we know whether pornography harms people?
> 
> Thta's the most important part above, 'it's not possible to establish causation from correlation.' Ethics limit what you can investigate as in you can't expose subjects to particularly violent pornography tosee if it harms them, because what if it does? So you can't scientificly investigate whether porn harms children because to find out you have to expose potentially harmful things to children. Catch-22.
> 
> What we can and have discovered if where porn is widely available, sex crimes go down. Where porn is banned and restricted it goes up. When children are raised in nudist enviroments, they don't suffer the same stress over their developing bodies as their clothes-wearing counterparts.
> 
> I get people here will opt to make political hay out of this on both sides of the poltical divide while choosing to ignore the research and facts, this is not for them but people more interested in being right than popular.
Click to expand...


Sorry Emily! I lost sight of this thread and ocnfused it for the other one. I see your post here now and am in the process of replying to it. Gimme a few.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Don't usually go point by point with replies so doing so here might be less than optimally formatted but bear with me. 

...

Emily asked, "How can you expect to measure the full effects when so much of this is unconscious indirect influence?"


Studies carried out around the world include some checking results after decades have elapsed. I rely on these to draw conclusions from. Namely,
Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse

"Diamond and team looked at what actually happened to sex-related crimes in the Czech Republic as it transitioned from having a strict ban on sexually explicit materials to a situation where the material was decriminalized. Pornography was strictly prohibited between 1948 and 1989. The ban was lifted with the country's transition to democracy and, by 1990, the availability and ownership of sexually explicit materials rose dramatically. Even the possession of child pornography was not a criminal offense.

The researchers monitored the number of sex-related crimes from Ministry of Interior records  rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and child sex abuse in particular  for 15 years during the ban and 18 years after it was lifted.

Most significantly, they found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989. In both Denmark and Japan, the situation is similar: Child sex abuse was much lower than it was when availability of child pornography was restricted.

Other results showed that, overall, there was no increase in reported sex-related crimes generally since the legalization of pornography. Interestingly, whereas the number of sex-related crimes fell significantly after 1989, the number of other societal crimes  murder, assault, and robbery  rose significantly."

...

Emily asked, "Look at the increase in reports of rapes of drunk people being filmed on cell phone and posted and shared by others!

How do you know that behavior isn't related to oversexualization and DESENSITIZATION?

How are we supposed to trace ALL the influences that went into that behavior?"

Law makers don't factor in every conceivable implication or consequence. Be ncie if they tried as you put it here, but when we try and fight crime via the legal system sometimes we have to use whatever we have. If it doesn'tthen address every conceivable outcome like your's asked, the best we can hope to do is do so when they then arrise.

...

Emily asked, "What about internet cyberbullying, blackmail and stalking? Forcing young people to send or post more and more explicit photos of themselves once the blackmailer has some dirt on them and threatens them if they don't comply?"

This problem is comparatively new. So new in fact I haven't even begun to address it (mostly because I have yet to buy a smartphone.) So whether pornography exposure to these kids with such devices and technology is having an impact is impossible for me to say. Though I"d assume it does. But even if it is, you don't forbid or deny or make illegal things because of how it might effect other things and issues. As with the 2nd Amendment. We have that despite pleanty of evidence guns are getting into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Just as we may eventually allow minor access to pornography despite some evience there are negative consequences of such access.

...

Emily asked, "What about child porn and trafficking? If the effects are to feed addictions by adults, doesn't that have an effect on child victims?"

Read this several times and I'm not entirely sure what you meant but I'll wing it. I think you were asking wouldn't availability or legalisation of child pornography exaccerbate child sexual abuse like sex slave/human trafficking?

Statistics say no. Because oriignally child pornography was legal in both the US and some European and Asian countries, we have actual statistical evidence for what its effects were. And quite counter-intuitively, when child pornography was made illegal, child sexual abuse went up, not down. That said, actual pornography involving real children is abuse in and of itself. But modern computer animation (CGI/3D versions) can now depict human beings so convincingly that simulated pornography can meet the needs of those unwilling or unablet o fulfill their desires, predilictions, or addicitons for real as with pedophiles and those into things legal but bizarre (baby/pony roleplaying et al.)

...

Emily asked, "Delta, if you want to do a study,
why not compare the attitudes and health of relationships of children who were brought up with
* teaching sexuality openly but with an emphasis on committed healthy partnerships vs.
* teaching sexuality without teaching kids the DIFFERENCE between ABUSIVE relationships

Then you can do a longterm study, showing the effects of
* sharing pornography with kids that does not show committed relations, and does not teach the difference between that and open sexuality with any partners or multiple partners
* sharing marital erotic or couples pornography, even swinging, where there is still an emphasis on consensual relations, within committed partnerships or marriage."

These studies have been conducted numerous times already. Think I just pulled this all out of my hat?  There's no point linking to the tens of thousands of studies since ultimately there's no reason to believe me, my asseritions, or any particular website. It's up to the ones who disagree to find a source they actually do believe and then come back with that. If it's legit science (vs religious fundamentalism) it might sway such assertions as I have.

Googling, 'long-term studies on childhood exposure to sexuality' there's 8.8 million. Ready, set, go! 

...

Emily asked, "Delta you should know that for scientific methods to work, there has to be an isolated control group, and also control the VARIABLES so you can compare the two groups.

I think you should know better than to try to interpret results from whatever is reported, without any controls of what is going in and data being collected from what cases/sources.

Anyone can derive anything you want to assume, if you conducted a study this way!
Really, Delta?
You seem smarter and more conscientious than that!"

I'm not posting data collected from some supermarket tabloid Em'. If it's not a scientific journal or university or other source I've actually heard of I"m VERY reluctant to use it. Because of how much work has been done of these topics there's no inability on my part to find scholarly and legitimate scientific sources for my claims. And that's where they all come form. Other than that, I grant your premise. 

...

Emily concluded with, "How do you think you can possible contain all the effects of sexualization and pornography?"

It's not about containment or forseeing every eventuality. It's about implemented policy scientists and psychologists, and social workers have told us actually work. Not clinging to dogma that's been im place long enough to see that it doesn't.

Child sexual abuse is a growing problem, and not just ebcause there's more people or more technology enabling the means of doing such abuse. It's because as a society we're valueing the wrong things. 

- Why is it acceptable for children to handle firearms with their parents but not enojy sex with their friends?

- Why do we glrify violence calling it patriotic, m,acho, brave and heroic, while condemniung sexuality which is natural, beautiful, rather a lot of fun, and something everyone eventually desires? No ones dreams of being mugged or becomming a victim of violence, but everyone dreams about having good sex. Yet we condemn one, and say how great the other is. 

- Why can a teenager drive a car endangering other people at age 16, but in many US states can't be trusted to make an informed decision to have sex until 17 or 18?

This is the stuff I worry about. We're ass-backwards in what upsets us. And for myself I'm not inclined to let the issue lie and not challenge it by discussing such things.


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> Don't usually go point by point with replies so doing so here might be less than optimally formatted but bear with me.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "How can you expect to measure the full effects when so much of this is unconscious indirect influence?"
> 
> 
> Studies carried out around the world include some checking results after decades have elapsed. I rely on these to draw conclusions from. Namely,
> Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse
> 
> "Diamond and team looked at what actually happened to sex-related crimes in the Czech Republic as it transitioned from having a strict ban on sexually explicit materials to a situation where the material was decriminalized. Pornography was strictly prohibited between 1948 and 1989. The ban was lifted with the country's transition to democracy and, by 1990, the availability and ownership of sexually explicit materials rose dramatically. Even the possession of child pornography was not a criminal offense.
> 
> The researchers monitored the number of sex-related crimes from Ministry of Interior records  rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and child sex abuse in particular  for 15 years during the ban and 18 years after it was lifted.
> 
> Most significantly, they found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989. In both Denmark and Japan, the situation is similar: Child sex abuse was much lower than it was when availability of child pornography was restricted.
> 
> Other results showed that, overall, there was no increase in reported sex-related crimes generally since the legalization of pornography. Interestingly, whereas the number of sex-related crimes fell significantly after 1989, the number of other societal crimes  murder, assault, and robbery  rose significantly."
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "Look at the increase in reports of rapes of drunk people being filmed on cell phone and posted and shared by others!
> 
> How do you know that behavior isn't related to oversexualization and DESENSITIZATION?
> 
> How are we supposed to trace ALL the influences that went into that behavior?"
> 
> Law makers don't factor in every conceivable implication or consequence. Be ncie if they tried as you put it here, but when we try and fight crime via the legal system sometimes we have to use whatever we have. If it doesn'tthen address every conceivable outcome like your's asked, the best we can hope to do is do so when they then arrise.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "What about internet cyberbullying, blackmail and stalking? Forcing young people to send or post more and more explicit photos of themselves once the blackmailer has some dirt on them and threatens them if they don't comply?"
> 
> This problem is comparatively new. So new in fact I haven't even begun to address it (mostly because I have yet to buy a smartphone.) So whether pornography exposure to these kids with such devices and technology is having an impact is impossible for me to say. Though I"d assume it does. But even if it is, you don't forbid or deny or make illegal things because of how it might effect other things and issues. As with the 2nd Amendment. We have that despite pleanty of evidence guns are getting into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Just as we may eventually allow minor access to pornography despite some evience there are negative consequences of such access.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "What about child porn and trafficking? If the effects are to feed addictions by adults, doesn't that have an effect on child victims?"
> 
> Read this several times and I'm not entirely sure what you meant but I'll wing it. I think you were asking wouldn't availability or legalisation of child pornography exaccerbate child sexual abuse like sex slave/human trafficking?
> 
> Statistics say no. Because oriignally child pornography was legal in both the US and some European and Asian countries, we have actual statistical evidence for what its effects were. And quite counter-intuitively, when child pornography was made illegal, child sexual abuse went up, not down. That said, actual pornography involving real children is abuse in and of itself. But modern computer animation (CGI/3D versions) can now depict human beings so convincingly that simulated pornography can meet the needs of those unwilling or unablet o fulfill their desires, predilictions, or addicitons for real as with pedophiles and those into things legal but bizarre (baby/pony roleplaying et al.)
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "Delta, if you want to do a study,
> why not compare the attitudes and health of relationships of children who were brought up with
> * teaching sexuality openly but with an emphasis on committed healthy partnerships vs.
> * teaching sexuality without teaching kids the DIFFERENCE between ABUSIVE relationships
> 
> Then you can do a longterm study, showing the effects of
> * sharing pornography with kids that does not show committed relations, and does not teach the difference between that and open sexuality with any partners or multiple partners
> * sharing marital erotic or couples pornography, even swinging, where there is still an emphasis on consensual relations, within committed partnerships or marriage."
> 
> These studies have been conducted numerous times already. Think I just pulled this all out of my hat?  There's no point linking to the tens of thousands of studies since ultimately there's no reason to believe me, my asseritions, or any particular website. It's up to the ones who disagree to find a source they actually do believe and then come back with that. If it's legit science (vs religious fundamentalism) it might sway such assertions as I have.
> 
> Googling, 'long-term studies on childhood exposure to sexuality' there's 8.8 million. Ready, set, go!
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "Delta you should know that for scientific methods to work, there has to be an isolated control group, and also control the VARIABLES so you can compare the two groups.
> 
> I think you should know better than to try to interpret results from whatever is reported, without any controls of what is going in and data being collected from what cases/sources.
> 
> Anyone can derive anything you want to assume, if you conducted a study this way!
> Really, Delta?
> You seem smarter and more conscientious than that!"
> 
> I'm not posting data collected from some supermarket tabloid Em'. If it's not a scientific journal or university or other source I've actually heard of I"m VERY reluctant to use it. Because of how much work has been done of these topics there's no inability on my part to find scholarly and legitimate scientific sources for my claims. And that's where they all come form. Other than that, I grant your premise.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily concluded with, "How do you think you can possible contain all the effects of sexualization and pornography?"
> 
> It's not about containment or forseeing every eventuality. It's about implemented policy scientists and psychologists, and social workers have told us actually work. Not clinging to dogma that's been im place long enough to see that it doesn't.
> 
> Child sexual abuse is a growing problem, and not just ebcause there's more people or more technology enabling the means of doing such abuse. It's because as a society we're valueing the wrong things.
> 
> - Why is it acceptable for children to handle firearms with their parents but not enojy sex with their friends?
> 
> - Why do we glrify violence calling it patriotic, m,acho, brave and heroic, while condemniung sexuality which is natural, beautiful, rather a lot of fun, and something everyone eventually desires? No ones dreams of being mugged or becomming a victim of violence, but everyone dreams about having good sex. Yet we condemn one, and say how great the other is.
> 
> - Why can a teenager drive a car endangering other people at age 16, but in many US states can't be trusted to make an informed decision to have sex until 17 or 18?
> 
> This is the stuff I worry about. We're ass-backwards in what upsets us. And for myself I'm not inclined to let the issue lie and not challenge it by discussing such things.



You are really committed to this little agenda of yours aren't you?

Why is this so important to you?


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?
> 
> Why are children viewing porn?
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> Because children masturbate from the womb onwards.*_ It's scientifically invalid to calim children aren't sexual. And part of being sexual and sexually gratifying ourselves involves fantasy and masturbation. And since ancient times people have drawn, painted, sculpted, filmed, and otherwise depicted the sexual acts for others' sexual gratification.  And because of how we make porn and nudity a secret, dirty, behind closed doors thing, children naturally wanna see what all the fuss about. As in other countries where it isn't as restricted it's much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...



^ Beyond creepy! Thank you Alfred Kinsey


----------



## Delta4Embassy

PixieStix said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't usually go point by point with replies so doing so here might be less than optimally formatted but bear with me.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "How can you expect to measure the full effects when so much of this is unconscious indirect influence?"
> 
> 
> Studies carried out around the world include some checking results after decades have elapsed. I rely on these to draw conclusions from. Namely,
> Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse
> 
> "Diamond and team looked at what actually happened to sex-related crimes in the Czech Republic as it transitioned from having a strict ban on sexually explicit materials to a situation where the material was decriminalized. Pornography was strictly prohibited between 1948 and 1989. The ban was lifted with the country's transition to democracy and, by 1990, the availability and ownership of sexually explicit materials rose dramatically. Even the possession of child pornography was not a criminal offense.
> 
> The researchers monitored the number of sex-related crimes from Ministry of Interior records  rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and child sex abuse in particular  for 15 years during the ban and 18 years after it was lifted.
> 
> Most significantly, they found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989. In both Denmark and Japan, the situation is similar: Child sex abuse was much lower than it was when availability of child pornography was restricted.
> 
> Other results showed that, overall, there was no increase in reported sex-related crimes generally since the legalization of pornography. Interestingly, whereas the number of sex-related crimes fell significantly after 1989, the number of other societal crimes  murder, assault, and robbery  rose significantly."
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "Look at the increase in reports of rapes of drunk people being filmed on cell phone and posted and shared by others!
> 
> How do you know that behavior isn't related to oversexualization and DESENSITIZATION?
> 
> How are we supposed to trace ALL the influences that went into that behavior?"
> 
> Law makers don't factor in every conceivable implication or consequence. Be ncie if they tried as you put it here, but when we try and fight crime via the legal system sometimes we have to use whatever we have. If it doesn'tthen address every conceivable outcome like your's asked, the best we can hope to do is do so when they then arrise.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "What about internet cyberbullying, blackmail and stalking? Forcing young people to send or post more and more explicit photos of themselves once the blackmailer has some dirt on them and threatens them if they don't comply?"
> 
> This problem is comparatively new. So new in fact I haven't even begun to address it (mostly because I have yet to buy a smartphone.) So whether pornography exposure to these kids with such devices and technology is having an impact is impossible for me to say. Though I"d assume it does. But even if it is, you don't forbid or deny or make illegal things because of how it might effect other things and issues. As with the 2nd Amendment. We have that despite pleanty of evidence guns are getting into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Just as we may eventually allow minor access to pornography despite some evience there are negative consequences of such access.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "What about child porn and trafficking? If the effects are to feed addictions by adults, doesn't that have an effect on child victims?"
> 
> Read this several times and I'm not entirely sure what you meant but I'll wing it. I think you were asking wouldn't availability or legalisation of child pornography exaccerbate child sexual abuse like sex slave/human trafficking?
> 
> Statistics say no. Because oriignally child pornography was legal in both the US and some European and Asian countries, we have actual statistical evidence for what its effects were. And quite counter-intuitively, when child pornography was made illegal, child sexual abuse went up, not down. That said, actual pornography involving real children is abuse in and of itself. But modern computer animation (CGI/3D versions) can now depict human beings so convincingly that simulated pornography can meet the needs of those unwilling or unablet o fulfill their desires, predilictions, or addicitons for real as with pedophiles and those into things legal but bizarre (baby/pony roleplaying et al.)
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "Delta, if you want to do a study,
> why not compare the attitudes and health of relationships of children who were brought up with
> * teaching sexuality openly but with an emphasis on committed healthy partnerships vs.
> * teaching sexuality without teaching kids the DIFFERENCE between ABUSIVE relationships
> 
> Then you can do a longterm study, showing the effects of
> * sharing pornography with kids that does not show committed relations, and does not teach the difference between that and open sexuality with any partners or multiple partners
> * sharing marital erotic or couples pornography, even swinging, where there is still an emphasis on consensual relations, within committed partnerships or marriage."
> 
> These studies have been conducted numerous times already. Think I just pulled this all out of my hat?  There's no point linking to the tens of thousands of studies since ultimately there's no reason to believe me, my asseritions, or any particular website. It's up to the ones who disagree to find a source they actually do believe and then come back with that. If it's legit science (vs religious fundamentalism) it might sway such assertions as I have.
> 
> Googling, 'long-term studies on childhood exposure to sexuality' there's 8.8 million. Ready, set, go!
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "Delta you should know that for scientific methods to work, there has to be an isolated control group, and also control the VARIABLES so you can compare the two groups.
> 
> I think you should know better than to try to interpret results from whatever is reported, without any controls of what is going in and data being collected from what cases/sources.
> 
> Anyone can derive anything you want to assume, if you conducted a study this way!
> Really, Delta?
> You seem smarter and more conscientious than that!"
> 
> I'm not posting data collected from some supermarket tabloid Em'. If it's not a scientific journal or university or other source I've actually heard of I"m VERY reluctant to use it. Because of how much work has been done of these topics there's no inability on my part to find scholarly and legitimate scientific sources for my claims. And that's where they all come form. Other than that, I grant your premise.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily concluded with, "How do you think you can possible contain all the effects of sexualization and pornography?"
> 
> It's not about containment or forseeing every eventuality. It's about implemented policy scientists and psychologists, and social workers have told us actually work. Not clinging to dogma that's been im place long enough to see that it doesn't.
> 
> Child sexual abuse is a growing problem, and not just ebcause there's more people or more technology enabling the means of doing such abuse. It's because as a society we're valueing the wrong things.
> 
> - Why is it acceptable for children to handle firearms with their parents but not enojy sex with their friends?
> 
> - Why do we glrify violence calling it patriotic, m,acho, brave and heroic, while condemniung sexuality which is natural, beautiful, rather a lot of fun, and something everyone eventually desires? No ones dreams of being mugged or becomming a victim of violence, but everyone dreams about having good sex. Yet we condemn one, and say how great the other is.
> 
> - Why can a teenager drive a car endangering other people at age 16, but in many US states can't be trusted to make an informed decision to have sex until 17 or 18?
> 
> This is the stuff I worry about. We're ass-backwards in what upsets us. And for myself I'm not inclined to let the issue lie and not challenge it by discussing such things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really committed to this little agenda of yours aren't you?
> 
> Why is this so important to you?
Click to expand...


Because violence is bad. Sex is good. So long as the powers that be continue linking both together as when discussing issues and saying "There's too much sex and violence on tv..." To which my assertion is there's too much violence on tv, but not nearly enough sex.

It's been proven in scientific study after study that societies which exemplify violence suffer great rates of violent crime while suppressing sexuality. And societies which exemplify sexuality suffer less violent crime. Give the US's problem with violence one can't help but notice the total reversal we here glorifying one while suppressing the other. 

I'm actively involved in efforts to reverse this trend.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

PixieStix said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?
> 
> Why are children viewing porn?
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> Because children masturbate from the womb onwards.*_ It's scientifically invalid to calim children aren't sexual. And part of being sexual and sexually gratifying ourselves involves fantasy and masturbation. And since ancient times people have drawn, painted, sculpted, filmed, and otherwise depicted the sexual acts for others' sexual gratification.  And because of how we make porn and nudity a secret, dirty, behind closed doors thing, children naturally wanna see what all the fuss about. As in other countries where it isn't as restricted it's much ado about nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Beyond creepy! Thank you Alfred Kinsey
Click to expand...


Wasn't holding the camera or anything  

This is recently discovered since guess cameras or imaging techniques like so-called 4d imaging could 'see' inside a mother's womb. Babies in-vitro have been documented as spending inordinant amounts of times with their hands fondling their genitals in behaviours some have said is masturbation.


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't usually go point by point with replies so doing so here might be less than optimally formatted but bear with me.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "How can you expect to measure the full effects when so much of this is unconscious indirect influence?"
> 
> 
> Studies carried out around the world include some checking results after decades have elapsed. I rely on these to draw conclusions from. Namely,
> Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse
> 
> "Diamond and team looked at what actually happened to sex-related crimes in the Czech Republic as it transitioned from having a strict ban on sexually explicit materials to a situation where the material was decriminalized. Pornography was strictly prohibited between 1948 and 1989. The ban was lifted with the country's transition to democracy and, by 1990, the availability and ownership of sexually explicit materials rose dramatically. Even the possession of child pornography was not a criminal offense.
> 
> The researchers monitored the number of sex-related crimes from Ministry of Interior records  rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and child sex abuse in particular  for 15 years during the ban and 18 years after it was lifted.
> 
> Most significantly, they found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989. In both Denmark and Japan, the situation is similar: Child sex abuse was much lower than it was when availability of child pornography was restricted.
> 
> Other results showed that, overall, there was no increase in reported sex-related crimes generally since the legalization of pornography. Interestingly, whereas the number of sex-related crimes fell significantly after 1989, the number of other societal crimes  murder, assault, and robbery  rose significantly."
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "Look at the increase in reports of rapes of drunk people being filmed on cell phone and posted and shared by others!
> 
> How do you know that behavior isn't related to oversexualization and DESENSITIZATION?
> 
> How are we supposed to trace ALL the influences that went into that behavior?"
> 
> Law makers don't factor in every conceivable implication or consequence. Be ncie if they tried as you put it here, but when we try and fight crime via the legal system sometimes we have to use whatever we have. If it doesn'tthen address every conceivable outcome like your's asked, the best we can hope to do is do so when they then arrise.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "What about internet cyberbullying, blackmail and stalking? Forcing young people to send or post more and more explicit photos of themselves once the blackmailer has some dirt on them and threatens them if they don't comply?"
> 
> This problem is comparatively new. So new in fact I haven't even begun to address it (mostly because I have yet to buy a smartphone.) So whether pornography exposure to these kids with such devices and technology is having an impact is impossible for me to say. Though I"d assume it does. But even if it is, you don't forbid or deny or make illegal things because of how it might effect other things and issues. As with the 2nd Amendment. We have that despite pleanty of evidence guns are getting into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Just as we may eventually allow minor access to pornography despite some evience there are negative consequences of such access.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "What about child porn and trafficking? If the effects are to feed addictions by adults, doesn't that have an effect on child victims?"
> 
> Read this several times and I'm not entirely sure what you meant but I'll wing it. I think you were asking wouldn't availability or legalisation of child pornography exaccerbate child sexual abuse like sex slave/human trafficking?
> 
> Statistics say no. Because oriignally child pornography was legal in both the US and some European and Asian countries, we have actual statistical evidence for what its effects were. And quite counter-intuitively, when child pornography was made illegal, child sexual abuse went up, not down. That said, actual pornography involving real children is abuse in and of itself. But modern computer animation (CGI/3D versions) can now depict human beings so convincingly that simulated pornography can meet the needs of those unwilling or unablet o fulfill their desires, predilictions, or addicitons for real as with pedophiles and those into things legal but bizarre (baby/pony roleplaying et al.)
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "Delta, if you want to do a study,
> why not compare the attitudes and health of relationships of children who were brought up with
> * teaching sexuality openly but with an emphasis on committed healthy partnerships vs.
> * teaching sexuality without teaching kids the DIFFERENCE between ABUSIVE relationships
> 
> Then you can do a longterm study, showing the effects of
> * sharing pornography with kids that does not show committed relations, and does not teach the difference between that and open sexuality with any partners or multiple partners
> * sharing marital erotic or couples pornography, even swinging, where there is still an emphasis on consensual relations, within committed partnerships or marriage."
> 
> These studies have been conducted numerous times already. Think I just pulled this all out of my hat?  There's no point linking to the tens of thousands of studies since ultimately there's no reason to believe me, my asseritions, or any particular website. It's up to the ones who disagree to find a source they actually do believe and then come back with that. If it's legit science (vs religious fundamentalism) it might sway such assertions as I have.
> 
> Googling, 'long-term studies on childhood exposure to sexuality' there's 8.8 million. Ready, set, go!
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "Delta you should know that for scientific methods to work, there has to be an isolated control group, and also control the VARIABLES so you can compare the two groups.
> 
> I think you should know better than to try to interpret results from whatever is reported, without any controls of what is going in and data being collected from what cases/sources.
> 
> Anyone can derive anything you want to assume, if you conducted a study this way!
> Really, Delta?
> You seem smarter and more conscientious than that!"
> 
> I'm not posting data collected from some supermarket tabloid Em'. If it's not a scientific journal or university or other source I've actually heard of I"m VERY reluctant to use it. Because of how much work has been done of these topics there's no inability on my part to find scholarly and legitimate scientific sources for my claims. And that's where they all come form. Other than that, I grant your premise.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily concluded with, "How do you think you can possible contain all the effects of sexualization and pornography?"
> 
> It's not about containment or forseeing every eventuality. It's about implemented policy scientists and psychologists, and social workers have told us actually work. Not clinging to dogma that's been im place long enough to see that it doesn't.
> 
> Child sexual abuse is a growing problem, and not just ebcause there's more people or more technology enabling the means of doing such abuse. It's because as a society we're valueing the wrong things.
> 
> - Why is it acceptable for children to handle firearms with their parents but not enojy sex with their friends?
> 
> - Why do we glrify violence calling it patriotic, m,acho, brave and heroic, while condemniung sexuality which is natural, beautiful, rather a lot of fun, and something everyone eventually desires? No ones dreams of being mugged or becomming a victim of violence, but everyone dreams about having good sex. Yet we condemn one, and say how great the other is.
> 
> - Why can a teenager drive a car endangering other people at age 16, but in many US states can't be trusted to make an informed decision to have sex until 17 or 18?
> 
> This is the stuff I worry about. We're ass-backwards in what upsets us. And for myself I'm not inclined to let the issue lie and not challenge it by discussing such things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really committed to this little agenda of yours aren't you?
> 
> Why is this so important to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because violence is bad. Sex is good. So long as the powers that be continue linking both together as when discussing issues and saying "There's too much sex and violence on tv..." To which my assertion is there's too much violence on tv, but not nearly enough sex.
> 
> It's been proven in scientific study after study that societies which exemplify violence suffer great rates of violent crime while suppressing sexuality. And societies which exemplify sexuality suffer less violent crime. Give the US's problem with violence one can't help but notice the total reversal we here glorifying one while suppressing the other.
> 
> _*I'm actively involved in efforts to reverse this trend.*_
Click to expand...


I see.

Do you still have problems watching videos, by the way?


----------



## PixieStix

Delta4Embassy said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> Because children masturbate from the womb onwards.*_ It's scientifically invalid to calim children aren't sexual. And part of being sexual and sexually gratifying ourselves involves fantasy and masturbation. And since ancient times people have drawn, painted, sculpted, filmed, and otherwise depicted the sexual acts for others' sexual gratification.  And because of how we make porn and nudity a secret, dirty, behind closed doors thing, children naturally wanna see what all the fuss about. As in other countries where it isn't as restricted it's much ado about nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Beyond creepy! Thank you Alfred Kinsey
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't holding the camera or anything
> 
> This is recently discovered since guess cameras or imaging techniques like so-called 4d imaging could 'see' inside a mother's womb. Babies in-vitro have been documented as spending inordinant amounts of times with their hands fondling their genitals in behaviours some have said is masturbation.
Click to expand...


You spend inordinate amounts of time trying to justify your garbage thinking


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Videos? 

My thinking is the thinking of scientists, attorneys, law enforcement, professors, and policy makers.

Who's your thinking shared by?


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because children masturbate from the womb onwards. It's scientifically invalid to calim children aren't sexual. And part of being sexual and sexually gratifying ourselves involves fantasy and masturbation. And since ancient times people have drawn, painted, sculpted, filmed, and otherwise depicted the sexual acts for others' sexual gratification.  And because of how we make porn and nudity a secret, dirty, behind closed doors thing, children naturally wanna see what all the fuss about. As in other countries where it isn't as restricted it's much ado about nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  They discover their genitalia around age 2 and then they forget about them till they reach puberty when hormones take over.  Your facts are not factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Over 10 million hits for 'fetuses filmed masturbating.' So pick one or more from sites you'll believe and get some carbons for your correction and apology.
Click to expand...








Fetuses aren't truly sentient so good luck with that one.  As I said, your "facts" aren't factual.


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't introduce the pedo stuff. Would have to go back and see where the thread jumped th shark. Consequently many of my posts aren't about pedophiles or even CSA. Touched on those a bit before but not everything I then say is about those things.
> 
> Crime is fixable. But we lack the political will to do so. As to pedophilia, you're confusing two different things, pedophilia, and child sexual abuse as with "pedophiles have a 100% recitivism rate." Being a pedophilia isn't illegal whether it's a paraphila (DSM-IV,) or sexual orientation (DSM-V.) It's no more illegal than being heterosexual or homosexual is. But adults having sexual contacts or interactions with minors below ages of consent ARE breaking laws and thus 'child sexual offenders.' Whether they're pedophiles or not isn't significant legally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, but you did with your OP.  Pornography is used to "sexualize" children so that the pedophile can exploit their innocence.  Most (90%) children are repulsed by watching the sex act.  It takes a lot of work to sexualize them to where they will put up with the abuse.
> 
> The use of pornography is the second step in the pattern of abuses that lead up to full on sexual assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's one of numerous techniques child sexual abusers use to seduce their victims. *But linking childhood exposure to pornography with the then victimizing of children by csa'ers is an incorrect associaiton.*
> 
> Would not graphical images used in a school-setting during a sex ed class be classified 'pornographic' outside of a classroom setting? Yet we all call that sex-ed, not victimization of children being shown pornography.
Click to expand...






Why?


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't usually go point by point with replies so doing so here might be less than optimally formatted but bear with me.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "How can you expect to measure the full effects when so much of this is unconscious indirect influence?"
> 
> 
> Studies carried out around the world include some checking results after decades have elapsed. I rely on these to draw conclusions from. Namely,
> Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse
> 
> "Diamond and team looked at what actually happened to sex-related crimes in the Czech Republic as it transitioned from having a strict ban on sexually explicit materials to a situation where the material was decriminalized. Pornography was strictly prohibited between 1948 and 1989. The ban was lifted with the country's transition to democracy and, by 1990, the availability and ownership of sexually explicit materials rose dramatically. Even the possession of child pornography was not a criminal offense.
> 
> The researchers monitored the number of sex-related crimes from Ministry of Interior records &#8211; rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and child sex abuse in particular &#8211; for 15 years during the ban and 18 years after it was lifted.
> 
> Most significantly, they found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989. In both Denmark and Japan, the situation is similar: Child sex abuse was much lower than it was when availability of child pornography was restricted.
> 
> Other results showed that, overall, there was no increase in reported sex-related crimes generally since the legalization of pornography. Interestingly, whereas the number of sex-related crimes fell significantly after 1989, the number of other societal crimes &#8211; murder, assault, and robbery &#8211; rose significantly."
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "Look at the increase in reports of rapes of drunk people being filmed on cell phone and posted and shared by others!
> 
> How do you know that behavior isn't related to oversexualization and DESENSITIZATION?
> 
> How are we supposed to trace ALL the influences that went into that behavior?"
> 
> Law makers don't factor in every conceivable implication or consequence. Be ncie if they tried as you put it here, but when we try and fight crime via the legal system sometimes we have to use whatever we have. If it doesn'tthen address every conceivable outcome like your's asked, the best we can hope to do is do so when they then arrise.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "What about internet cyberbullying, blackmail and stalking? Forcing young people to send or post more and more explicit photos of themselves once the blackmailer has some dirt on them and threatens them if they don't comply?"
> 
> This problem is comparatively new. So new in fact I haven't even begun to address it (mostly because I have yet to buy a smartphone.) So whether pornography exposure to these kids with such devices and technology is having an impact is impossible for me to say. Though I"d assume it does. But even if it is, you don't forbid or deny or make illegal things because of how it might effect other things and issues. As with the 2nd Amendment. We have that despite pleanty of evidence guns are getting into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Just as we may eventually allow minor access to pornography despite some evience there are negative consequences of such access.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "What about child porn and trafficking? If the effects are to feed addictions by adults, doesn't that have an effect on child victims?"
> 
> Read this several times and I'm not entirely sure what you meant but I'll wing it. I think you were asking wouldn't availability or legalisation of child pornography exaccerbate child sexual abuse like sex slave/human trafficking?
> 
> Statistics say no. Because oriignally child pornography was legal in both the US and some European and Asian countries, we have actual statistical evidence for what its effects were. And quite counter-intuitively, when child pornography was made illegal, child sexual abuse went up, not down. That said, actual pornography involving real children is abuse in and of itself. But modern computer animation (CGI/3D versions) can now depict human beings so convincingly that simulated pornography can meet the needs of those unwilling or unablet o fulfill their desires, predilictions, or addicitons for real as with pedophiles and those into things legal but bizarre (baby/pony roleplaying et al.)
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "Delta, if you want to do a study,
> why not compare the attitudes and health of relationships of children who were brought up with
> * teaching sexuality openly but with an emphasis on committed healthy partnerships vs.
> * teaching sexuality without teaching kids the DIFFERENCE between ABUSIVE relationships
> 
> Then you can do a longterm study, showing the effects of
> * sharing pornography with kids that does not show committed relations, and does not teach the difference between that and open sexuality with any partners or multiple partners
> * sharing marital erotic or couples pornography, even swinging, where there is still an emphasis on consensual relations, within committed partnerships or marriage."
> 
> These studies have been conducted numerous times already. Think I just pulled this all out of my hat?  There's no point linking to the tens of thousands of studies since ultimately there's no reason to believe me, my asseritions, or any particular website. It's up to the ones who disagree to find a source they actually do believe and then come back with that. If it's legit science (vs religious fundamentalism) it might sway such assertions as I have.
> 
> Googling, 'long-term studies on childhood exposure to sexuality' there's 8.8 million. Ready, set, go!
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily asked, "Delta you should know that for scientific methods to work, there has to be an isolated control group, and also control the VARIABLES so you can compare the two groups.
> 
> I think you should know better than to try to interpret results from whatever is reported, without any controls of what is going in and data being collected from what cases/sources.
> 
> Anyone can derive anything you want to assume, if you conducted a study this way!
> Really, Delta?
> You seem smarter and more conscientious than that!"
> 
> I'm not posting data collected from some supermarket tabloid Em'. If it's not a scientific journal or university or other source I've actually heard of I"m VERY reluctant to use it. Because of how much work has been done of these topics there's no inability on my part to find scholarly and legitimate scientific sources for my claims. And that's where they all come form. Other than that, I grant your premise.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emily concluded with, "How do you think you can possible contain all the effects of sexualization and pornography?"
> 
> It's not about containment or forseeing every eventuality. It's about implemented policy scientists and psychologists, and social workers have told us actually work. Not clinging to dogma that's been im place long enough to see that it doesn't.
> 
> Child sexual abuse is a growing problem, and not just ebcause there's more people or more technology enabling the means of doing such abuse. It's because as a society we're valueing the wrong things.
> 
> - Why is it acceptable for children to handle firearms with their parents but not enojy sex with their friends?
> 
> - Why do we glrify violence calling it patriotic, m,acho, brave and heroic, while condemniung sexuality which is natural, beautiful, rather a lot of fun, and something everyone eventually desires? No ones dreams of being mugged or becomming a victim of violence, but everyone dreams about having good sex. Yet we condemn one, and say how great the other is.
> 
> - Why can a teenager drive a car endangering other people at age 16, but in many US states can't be trusted to make an informed decision to have sex until 17 or 18?
> 
> This is the stuff I worry about. We're ass-backwards in what upsets us. And for myself I'm not inclined to let the issue lie and not challenge it by discussing such things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really committed to this little agenda of yours aren't you?
> 
> Why is this so important to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because violence is bad. Sex is good. So long as the powers that be continue linking both together as when discussing issues and saying "There's too much sex and violence on tv..." To which my assertion is there's too much violence on tv, but not nearly enough sex.
> 
> It's been proven in scientific study after study that societies which exemplify violence suffer great rates of violent crime while suppressing sexuality. And societies which exemplify sexuality suffer less violent crime. Give the US's problem with violence one can't help but notice the total reversal we here glorifying one while suppressing the other.
> 
> I'm actively involved in efforts to reverse this trend.
Click to expand...






Cite three peer reviewed studies that support you assertion.


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> Because children masturbate from the womb onwards.*_ It's scientifically invalid to calim children aren't sexual. And part of being sexual and sexually gratifying ourselves involves fantasy and masturbation. And since ancient times people have drawn, painted, sculpted, filmed, and otherwise depicted the sexual acts for others' sexual gratification.  And because of how we make porn and nudity a secret, dirty, behind closed doors thing, children naturally wanna see what all the fuss about. As in other countries where it isn't as restricted it's much ado about nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Beyond creepy! Thank you Alfred Kinsey
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't holding the camera or anything
> 
> This is recently discovered since guess cameras or imaging techniques like so-called 4d imaging could 'see' inside a mother's womb. Babies in-vitro have been documented as spending inordinant amounts of times with their hands fondling their genitals in behaviours some have said is masturbation.
Click to expand...








Other than pedophiles who will say anything to support their illness, no researcher or study that my wife has seen, or her friend has ever described the behaviors you claim.  Please provide a peer reviewed study that supports your assertion.


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> Videos?
> 
> My thinking is the thinking of scientists, attorneys, law enforcement, professors, and policy makers.
> 
> Who's your thinking shared by?







Cite them.  My thinking is shared by the entire psychological community and experts in the field.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

westwall said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are really committed to this little agenda of yours aren't you?
> 
> Why is this so important to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because violence is bad. Sex is good. So long as the powers that be continue linking both together as when discussing issues and saying "There's too much sex and violence on tv..." To which my assertion is there's too much violence on tv, but not nearly enough sex.
> 
> It's been proven in scientific study after study that societies which exemplify violence suffer great rates of violent crime while suppressing sexuality. And societies which exemplify sexuality suffer less violent crime. Give the US's problem with violence one can't help but notice the total reversal we here glorifying one while suppressing the other.
> 
> I'm actively involved in efforts to reverse this trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cite three peer reviewed studies that support you assertion.
Click to expand...


Only three? 

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/James_W._Prescott.html

1)
Article: Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence
ERIC - Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1975

[first link is actual paper(s), second's verifying it's been reviewed (right side of screen.)

2)
Effects of Pornography on Human Behavior
"Effects of Pornography on Human Behavior"

3)
Influence of New Media on Adolescent Sexual Health: Evidence and Opportunities: Main Page
" Influence of New Media on Adolescent Sexual Health:
Evidence and Opportunities"

Can use Search or Find "peer-" to see where mentions of such are if not immediately visible.


----------



## GISMYS

Pornography DOES Harm Children and anyone Who Views It. Pornography is brain POISON=garbage in=garbage out!!!


----------



## Delta4Embassy

westwall said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Videos?
> 
> My thinking is the thinking of scientists, attorneys, law enforcement, professors, and policy makers.
> 
> Who's your thinking shared by?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cite them.  My thinking is shared by the entire psychological community and experts in the field.
Click to expand...


Cited mine. Now show me your's.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

GISMYS said:


> Pornography DOES Harm Children and anyone Who Views It. Pornography is brain POISON=garbage in=garbage out!!!



Yes, so you've said. We're actually linking to source materials here, if not able to do so stick to Religion and Ethics.


----------



## rightwinger

GISMYS said:


> GOD'S WORD is the last word on any topic. LEARN THAT TRUTH!!!==
> 3 John 1:11
> Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.
> 
> Philippians 4:8
> Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 10:13
> 
> No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.



  NOOOOoooooooo!
GISMYS is back


----------



## Delta4Embassy

GISMYS said:


> GOD'S WORD is the last word on any topic. LEARN THAT TRUTH!!!==
> 3 John 1:11
> Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.
> 
> Philippians 4:8
> Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 10:13
> 
> No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.



And they say the Bible isn't a science textbook when clearly it is, thanks GIS.


----------



## GISMYS

delta4embassy said:


> trying my best to interpret health and lifestyle as broadly as possible so as to include religious lifestyles. But if you continue posting off-topic religious stuff in a non-religious thread i will report it.



yes!! Satan and demons hate to see God's Word posted here too!!! =fear of truth!!!


----------



## Delta4Embassy

GISMYS said:


> delta4embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> trying my best to interpret health and lifestyle as broadly as possible so as to include religious lifestyles. But if you continue posting off-topic religious stuff in a non-religious thread i will report it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes!! Satan and demons hate to see God's Word posted here too!!! =fear of truth!!!
Click to expand...


No, more like fear of spam and loosing the ability to have academic discussions without having them buried by trolls.

Reported.


----------



## Michelle420

Delta4Embassy said:


> No.
> 
> Google and read any and every .edu site with a paper about it to your heart's content. Been studying the question for decades and the even the Reagan Administration studied the question, came back with "no" and let the matter drop (silently not publishing the results either by the by.)
> 
> Just as violent movies and videogames doesn't then translate into real-world acting out of violent fantasies (as evidenced by such content availability in other countries,) pornography doesn't then result in minors acting out what they saw. Will always be able to find a news item suggesting otherwise, but this is not scientificly valid so much as sensationalism and fear-mongering.
> 
> "Research shows that healthy sexual development includes natural curiosity about sexuality. Retrospective studies show that accidental exposure to real-life scenes of sexuality does not harm children. Our survey shows that age of first exposure to pornography does not correlate with negative attitudes towards women. Studies with non-explicit representations of sexuality show that young people who seek out sexualised representations tend to be those with a pre-existing interest in sexuality. *These studies also suggest that current generations of children are no more sexualised than previous generations, that they are not innocent about sexuality, and that a key negative effect of this knowledge is the requirement for them to feign ignorance in order to satisfy adults expectations of them.* Research also suggests important differences between pre- and post-pubescent attitudes towards pornography, and that pornography is not addictive."
> Does pornography harm young people? | QUT ePrints
> 
> "A vocal segment of the population has serious concerns about the effect of pornography in society and challenges its public use and acceptance. This manuscript reviews the major issues associated with the availability of sexually explicit material. *It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.*"
> Pacific Center for Sex and Society - Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review
> 
> "Most of the recent studies in this field have been correlational. That means you ask a sample of young people whether they've seen pornography, or how often, and then ask them what they think of sex or gender role attitudes, for example.
> 
> *But it is not possible to establish causation from correlational studies, and to say whether pornography is changing or reinforcing attitudes.*
> 
> "That is the real next step that research needs to take," says Horvath, "to try to identify which came first.""
> BBC News - Do we know whether pornography harms people?
> 
> Thta's the most important part above, 'it's not possible to establish causation from correlation.' Ethics limit what you can investigate as in you can't expose subjects to particularly violent pornography tosee if it harms them, because what if it does? So you can't scientificly investigate whether porn harms children because to find out you have to expose potentially harmful things to children. Catch-22.
> 
> What we can and have discovered if where porn is widely available, sex crimes go down. Where porn is banned and restricted it goes up. When children are raised in nudist enviroments, they don't suffer the same stress over their developing bodies as their clothes-wearing counterparts.
> 
> I get people here will opt to make political hay out of this on both sides of the poltical divide while choosing to ignore the research and facts, this is not for them but people more interested in being right than popular.



Do you have children?


----------



## Michelle420

I think it's harmful. 

Kids are influenced by everything, a scary bedtime story can send them into nightmares.

Pornography is a filmed production with a goal, and there is all different types of it.

No kid should be exposed to it and it is harmful much in the same way asking a 3 yr old to drive a car is.

The maturity level is not ready to be exposed to it.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

drifter said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Google and read any and every .edu site with a paper about it to your heart's content. Been studying the question for decades and the even the Reagan Administration studied the question, came back with "no" and let the matter drop (silently not publishing the results either by the by.)
> 
> Just as violent movies and videogames doesn't then translate into real-world acting out of violent fantasies (as evidenced by such content availability in other countries,) pornography doesn't then result in minors acting out what they saw. Will always be able to find a news item suggesting otherwise, but this is not scientificly valid so much as sensationalism and fear-mongering.
> 
> "Research shows that healthy sexual development includes natural curiosity about sexuality. Retrospective studies show that accidental exposure to real-life scenes of sexuality does not harm children. Our survey shows that age of first exposure to pornography does not correlate with negative attitudes towards women. Studies with non-explicit representations of sexuality show that young people who seek out sexualised representations tend to be those with a pre-existing interest in sexuality. *These studies also suggest that current generations of children are no more sexualised than previous generations, that they are not innocent about sexuality, and that a key negative effect of this knowledge is the requirement for them to feign ignorance in order to satisfy adults expectations of them.* Research also suggests important differences between pre- and post-pubescent attitudes towards pornography, and that pornography is not addictive."
> Does pornography harm young people? | QUT ePrints
> 
> "A vocal segment of the population has serious concerns about the effect of pornography in society and challenges its public use and acceptance. This manuscript reviews the major issues associated with the availability of sexually explicit material. *It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.*"
> Pacific Center for Sex and Society - Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review
> 
> "Most of the recent studies in this field have been correlational. That means you ask a sample of young people whether they've seen pornography, or how often, and then ask them what they think of sex or gender role attitudes, for example.
> 
> *But it is not possible to establish causation from correlational studies, and to say whether pornography is changing or reinforcing attitudes.*
> 
> "That is the real next step that research needs to take," says Horvath, "to try to identify which came first.""
> BBC News - Do we know whether pornography harms people?
> 
> Thta's the most important part above, 'it's not possible to establish causation from correlation.' Ethics limit what you can investigate as in you can't expose subjects to particularly violent pornography tosee if it harms them, because what if it does? So you can't scientificly investigate whether porn harms children because to find out you have to expose potentially harmful things to children. Catch-22.
> 
> What we can and have discovered if where porn is widely available, sex crimes go down. Where porn is banned and restricted it goes up. When children are raised in nudist enviroments, they don't suffer the same stress over their developing bodies as their clothes-wearing counterparts.
> 
> I get people here will opt to make political hay out of this on both sides of the poltical divide while choosing to ignore the research and facts, this is not for them but people more interested in being right than popular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have children?
Click to expand...


My personal life is irrelevant.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

drifter said:


> I think it's harmful.
> 
> Kids are influenced by everything, a scary bedtime story can send them into nightmares.
> 
> Pornography is a filmed production with a goal, and there is all different types of it.
> 
> No kid should be exposed to it and it is harmful much in the same way asking a 3 yr old to drive a car is.
> 
> The maturity level is not ready to be exposed to it.



Am willing to accept various points of view and opposition when people can show me a study backing that up. So far, the only opposing pov's have been from discredited religious sources. Whereas I've posted numerous peer-reviewed, and scholarly studies shwoing the opposite is in fact true.


----------



## Michelle420

Delta4Embassy said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Google and read any and every .edu site with a paper about it to your heart's content. Been studying the question for decades and the even the Reagan Administration studied the question, came back with "no" and let the matter drop (silently not publishing the results either by the by.)
> 
> Just as violent movies and videogames doesn't then translate into real-world acting out of violent fantasies (as evidenced by such content availability in other countries,) pornography doesn't then result in minors acting out what they saw. Will always be able to find a news item suggesting otherwise, but this is not scientificly valid so much as sensationalism and fear-mongering.
> 
> "Research shows that healthy sexual development includes natural curiosity about sexuality. Retrospective studies show that accidental exposure to real-life scenes of sexuality does not harm children. Our survey shows that age of first exposure to pornography does not correlate with negative attitudes towards women. Studies with non-explicit representations of sexuality show that young people who seek out sexualised representations tend to be those with a pre-existing interest in sexuality. *These studies also suggest that current generations of children are no more sexualised than previous generations, that they are not innocent about sexuality, and that a key negative effect of this knowledge is the requirement for them to feign ignorance in order to satisfy adults&#8217; expectations of them.* Research also suggests important differences between pre- and post-pubescent attitudes towards pornography, and that pornography is not addictive."
> Does pornography harm young people? | QUT ePrints
> 
> "A vocal segment of the population has serious concerns about the effect of pornography in society and challenges its public use and acceptance. This manuscript reviews the major issues associated with the availability of sexually explicit material. *It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.*"
> Pacific Center for Sex and Society - Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review
> 
> "Most of the recent studies in this field have been correlational. That means you ask a sample of young people whether they've seen pornography, or how often, and then ask them what they think of sex or gender role attitudes, for example.
> 
> *But it is not possible to establish causation from correlational studies, and to say whether pornography is changing or reinforcing attitudes.*
> 
> "That is the real next step that research needs to take," says Horvath, "to try to identify which came first.""
> BBC News - Do we know whether pornography harms people?
> 
> Thta's the most important part above, 'it's not possible to establish causation from correlation.' Ethics limit what you can investigate as in you can't expose subjects to particularly violent pornography tosee if it harms them, because what if it does? So you can't scientificly investigate whether porn harms children because to find out you have to expose potentially harmful things to children. Catch-22.
> 
> What we can and have discovered if where porn is widely available, sex crimes go down. Where porn is banned and restricted it goes up. When children are raised in nudist enviroments, they don't suffer the same stress over their developing bodies as their clothes-wearing counterparts.
> 
> I get people here will opt to make political hay out of this on both sides of the poltical divide while choosing to ignore the research and facts, this is not for them but people more interested in being right than popular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My personal life is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Not really, because if you raised children, you would already know it is harmful.

If you are inexperienced then it explains the dumb question


----------



## Delta4Embassy

drifter said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My personal life is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, because if you raised children, you would already know it is harmful.
> 
> If you are inexperienced then it explains the dumb question
Click to expand...


I figured that was the point you'd try to assert. Let me counter with this:

does a good gynecologist have to be a female?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

If anything, people with kids will have their objectivity blurred in much the same way we loose objectivity engaging in sex too-soon in our relationships before we've formed an objective opinion about a person. In your natural biologically-wired protecting of your kids, you tend to over-react and project opinion onto everyone else instead of relying on science and evidence.


----------



## Michelle420

Delta4Embassy said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal life is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, because if you raised children, you would already know it is harmful.
> 
> If you are inexperienced then it explains the dumb question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I figured that was the point you'd try to assert. Let me counter with this:
> 
> does a good gynecologist have to be a female?
Click to expand...


Let me counter with this, if you post medical journals suggesting cancer patients are not "helped" by pain medication in the context of a cure, does that mean people who have cancer and feel relief from pain medication shouldn't take it.

Context is everything.

To make a statement that children aren't harmed is bogus.

It's total crap.

You know it and I know it and your fluff is just intellectual masterbation quite frankly because you have an axe to grind with religious people and homophobes.

It's just stupid


----------



## Delta4Embassy

drifter said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, because if you raised children, you would already know it is harmful.
> 
> If you are inexperienced then it explains the dumb question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I figured that was the point you'd try to assert. Let me counter with this:
> 
> does a good gynecologist have to be a female?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me counter with this, if you post medical journals suggesting cancer patients are not "helped" by pain medication in the context of a cure, does that mean people who have cancer and feel relief from pain medication shouldn't take it.
> 
> Context is everything.
> 
> To make a statement that children aren't harmed is bogus.
> 
> It's total crap.
> 
> You know it and I know it and your fluff is just intellectual masterbation quite frankly because you have an axe to grind with religious people and homophobes.
> 
> It's just stupid
Click to expand...


In conjunction with the statement I included proofs. I'm not offering opinions but peer-reviewed science. 

And if going to talk about this stuff you might wanna learn how to spell 'masturbation.'


----------



## Michelle420

Delta4Embassy said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I figured that was the point you'd try to assert. Let me counter with this:
> 
> does a good gynecologist have to be a female?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me counter with this, if you post medical journals suggesting cancer patients are not "helped" by pain medication in the context of a cure, does that mean people who have cancer and feel relief from pain medication shouldn't take it.
> 
> Context is everything.
> 
> To make a statement that children aren't harmed is bogus.
> 
> It's total crap.
> 
> You know it and I know it and your fluff is just intellectual masterbation quite frankly because you have an axe to grind with religious people and homophobes.
> 
> It's just stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In conjunction with the statement I included proofs. I'm not offering opinions but peer-reviewed science.
> 
> And if going to talk about this stuff you might wanna learn how to spell 'masturbation.'
Click to expand...


Peer reviewed journals are just mental masterbation amongst liberal scholars. 

And.....they are also just opinions. I read them alot because Professors are in love with them. 

You can intellectualize anything but that does not account for feelings. 

The brain does not fully mature until you are around 25.

Your topic is simply to troll religious people and homophobes. 

Yet, there are real children (not teens) who have been exposed and felt different then what peer journals supposedly report.

At any rate I only came to the thread because NLT posted a link to it.

I said my opinion about it and I am not religious or homophobic so I will let you get back to taunting your real audience.


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because violence is bad. Sex is good. So long as the powers that be continue linking both together as when discussing issues and saying "There's too much sex and violence on tv..." To which my assertion is there's too much violence on tv, but not nearly enough sex.
> 
> It's been proven in scientific study after study that societies which exemplify violence suffer great rates of violent crime while suppressing sexuality. And societies which exemplify sexuality suffer less violent crime. Give the US's problem with violence one can't help but notice the total reversal we here glorifying one while suppressing the other.
> 
> I'm actively involved in efforts to reverse this trend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cite three peer reviewed studies that support you assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only three?
> 
> https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/James_W._Prescott.html
> 
> 1)
> Article: Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence
> ERIC - Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1975
> 
> [first link is actual paper(s), second's verifying it's been reviewed (right side of screen.)
> 
> 2)
> Effects of Pornography on Human Behavior
> "Effects of Pornography on Human Behavior"
> 
> 3)
> Influence of New Media on Adolescent Sexual Health: Evidence and Opportunities: Main Page
> " Influence of New Media on Adolescent Sexual Health:
> Evidence and Opportunities"
> 
> Can use Search or Find "peer-" to see where mentions of such are if not immediately visible.
Click to expand...







So, what do YOU think the three links you provided say?  I have read them and their associated lit review.  So now I am curious what exactly it is you think they say.


 [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Until or unless one of your posts is an apology and acknowledgement that assertions I've made are widely held positions by the science-community West, this conversation is over and serves no useful purpose.


----------



## BillyP

Delta4Embassy said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal life is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, because if you raised children, you would already know it is harmful.
> 
> If you are inexperienced then it explains the dumb question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I figured that was the point you'd try to assert. Let me counter with this:
> 
> does a good gynecologist have to be a female?
Click to expand...


ABSOLUTELY! Male gynos are all perverts.


----------



## BillyP

*Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?*

Only if the TV falls on them.


----------



## rdean

Until the hormones kick in, they don't really have much interest.


----------



## DriftingSand

Delta4Embassy said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I figured that was the point you'd try to assert. Let me counter with this:
> 
> does a good gynecologist have to be a female?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me counter with this, if you post medical journals suggesting cancer patients are not "helped" by pain medication in the context of a cure, does that mean people who have cancer and feel relief from pain medication shouldn't take it.
> 
> Context is everything.
> 
> To make a statement that children aren't harmed is bogus.
> 
> It's total crap.
> 
> You know it and I know it and your fluff is just intellectual masterbation quite frankly because you have an axe to grind with religious people and homophobes.
> 
> It's just stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In conjunction with the statement I included proofs. I'm not offering opinions but peer-reviewed science.
> 
> And if going to talk about this stuff you might wanna learn how to spell 'masturbation.'
Click to expand...


"Peer reviewed science?"  Do you know that there are still folks who believe in a "flat earth?"  When their "science" is reviewed by other flat-earthers then their science has been reviewed by their peers.  So before we can accept ANY science we need to know the manner in which the experiments were conducted and then we would have to know exactly who reviewed the study and what their actual background is.

By the way, what "scientist" would conduct such experiments in the first place?  Did they literally gather groups of little kids and show "Debbie Does Dallas" to them?  With parental consent?  What decent parent on earth would allow such experiments in the first place.  Sounds like a group of pedophiles in the act of desensitizing kids (but that's just my scientific opinion).


----------



## DriftingSand

rdean said:


> Until the hormones kick in, they don't really have much interest.



Really?  I remember being completely enthralled by my first view of a Playboy magazine I saw in my neighbor's garage.  I was fixated on it and I was only 6 or 7.  It was information that my mind wasn't ready for and that was "soft porn." 

Bottom line:  What purpose is served by showing porn to little kids?  Why test their limits and reactions in the first place?  What's the goal?  Who's sick mind thought that it was necessary to put that theory to the test in the first place and what did they hope to accomplish?


----------



## GISMYS

DriftingSand said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until the hormones kick in, they don't really have much interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  I remember being completely enthralled by my first view of a Playboy magazine I saw in my neighbor's garage.  I was fixated on it and I was only 6 or 7.  It was information that my mind wasn't ready for and that was "soft porn."
> 
> Bottom line:  What purpose is served by showing porn to little kids?  Why test their limits and reactions in the first place?  What's the goal?  Who's sick mind thought that it was necessary to put that theory to the test in the first place and what did they hope to accomplish?
Click to expand...


SATAN and evil are  VERY REAL!!!! HUH??? think!


----------



## DriftingSand

drifter said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me counter with this, if you post medical journals suggesting cancer patients are not "helped" by pain medication in the context of a cure, does that mean people who have cancer and feel relief from pain medication shouldn't take it.
> 
> Context is everything.
> 
> To make a statement that children aren't harmed is bogus.
> 
> It's total crap.
> 
> You know it and I know it and your fluff is just intellectual masterbation quite frankly because you have an axe to grind with religious people and homophobes.
> 
> It's just stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In conjunction with the statement I included proofs. I'm not offering opinions but peer-reviewed science.
> 
> And if going to talk about this stuff you might wanna learn how to spell 'masturbation.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peer reviewed journals are just mental masterbation amongst liberal scholars.
> 
> And.....they are also just opinions. I read them alot because Professors are in love with them.
> 
> You can intellectualize anything but that does not account for feelings.
> 
> The brain does not fully mature until you are around 25.
> 
> Your topic is simply to troll religious people and homophobes.
> 
> Yet, there are real children (not teens) who have been exposed and felt different then what peer journals supposedly report.
> 
> At any rate I only came to the thread because NLT posted a link to it.
> 
> I said my opinion about it and I am not religious or homophobic so I will let you get back to taunting your real audience.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Good post.  I like to read scientific articles put out by the ICR (Institute for Creation Research).  Anyone who reads them knows that true, educated scientists write them yet the mainstream "scientific" community poo-poos them because they're coming from a Christian perspective.  Therefore, they don't ever get an honest "peer review."


----------



## BillyP

DriftingSand said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until the hormones kick in, they don't really have much interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  I remember being completely enthralled by my first view of a Playboy magazine I saw in my neighbor's garage.  I was fixated on it and I was only 6 or 7.  It was information that my mind wasn't ready for and that was "soft porn."
> 
> Bottom line:  What purpose is served by showing porn to little kids?  Why test their limits and reactions in the first place?  What's the goal?  Who's sick mind thought that it was necessary to put that theory to the test in the first place and what did they hope to accomplish?
Click to expand...


So did reading Playboy fuck you up? Or is that a rhetorical question?


----------



## PixieStix

DriftingSand said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me counter with this, if you post medical journals suggesting cancer patients are not "helped" by pain medication in the context of a cure, does that mean people who have cancer and feel relief from pain medication shouldn't take it.
> 
> Context is everything.
> 
> To make a statement that children aren't harmed is bogus.
> 
> It's total crap.
> 
> You know it and I know it and your fluff is just intellectual masterbation quite frankly because you have an axe to grind with religious people and homophobes.
> 
> It's just stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In conjunction with the statement I included proofs. I'm not offering opinions but peer-reviewed science.
> 
> And if going to talk about this stuff you might wanna learn how to spell 'masturbation.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Peer reviewed science?"  Do you know that there are still folks who believe in a "flat earth?"  When their "science" is reviewed by other flat-earthers then their science has been reviewed by their peers.  So before we can accept ANY science we need to know the manner in which the experiments were conducted and then we would have to know exactly who reviewed the study and what their actual background is.
> 
> By the way, what "scientist" would conduct such experiments in the first place?  Did they literally gather groups of little kids and show "Debbie Does Dallas" to them?  With parental consent?  What decent parent on earth would allow such experiments in the first place.  Sounds like a group of pedophiles in the act of desensitizing kids (but that's just my scientific opinion).
Click to expand...

indeed
https://www.google.com/search?clien...gle+Search&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&gws_rd=ssl


----------



## Delta4Embassy

BillyP said:


> *Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?*
> 
> Only if the TV falls on them.



(chokes not swallowing a sip of water in time) LOL!


----------



## GISMYS

Delta4Embassy said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?*
> 
> Only if the TV falls on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (chokes not swallowing a sip of water in time) LOL!
Click to expand...


Pornography=demon inspired brain poison =the cause of much harm and sick perversions. Wise up!!


----------



## DriftingSand

Delta4Embassy said:


> Until or unless one of your posts is an apology and acknowledgement that assertions I've made are widely held positions by the science-community West, this conversation is over and serves no useful purpose.



Sidestep.  You have been defeated!!!


----------



## Delta4Embassy

DriftingSand said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me counter with this, if you post medical journals suggesting cancer patients are not "helped" by pain medication in the context of a cure, does that mean people who have cancer and feel relief from pain medication shouldn't take it.
> 
> Context is everything.
> 
> To make a statement that children aren't harmed is bogus.
> 
> It's total crap.
> 
> You know it and I know it and your fluff is just intellectual masterbation quite frankly because you have an axe to grind with religious people and homophobes.
> 
> It's just stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In conjunction with the statement I included proofs. I'm not offering opinions but peer-reviewed science.
> 
> And if going to talk about this stuff you might wanna learn how to spell 'masturbation.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Peer reviewed science?"  Do you know that there are still folks who believe in a "flat earth?"  When their "science" is reviewed by other flat-earthers then their science has been reviewed by their peers.  So before we can accept ANY science we need to know the manner in which the experiments were conducted and then we would have to know exactly who reviewed the study and what their actual background is.
> 
> By the way, what "scientist" would conduct such experiments in the first place?  Did they literally gather groups of little kids and show "Debbie Does Dallas" to them?  With parental consent?  What decent parent on earth would allow such experiments in the first place.  Sounds like a group of pedophiles in the act of desensitizing kids (but that's just my scientific opinion).
Click to expand...


Ethicacy of sex research involving minors is deserving of its own thread 

My reading suggests a lot of the research into whether pornography is harmful or not was conducted back when porn first became more widely available because of both VHS being invented, and less puritanical laws restricting it. 

Worth mentioning here then that the porn in the 70s was positively tame by modern standards. Have likened it myself to graphic lovemaking moreso than what probably comes to mind when you think about porn of today. So it's possible we're all discussing different things. 

Insofar as the material studied in decades past, studies showed it didn't harm children who viewed it. Whether that would hold true with today's stuff I can't say, though my personal opinion is it wouldn't because it's so radicly different that what came before. 70s porn was great, plots and everything, now though it's absolute crap from an aethestic pov. Plus, today's material is very much doing exactly what porn has always been accused of, denegrating women, cheapening the sexual act, etc.. 

Couple porn documentaries exist which illustrate this well including "The Porn Brokers" (American porn,) and "Sexual Freedom in Denmark" (Euro porn.) Both from 1970 or thereabouts. The Denmark one in particular is very good being more discussion-oriented including comparing images that are 'acceptable' to society as with violence, whereas anything showing sex in any fashion is railed against. Obviously comparing European sensibilities to American ones doesn't necessarily stand up to scientific scutiny, but I mention it as examples of the subject at hand. 

For a more scientific perspective the all-timebest site I've found is the International Encyclopedia of Sexuality which is all science. Kinda dry as a result but with all the varied countries being on one site, comparing one to another for how they approach sex is invaluable for illustrative purposes. Though afaik there's no imagery on the site, I haven't explored every nook and cranny so will refrain from posting a link as per Rules. Can google the name though.


----------



## rdean

DriftingSand said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until the hormones kick in, they don't really have much interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  I remember being completely enthralled by my first view of a Playboy magazine I saw in my neighbor's garage.  I was fixated on it and I was only 6 or 7.  It was information that my mind wasn't ready for and that was "soft porn."
> 
> Bottom line:  What purpose is served by showing porn to little kids?  Why test their limits and reactions in the first place?  What's the goal?  Who's sick mind thought that it was necessary to put that theory to the test in the first place and what did they hope to accomplish?
Click to expand...


I saw a playboy at 6.  My first thought was "that woman's naked".  6 years later, my thought was "good".


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> Until or unless one of your posts is an apology and acknowledgement that assertions I've made are widely held positions by the science-community West, this conversation is over and serves no useful purpose.









I need to know what you think the links you posted mean before I can answer that.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Delta4Embassy said:


> No.
> 
> Google and read any and every .edu site with a paper about it to your heart's content. Been studying the question for decades and the even the Reagan Administration studied the question, came back with "no" and let the matter drop (silently not publishing the results either by the by.)
> 
> Just as violent movies and videogames doesn't then translate into real-world acting out of violent fantasies (as evidenced by such content availability in other countries,) pornography doesn't then result in minors acting out what they saw. Will always be able to find a news item suggesting otherwise, but this is not scientificly valid so much as sensationalism and fear-mongering.
> 
> "Research shows that healthy sexual development includes natural curiosity about sexuality. Retrospective studies show that accidental exposure to real-life scenes of sexuality does not harm children. Our survey shows that age of first exposure to pornography does not correlate with negative attitudes towards women. Studies with non-explicit representations of sexuality show that young people who seek out sexualised representations tend to be those with a pre-existing interest in sexuality. *These studies also suggest that current generations of children are no more sexualised than previous generations, that they are not innocent about sexuality, and that a key negative effect of this knowledge is the requirement for them to feign ignorance in order to satisfy adults expectations of them.* Research also suggests important differences between pre- and post-pubescent attitudes towards pornography, and that pornography is not addictive."
> Does pornography harm young people? | QUT ePrints
> 
> "A vocal segment of the population has serious concerns about the effect of pornography in society and challenges its public use and acceptance. This manuscript reviews the major issues associated with the availability of sexually explicit material. *It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.*"
> Pacific Center for Sex and Society - Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review
> 
> "Most of the recent studies in this field have been correlational. That means you ask a sample of young people whether they've seen pornography, or how often, and then ask them what they think of sex or gender role attitudes, for example.
> 
> *But it is not possible to establish causation from correlational studies, and to say whether pornography is changing or reinforcing attitudes.*
> 
> "That is the real next step that research needs to take," says Horvath, "to try to identify which came first.""
> BBC News - Do we know whether pornography harms people?
> 
> Thta's the most important part above, 'it's not possible to establish causation from correlation.' Ethics limit what you can investigate as in you can't expose subjects to particularly violent pornography tosee if it harms them, because what if it does? So you can't scientificly investigate whether porn harms children because to find out you have to expose potentially harmful things to children. Catch-22.
> 
> What we can and have discovered if where porn is widely available, sex crimes go down. Where porn is banned and restricted it goes up. When children are raised in nudist enviroments, they don't suffer the same stress over their developing bodies as their clothes-wearing counterparts.
> 
> I get people here will opt to make political hay out of this on both sides of the poltical divide while choosing to ignore the research and facts, this is not for them but people more interested in being right than popular.



*You have got to be fucking kidding me.*


What is this utter horseshit?


I would never let my daughter even get close to anything pornographic at this time in her life.


Damn, this thread is just plain old sad.  Sad, sad, sad.


----------



## BillyP

GISMYS said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?*
> 
> Only if the TV falls on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (chokes not swallowing a sip of water in time) LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pornography=demon inspired brain poison =the cause of much harm and sick perversions. Wise up!!
Click to expand...


Porn is just pictures or movies of what everyday people do behind closed doors. Gysm, sex is more than the missionary position and not just for procreation.


----------



## emilynghiem

westwall said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophilia is not "fixable".  That's the problem.  It is truly sad that an otherwise normal  productive person can't ever be allowed around children.  They just can't.  Pedophiles have a 100% recidivism rate......  It's hard to argue with facts like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION]
> of the cases I've heard reports of curing people of pedophilia,
> these require deep spiritual therapy, going back into the generational history of the person for deep cleansing and healing that is beyond what psychiatry teaches or practices.
> 
> One man reported being cured after 25 years.
> One of my friends, who agrees that the relapse rate is strongest for these types of addictions/sicknesses, where I would say most require either constant treatment and supervision if not detention, did have at least one person become completely healed.
> 
> I believe the medical technology will be developed to diagnosis, monitor and manage these types of illness, similar to tracking the progress, remission or return of cancer in stages.
> 
> Even if these cases cannot be fully cured, they should be diagnosed for public safety, especially BEFORE any crimes or damages occur. So medical diagnosis should be perfected in order to make the process scientific, where people or family members willingly seek diagnosis and help for such conditions, and not have to violate anyone's rights legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no case of a pedophile being cured.  There simply isn't enough oversight of those who have been "cured" to know if it was effective or not.  The pedo's refuse to grant access 24/7 so the ability to monitor is severely limited.
> 
> They are not stupid, they are just sick.  Just like sociopaths, their brains are wired differently and that can't be undone.
> 
> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
Click to expand...


Hi [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION]
it depends on the cause and severity of the case.

The cases I'm talking about being cured are caused by a spiritual sickness where the root cause is able to be identified and healed while also removing the demonic obsessions and addictions attached to it.

A similar case to this level of treatment is
David Berkowitz, formerly Son of Sam, who was able to be healed of his demonic sickness
and restored to normal.
NOTE: THIS DOES NOT MEAN TO RETURN SUCH PEOPLE TO SOCIETY

JUST BECAUSE YOU CURE THEIR MAIN SPIRITUAL SICKNESS DOES NOT MEAN YOU RELEASE THEM.

So this whole idea of either/or, either they are incureable and need to be killed off, or they can't be proven to be a threat so they are allowed to run free is BULL CRAP.

The level and stage of sickness can be determined to be either in constant danger or relapse, or in a process of helping the person to become aware and in control of their will, where they can tell they are in danger or not and will work with authorities and doctors.

So even if they are the type that are not or cannot be cured,
there are some that are aware of their sickness and still cooperate
which is Different from the cases that refuse help and stay addicted to harming others.

so there are different levels, stages and types.

Through medical research and development of diagnostics on the brain,
then these types and levels can be distinguished
EVEN THOUGH IT WILL STILL BE REQUIRED TO DETAIN SUCH PEOPLE.

by doing the medical research and development
this will give a scientific and medical process for diagnosis sickness
so you don't have to wait for a crime to be committed to detain someone.

just like you don't have to wait for someone to die of cancer to know how dangerous it is
same with criminal sickness

we can protect the public better by studying this
not sticking our heads in the sand and thinking there is nothing that can be done differently

yes there is 

see also Scott peck's books on  healing "incureable schizophrenic" patients
who were dangers to themselves and refused treatment until they had the
demonic sickness identified and removed through the standard procedure for this.

he wrote People of the Lie and Glimpses of the Devil
about finding out there was a method to the madness and some cases
could have identifiable causes that could be cured and fully monitored safely by doctors


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]:
1. Can we backtrack and maybe make a distinction between:
a. explicit depictions of sexual intercourse, such as for sex education purposes.
neutral, such as showing dogs mating or insects, and just show adult humans mating.
that might not cause harm as long as the parents, teachers and children all have the same attitude toward it. But if there is any conflict or mixed agenda/message between the adults, don't you think that harms the kids to impose their issues onto the children?

So the content of the explicit material is one thing in itself.

But Delta I think you are missing the fact that when adults have mixed agenda
or beliefs, and that is getting imposed on the kids, then that causes conflict and harm too.

b. violent or abusive depictions where the porn is "degrading" women

c. in between, where the porn is designed to stimulate the viewers sexually
and isn't just medical or sex education, but is for the intention of sexual stimulation

Delta if we don't even distinguish at least these three levels
how can we be sure we are even discussing the same things?

Can you agree that 
a b c above would all have different effects on children?

and then 
2. the fact that adults attach their own emotions and values, so if these are in conflict,
then it is being imposed on the kids.

all the shame, blame and fear about sex.

So that is an additional factor.

So really there are at least 3 levels
1. the content itself
2. the spirit or intent of the presentation, is it sexually stimulating is it abusive etc.
3. the issues between the parents and teachers and whether the kids are
getting a consistent message or getting mixed msgs about shame or blame or abuse of sex

Delta if you realy want to discuss Which Level the harm is coming from,
might we start by distinguishing all three levels 1, 2, and 3 and also
at least 3 types or intent of sexually explicit materials?

How can you discuss this without distinguishing these from each other????




Delta4Embassy said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In conjunction with the statement I included proofs. I'm not offering opinions but peer-reviewed science.
> 
> And if going to talk about this stuff you might wanna learn how to spell 'masturbation.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Peer reviewed science?"  Do you know that there are still folks who believe in a "flat earth?"  When their "science" is reviewed by other flat-earthers then their science has been reviewed by their peers.  So before we can accept ANY science we need to know the manner in which the experiments were conducted and then we would have to know exactly who reviewed the study and what their actual background is.
> 
> By the way, what "scientist" would conduct such experiments in the first place?  Did they literally gather groups of little kids and show "Debbie Does Dallas" to them?  With parental consent?  What decent parent on earth would allow such experiments in the first place.  Sounds like a group of pedophiles in the act of desensitizing kids (but that's just my scientific opinion).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ethicacy of sex research involving minors is deserving of its own thread
> 
> My reading suggests a lot of the research into whether pornography is harmful or not was conducted back when porn first became more widely available because of both VHS being invented, and less puritanical laws restricting it.
> 
> Worth mentioning here then that the porn in the 70s was positively tame by modern standards. Have likened it myself to graphic lovemaking moreso than what probably comes to mind when you think about porn of today. So it's possible we're all discussing different things.
> 
> Insofar as the material studied in decades past, studies showed it didn't harm children who viewed it. Whether that would hold true with today's stuff I can't say, though my personal opinion is it wouldn't because it's so radicly different that what came before. 70s porn was great, plots and everything, now though it's absolute crap from an aethestic pov. Plus, today's material is very much doing exactly what porn has always been accused of, denegrating women, cheapening the sexual act, etc..
> 
> Couple porn documentaries exist which illustrate this well including "The Porn Brokers" (American porn,) and "Sexual Freedom in Denmark" (Euro porn.) Both from 1970 or thereabouts. The Denmark one in particular is very good being more discussion-oriented including comparing images that are 'acceptable' to society as with violence, whereas anything showing sex in any fashion is railed against. Obviously comparing European sensibilities to American ones doesn't necessarily stand up to scientific scutiny, but I mention it as examples of the subject at hand.
> 
> For a more scientific perspective the all-timebest site I've found is the International Encyclopedia of Sexuality which is all science. Kinda dry as a result but with all the varied countries being on one site, comparing one to another for how they approach sex is invaluable for illustrative purposes. Though afaik there's no imagery on the site, I haven't explored every nook and cranny so will refrain from posting a link as per Rules. Can google the name though.
Click to expand...


----------



## Delta4Embassy

emilynghiem said:


> Dear [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]:
> 1. Can we backtrack and maybe make a distinction between:
> a. explicit depictions of sexual intercourse, such as for sex education purposes.
> neutral, such as showing dogs mating or insects, and just show adult humans mating.
> that might not cause harm as long as the parents, teachers and children all have the same attitude toward it. But if there is any conflict or mixed agenda/message between the adults, don't you think that harms the kids to impose their issues onto the children?
> 
> So the content of the explicit material is one thing in itself.
> 
> But Delta I think you are missing the fact that when adults have mixed agenda
> or beliefs, and that is getting imposed on the kids, then that causes conflict and harm too.
> 
> b. violent or abusive depictions where the porn is "degrading" women
> 
> c. in between, where the porn is designed to stimulate the viewers sexually
> and isn't just medical or sex education, but is for the intention of sexual stimulation
> 
> Delta if we don't even distinguish at least these three levels
> how can we be sure we are even discussing the same things?
> 
> Can you agree that
> a b c above would all have different effects on children?
> 
> and then
> 2. the fact that adults attach their own emotions and values, so if these are in conflict,
> then it is being imposed on the kids.
> 
> all the shame, blame and fear about sex.
> 
> So that is an additional factor.
> 
> So really there are at least 3 levels
> 1. the content itself
> 2. the spirit or intent of the presentation, is it sexually stimulating is it abusive etc.
> 3. the issues between the parents and teachers and whether the kids are
> getting a consistent message or getting mixed msgs about shame or blame or abuse of sex
> 
> Delta if you realy want to discuss Which Level the harm is coming from,
> might we start by distinguishing all three levels 1, 2, and 3 and also
> at least 3 types or intent of sexually explicit materials?
> 
> How can you discuss this without distinguishing these from each other????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peer reviewed science?"  Do you know that there are still folks who believe in a "flat earth?"  When their "science" is reviewed by other flat-earthers then their science has been reviewed by their peers.  So before we can accept ANY science we need to know the manner in which the experiments were conducted and then we would have to know exactly who reviewed the study and what their actual background is.
> 
> By the way, what "scientist" would conduct such experiments in the first place?  Did they literally gather groups of little kids and show "Debbie Does Dallas" to them?  With parental consent?  What decent parent on earth would allow such experiments in the first place.  Sounds like a group of pedophiles in the act of desensitizing kids (but that's just my scientific opinion).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ethicacy of sex research involving minors is deserving of its own thread
> 
> My reading suggests a lot of the research into whether pornography is harmful or not was conducted back when porn first became more widely available because of both VHS being invented, and less puritanical laws restricting it.
> 
> Worth mentioning here then that the porn in the 70s was positively tame by modern standards. Have likened it myself to graphic lovemaking moreso than what probably comes to mind when you think about porn of today. So it's possible we're all discussing different things.
> 
> Insofar as the material studied in decades past, studies showed it didn't harm children who viewed it. Whether that would hold true with today's stuff I can't say, though my personal opinion is it wouldn't because it's so radicly different that what came before. 70s porn was great, plots and everything, now though it's absolute crap from an aethestic pov. Plus, today's material is very much doing exactly what porn has always been accused of, denegrating women, cheapening the sexual act, etc..
> 
> Couple porn documentaries exist which illustrate this well including "The Porn Brokers" (American porn,) and "Sexual Freedom in Denmark" (Euro porn.) Both from 1970 or thereabouts. The Denmark one in particular is very good being more discussion-oriented including comparing images that are 'acceptable' to society as with violence, whereas anything showing sex in any fashion is railed against. Obviously comparing European sensibilities to American ones doesn't necessarily stand up to scientific scutiny, but I mention it as examples of the subject at hand.
> 
> For a more scientific perspective the all-timebest site I've found is the International Encyclopedia of Sexuality which is all science. Kinda dry as a result but with all the varied countries being on one site, comparing one to another for how they approach sex is invaluable for illustrative purposes. Though afaik there's no imagery on the site, I haven't explored every nook and cranny so will refrain from posting a link as per Rules. Can google the name though.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Children will seek sexual stimulation and pleasure whether they've ever seen pornography before or not. Let's assume strict Amish communities don't have a lot of porn mags floating around, and certainly don't have tvs and 'vcr's to view it, or computers to go online. Yet Amish communities have a well-known and profound problem with child sexual abuse. So where's that coming from if not pornography?

Answer is it's a natural, ever-present desire within everyone. We're biologically programmed to desire sex so we can reproduce our species. Rather than denying it, suppressing/repressing it, accept it and celebrate it out in the open. Societies and cultures that do don't have the same problems as societies that hide it away.

Children are creatures of routine. Any deviation from familar routines stands out in their minds. So when sexuality finally presents itself in their lives it stands out. More so if it's been hidden away until then. Numers of people traumatized by well-meaning parents who "caught" them masturbating causing a psychological issue for them later as adults is positively stunning. Whereas those parents who discovering their children masturbating and don't acknowledge it, or don't make it into a hideous crime have kids who develop into adults without hangups about such things. This is why making 'porn' available and acceptable doesn't result in the same issues we see in families, cultures, and socities that secret it away. 

In my own case, I remember masturbating as far back as whatever age I was when wearing two-piece 'Batman' jammies. I also remember the first time I noticed my own semen afterwords and being stressed I'd 'ruptured something and was bleeding white stuff.' There was no sex education then, no internet porn, and at that age I certainly couldn't buy a Playboy. Years later when starting to experiment with sexual behaviours with girls my Mom walked in on me and girls multiple times. But she never read us the riot act, instead she encouraged me to pleasure myself instead of possibly getting young girls pregnant. From that time foward I opted for that instead of girlfriends, and still prefer it to this day. If we learn to pleasure ourselves, relationships with other people aren't about sex as much and are more ideal in their motives. If we insist sex and sexual pleasures like masturbation have to wait for marriage, we're gonna get married too young, and for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Statistikhengst

This thread is just plain old sad.


So many important things to discuss.


I don't think this is one of them.

Spit.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Statistikhengst said:


> This thread is just plain old sad.
> 
> 
> So many important things to discuss.
> 
> 
> I don't think this is one of them.
> 
> Spit.



Disagree. If we don't talk about problems like child sexual abuse it doesn't just go away magically so much as get worse because now no one's willing to talk about it.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Delta4Embassy said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is just plain old sad.
> 
> 
> So many important things to discuss.
> 
> 
> I don't think this is one of them.
> 
> Spit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree. If we don't talk about problems like child sexual abuse it doesn't just go away magically so much as get worse because now no one's willing to talk about it.
Click to expand...


As far as I can tell, this thread is not about the sexual abuse of children.

And that is certainly not in the title of your thread.


----------



## ChrisL

drifter said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me counter with this, if you post medical journals suggesting cancer patients are not "helped" by pain medication in the context of a cure, does that mean people who have cancer and feel relief from pain medication shouldn't take it.
> 
> Context is everything.
> 
> To make a statement that children aren't harmed is bogus.
> 
> It's total crap.
> 
> You know it and I know it and your fluff is just intellectual masterbation quite frankly because you have an axe to grind with religious people and homophobes.
> 
> It's just stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In conjunction with the statement I included proofs. I'm not offering opinions but peer-reviewed science.
> 
> And if going to talk about this stuff you might wanna learn how to spell 'masturbation.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peer reviewed journals are just mental masterbation amongst liberal scholars.
> 
> And.....they are also just opinions. I read them alot because Professors are in love with them.
> 
> You can intellectualize anything but that does not account for feelings.
> 
> The brain does not fully mature until you are around 25.
> 
> Your topic is simply to troll religious people and homophobes.
> 
> Yet, there are real children (not teens) who have been exposed and felt different then what peer journals supposedly report.
> 
> At any rate I only came to the thread because NLT posted a link to it.
> 
> I said my opinion about it and I am not religious or homophobic so I will let you get back to taunting your real audience.
Click to expand...


I agree whole heartedly with your comments.  

I know several women who have confided in me about being sexually molested as children.  It is a horrible crime.  Most people who have been introduced to sexual relationships as children have trouble with trust, communication and having relationships.  

Looking at pornography and being exposed to sex at an early age gives children the impression that this is how you "love" a person.  They associate sex with love.  A lot of children who have been sexually abused go on to become either withdrawn or promiscuous.  There is no "happy medium" for them because they have been traumatized sexually and emotionally.  

Are children going to be curious about sex, nudity, etc.?  Of course, but that in no way does that make it okay to introduce them to such things before they are ready to understand the consequences of sex.  As much as others would like to convince us that there are no negative consequences from these types of things, there most certainly are and if you know a person who was sexually abused or sexualized at too young of an age, it is QUITE obvious that they have been damaged.  Sad really.


----------



## Statistikhengst

ChrisL said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In conjunction with the statement I included proofs. I'm not offering opinions but peer-reviewed science.
> 
> And if going to talk about this stuff you might wanna learn how to spell 'masturbation.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peer reviewed journals are just mental masterbation amongst liberal scholars.
> 
> And.....they are also just opinions. I read them alot because Professors are in love with them.
> 
> You can intellectualize anything but that does not account for feelings.
> 
> The brain does not fully mature until you are around 25.
> 
> Your topic is simply to troll religious people and homophobes.
> 
> Yet, there are real children (not teens) who have been exposed and felt different then what peer journals supposedly report.
> 
> At any rate I only came to the thread because NLT posted a link to it.
> 
> I said my opinion about it and I am not religious or homophobic so I will let you get back to taunting your real audience.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree whole heartedly with your comments.
> 
> I know several women who have confided in me about being sexually molested as children.  It is a horrible crime.  Most people who have been introduced to sexual relationships as children have trouble with trust, communication and having relationships.
> 
> Looking at pornography and being exposed to sex at an early age gives children the impression that this is how you "love" a person.  They associate sex with love.  A lot of children who have been sexually abused go on to become either withdrawn or promiscuous.  There is no "happy medium" for them because they have been traumatized sexually and emotionally.
> 
> Are children going to be curious about sex, nudity, etc.?  Of course, but that in no way does that make it okay to introduce them to such things before they are ready to understand the consequences of sex.  As much as others would like to convince us that there are no negative consequences from these types of things, there most certainly are and if you know a person who was sexually abused or sexualized at too young of an age, it is QUITE obvious that they have been damaged.  Sad really.
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL

westwall said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Videos?
> 
> My thinking is the thinking of scientists, attorneys, law enforcement, professors, and policy makers.
> 
> Who's your thinking shared by?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cite them.  My thinking is shared by the entire psychological community and experts in the field.
Click to expand...


There are some outliers who will try and convince us that it is okay and not harmful.  Having personally known several victims of CSA, I know for a FACT that is not the case.  If you ask me, CSA and/or grooming/sexualizing children is a crime not much less despicable than murder.  These people who try to justify their obsession with "sexing up" children are the lowest of the lowly.


----------



## Statistikhengst

ChrisL said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Videos?
> 
> My thinking is the thinking of scientists, attorneys, law enforcement, professors, and policy makers.
> 
> Who's your thinking shared by?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cite them.  My thinking is shared by the entire psychological community and experts in the field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some outliers who will try and convince us that it is okay and not harmful.  Having personally known several victims of CSA, I know for a FACT that is not the case.  If you ask me, CSA and/or grooming/sexualizing children is a crime not much less despicable than murder.  These people who try to justify their obsession with "sexing up" children are the lowest of the lowly.
Click to expand...



Indeed.


----------



## BillyP

*Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?*

It does, because if kids are watching porn, they are being raised by complete morons, which is harmful.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Statistikhengst said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is just plain old sad.
> 
> 
> So many important things to discuss.
> 
> 
> I don't think this is one of them.
> 
> Spit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree. If we don't talk about problems like child sexual abuse it doesn't just go away magically so much as get worse because now no one's willing to talk about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell, this thread is not about the sexual abuse of children.
> 
> And that is certainly not in the title of your thread.
Click to expand...


Which part of 'does porn HARM children' didn't strike you as child sexual abuse? You're a msart guy, try seeing the forest for the trees.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Videos?
> 
> My thinking is the thinking of scientists, attorneys, law enforcement, professors, and policy makers.
> 
> Who's your thinking shared by?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cite them.  My thinking is shared by the entire psychological community and experts in the field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some outliers who will try and convince us that it is okay and not harmful.  Having personally known several victims of CSA, I know for a FACT that is not the case.  If you ask me, CSA and/or grooming/sexualizing children is a crime not much less despicable than murder.  These people who try to justify their obsession with "sexing up" children are the lowest of the lowly.
Click to expand...


Grooming is not what this is about. Grooming implies a motive behind an act. In this case to befriend or get-closer to a potential victim. 

Making pornography (read, sexually explicit information) available to children and teens is simply accepting the reality that it's something they want. Can either accept that reality, or deny it, but one has positive outcomes as evidence by decades of study, one has negative outcomes as evidenced by centuries of study (science vs religious models of parenting et al.)


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Can say anything we like, but I can and have cited my sources. Whereas I've yet to see dissenters cite any of their's. Could it be because it's all religious in nature and nothing from the science community?


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cite them.  My thinking is shared by the entire psychological community and experts in the field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some outliers who will try and convince us that it is okay and not harmful.  Having personally known several victims of CSA, I know for a FACT that is not the case.  If you ask me, CSA and/or grooming/sexualizing children is a crime not much less despicable than murder.  These people who try to justify their obsession with "sexing up" children are the lowest of the lowly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Grooming is not what this is about. Grooming implies a motive behind an act. In this case to befriend or get-closer to a potential victim.
> 
> Making pornography (read, sexually explicit information) available to children and teens is simply accepting the reality that it's something they want. Can either accept that reality, or deny it, but one has positive outcomes as evidence by decades of study, one has negative outcomes as evidenced by centuries of study (science vs religious models of parenting et al.)
Click to expand...


Exposing children to sexually explicit material is desensitizing them and is most CERTAINLY a tool used for grooming.  Stop being dishonest, and please explain in detail what exactly your goal is with this thread.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> Can say anything we like, but I can and have cited my sources. Whereas I've yet to see dissenters cite any of their's. Could it be because it's all religious in nature and nothing from the science community?



Are you kidding, there are TONS of valid peer-reviewed studies which have shown exposure to pornography to not only be harmful to children, but it can also be harmful in ADULTS in some instances.  There are ALL kinds of pornography out there.  A lot of it centering around degradation and abuse of women!  You are way over simplifying this.  Why?  

Children should be informed about sex with AGE APPROPRIATE material that they can understand, not with pornography.  That is sick and quite disturbing.


----------



## koshergrl

Delta4Embassy said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is just plain old sad.
> 
> 
> So many important things to discuss.
> 
> 
> I don't think this is one of them.
> 
> Spit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree. If we don't talk about problems like child sexual abuse it doesn't just go away magically so much as get worse because now no one's willing to talk about it.
Click to expand...


Yes, but you propose that we make child sexual abuse go away by making it legal.

Nauseating. And criminal.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

rdean said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until the hormones kick in, they don't really have much interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  I remember being completely enthralled by my first view of a Playboy magazine I saw in my neighbor's garage.  I was fixated on it and I was only 6 or 7.  It was information that my mind wasn't ready for and that was "soft porn."
> 
> Bottom line:  What purpose is served by showing porn to little kids?  Why test their limits and reactions in the first place?  What's the goal?  Who's sick mind thought that it was necessary to put that theory to the test in the first place and what did they hope to accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw a playboy at 6.  My first thought was "that woman's naked".  6 years later, my thought was "good".
Click to expand...


First Playboy I saw my thought was "where's the naked women? ad, ad, ad, article about some tripe, ad, ad, ad..."


----------



## koshergrl

Way to advocate that adults share porn with kids there, pscho.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cite them.  My thinking is shared by the entire psychological community and experts in the field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some outliers who will try and convince us that it is okay and not harmful.  Having personally known several victims of CSA, I know for a FACT that is not the case.  If you ask me, CSA and/or grooming/sexualizing children is a crime not much less despicable than murder.  These people who try to justify their obsession with "sexing up" children are the lowest of the lowly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Grooming is not what this is about. Grooming implies a motive behind an act. In this case to befriend or get-closer to a potential victim.
> 
> Making pornography (read, sexually explicit information) available to children and teens is simply accepting the reality that it's something they want. Can either accept that reality, or deny it, but one has positive outcomes as evidence by decades of study, one has negative outcomes as evidenced by centuries of study (science vs religious models of parenting et al.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exposing children to sexually explicit material is desensitizing them and is most CERTAINLY a tool used for grooming.  Stop being dishonest, and please explain in detail what exactly your goal is with this thread.
Click to expand...


Reducing violence in our society and the world by mitigating the harmful effects of body-shaming, sexual repression, and denial of reality.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can say anything we like, but I can and have cited my sources. Whereas I've yet to see dissenters cite any of their's. Could it be because it's all religious in nature and nothing from the science community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding, there are TONS of valid peer-reviewed studies which have shown exposure to pornography to not only be harmful to children, but it can also be harmful in ADULTS in some instances.  There are ALL kinds of pornography out there.  A lot of it centering around degradation and abuse of women!  You are way over simplifying this.  Why?
> 
> Children should be informed about sex with AGE APPROPRIATE material that they can understand, not with pornography.  That is sick and quite disturbing.
Click to expand...


Can't help but notice despite there being 'tons' you didn't link to even one.


----------



## shart_attack

Delta4Embassy said:


> Can say anything we like, but I can and have cited my sources. Whereas I've yet to see dissenters cite any of their's. Could it be because it's all religious in nature and nothing from the science community?





			
				chrisl said:
			
		

> Are you kidding, there are TONS of valid peer-reviewed studies which have shown exposure to pornography to not only be harmful to children, but it can also be harmful in ADULTS in some instances. There are ALL kinds of pornography out there. A lot of it centering around degradation and abuse of women! You are way over simplifying this. Why?
> 
> Children should be informed about sex with AGE APPROPRIATE material that they can understand, not with pornography.  That is sick and quite disturbing.





			
				delta4embassy said:
			
		

> Can't help but notice despite there being 'tons' you didn't link to even one.



LOL, that's prolly 'cause you seem to be the only one here who knows where to find it — ya think?!?!?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Peer-reviewed? Google has a thing for 'scholarly articles' when googling such materials you can switch to, or can add 'peer-reviewed' in you search query.

As with,
effects of pornography on children peer-reviewed


----------



## flacaltenn

The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.. From a science viewpoint, the way to assess this issue would be to allow children to be EXPOSED to porn (an actual criminal act) and assess the results. Much like answering the question of what happens if you deprive children of light or education.. 

The topic IMPLIES that it NEEDS to be studied. Rather than drawing the bright line that they WILL NOT BE exposed to certain things on common sense and principle..  Anyone here want to claim that it is GOOD for them? I have a few Cali friends who virtually ran nudie camps in their homes. But I'm certain that they would be appalled at the assertion that general porn is harmless to child development...


----------



## Delta4Embassy

flacaltenn said:


> The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.. From a science viewpoint, the way to assess this issue would be to allow children to be EXPOSED to porn (an actual criminal act) and assess the results. Much like answering the question of what happens if you deprive children of light or education..
> 
> The topic IMPLIES that it NEEDS to be studied. Rather than drawing the bright line that they WILL NOT BE exposed to certain things on common sense and principle..  Anyone here want to claim that it is GOOD for them? I have a few Cali friends who virtually ran nudie camps in their homes. But I'm certain that they would be appalled at the assertion that general porn is harmless to child development...



Resent your opening line. We've been through this. It's something that gets studied and needs to be studied. Just because you and some others are immature and unable to discuss mature subject matter doesn't mean those that can are suspect.


----------



## shart_attack




----------



## flacaltenn

Delta4Embassy said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.. From a science viewpoint, the way to assess this issue would be to allow children to be EXPOSED to porn (an actual criminal act) and assess the results. Much like answering the question of what happens if you deprive children of light or education..
> 
> The topic IMPLIES that it NEEDS to be studied. Rather than drawing the bright line that they WILL NOT BE exposed to certain things on common sense and principle..  Anyone here want to claim that it is GOOD for them? I have a few Cali friends who virtually ran nudie camps in their homes. But I'm certain that they would be appalled at the assertion that general porn is harmless to child development...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resent your opening line. We've been through this. It's something that gets studied and needs to be studied. Just because you and some others are immature and unable to discuss mature subject matter doesn't mean those that can are suspect.
Click to expand...


Again..  It CANNOT be studied adequately because the act of EXPOSING children to pornography IS A CRIME.. What part of illegal don't you understand? Is it your intent to change the existing laws? 

Or are merely trying to help parents evaluate the damage that has been done by having their children involved in chronic porn viewing? 

If you need help with the concept why studies are so useless and rare -- here's one that repeats what I just told you.. 



> http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV76.pdf
> 
> Those who report intentional exposure to pornography, irrespective
> of source, are significantly more likely to cross-sectionally report delinquent behavior and substance use in the previous year. Further, online seekers versus offline seekers are more likely to report clinical features associated with depression and lower levels of emotional
> bonding with their caregiver.
> 
> 
> The majority of pornography studies have been
> conducted with adults.3–5 *This is largely due to the
> ethical and legal considerations of exposing children
> and adolescents to potentially harmful material.*
> 
> Ratings for all three aspects of the caregiver-child
> relationship were significantly different across the
> three groups of pornography seeking youth. Almost
> one-third of online seekers rated their emotional
> bond with their caregiver as poor compared
> to 15% of offline seekers, and 10% of non-seekers
> (p < .001). One quarter of online as well as 23% offline
> seekers reported low caregiver monitoring as
> compared to 9% of non-seekers (p < .001). Frequent
> coercive discipline was most commonly reported
> by offline seekers, with 31% of youth indicating
> such caregiver behavior, as compared to 23% of online
> seekers and 17% of non-seekers (p < .001).
> 
> 
> Psychosocial challenge
> All indications of psychosocial challenge significantly
> differed based upon self-report of pornography
> seeking behavior among young, regular
> Internet users. Overall, 25% of youth in the survey
> reported an unwanted exposure to sexual material
> at least once in the previous year. When examined
> by pornography-seeking behavior, 53% of online
> seekers reported unwanted exposure versus 35% of
> offline-only seekers and 22% of non-seekers (p <
> .001). Fifty percent of online seekers indicated
> physical or sexual victimization versus 37% of
> offline seekers and 31% of non-seekers (p < .001).
> Delinquent behavior was reported four times more
> often by pornography seekers, with 48% of online
> 
> seekers and 42% of offline seekers reporting this behavior
> in the previous year, as compared to 11% of
> non-seekers (p < .001). Higher percentages of
> young people reported seriously involved substance
> use who also reported pornography seeking
> versus non-seeking, with 37% of online-seekers
> versus 26% of offline-only seekers and 10% of nonseekers
> reporting such use (p < .001). Twice as
> many online seekers (11%) reported clinical features
> of major depression compared to offline (4%)
> and non-seekers (5%) (p < .05). Two in five offlineonly
> seekers (42%) reported at least one negative
> life experience in the previous year versus 31% of
> online seekers and 27% of non-seekers (p < .01).



.... due to ethical and legal considerations.. "bout sums it up.. Does it NEED to be studied??? What do YOU acheive by investing time in "studying" it?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

flacaltenn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.. From a science viewpoint, the way to assess this issue would be to allow children to be EXPOSED to porn (an actual criminal act) and assess the results. Much like answering the question of what happens if you deprive children of light or education..
> 
> The topic IMPLIES that it NEEDS to be studied. Rather than drawing the bright line that they WILL NOT BE exposed to certain things on common sense and principle..  Anyone here want to claim that it is GOOD for them? I have a few Cali friends who virtually ran nudie camps in their homes. But I'm certain that they would be appalled at the assertion that general porn is harmless to child development...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resent your opening line. We've been through this. It's something that gets studied and needs to be studied. Just because you and some others are immature and unable to discuss mature subject matter doesn't mean those that can are suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again..  It CANNOT be studied adequately because the act of EXPOSING children to pornography IS A CRIME.. What part of illegal don't you understand? Is it your intent to change the existing laws?
> 
> Or are merely trying to help parents evaluate the damage that has been done by having their children involved in chronic porn viewing?
> 
> If you need help with the concept why studies are so useless and rare -- here's one that repeats what I just told you..
> 
> .... due to ethical and legal considerations.. "bout sums it up.. Does it NEED to be studied??? What do YOU acheive by investing time in "studying" it?
Click to expand...


(deleted quoted material just to keep threads smaller)

Effects of exposure of pornography to children doesn't have to involve exposing children to pornography as most children have already seen it. You simply ask subjects involved "Have you ever seen pornography?" And that's what studies do. 

Yes, sticking children who've never seen porn and giving them porn then observing the results is unethical and illegal. Good thing that ISN'T what happens in these studies.


----------



## flacaltenn

Delta4Embassy said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.. From a science viewpoint, the way to assess this issue would be to allow children to be EXPOSED to porn (an actual criminal act) and assess the results. Much like answering the question of what happens if you deprive children of light or education..
> 
> The topic IMPLIES that it NEEDS to be studied. Rather than drawing the bright line that they WILL NOT BE exposed to certain things on common sense and principle..  Anyone here want to claim that it is GOOD for them? I have a few Cali friends who virtually ran nudie camps in their homes. But I'm certain that they would be appalled at the assertion that general porn is harmless to child development...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resent your opening line. We've been through this. It's something that gets studied and needs to be studied. Just because you and some others are immature and unable to discuss mature subject matter doesn't mean those that can are suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again..  It CANNOT be studied adequately because the act of EXPOSING children to pornography IS A CRIME.. What part of illegal don't you understand? Is it your intent to change the existing laws?
> 
> Or are merely trying to help parents evaluate the damage that has been done by having their children involved in chronic porn viewing?
> 
> If you need help with the concept why studies are so useless and rare -- here's one that repeats what I just told you..
> 
> .... due to ethical and legal considerations.. "bout sums it up.. Does it NEED to be studied??? What do YOU acheive by investing time in "studying" it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (deleted quoted material just to keep threads smaller)
> 
> Effects of exposure of pornography to children doesn't have to involve exposing children to pornography as most children have already seen it. You simply ask subjects involved "Have you ever seen pornography?" And that's what studies do.
> 
> Yes, sticking children who've never seen porn and giving them porn then observing the results is unethical and illegal. Good thing that ISN'T what happens in these studies.
Click to expand...


Then why do studies need to be done?  I'll ask again..
Is it your intent to change the existing laws?

Or are you merely trying to help parents evaluate the damage that has been done by having their children involved in chronic porn viewing?

By the way --- asking a 10 yr old if they've seen Porn is probably gonna give you an answer like --- "Porn? That's a strange name for a doggie" And pursuing that further with a 10 yr old is QUICKLY gonna get illegal and unethical...


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can say anything we like, but I can and have cited my sources. Whereas I've yet to see dissenters cite any of their's. Could it be because it's all religious in nature and nothing from the science community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding, there are TONS of valid peer-reviewed studies which have shown exposure to pornography to not only be harmful to children, but it can also be harmful in ADULTS in some instances.  There are ALL kinds of pornography out there.  A lot of it centering around degradation and abuse of women!  You are way over simplifying this.  Why?
> 
> Children should be informed about sex with AGE APPROPRIATE material that they can understand, not with pornography.  That is sick and quite disturbing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't help but notice despite there being 'tons' you didn't link to even one.
Click to expand...


I don't have to.  Google is your friend.  Also, this is just common sense.  Children think you are disgusting, as they do most nude adults.  I thought they were disgusting looking when I was small too.  Kids don't really want to see naked adults doing it.


----------



## ChrisL

flacaltenn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.. From a science viewpoint, the way to assess this issue would be to allow children to be EXPOSED to porn (an actual criminal act) and assess the results. Much like answering the question of what happens if you deprive children of light or education..
> 
> The topic IMPLIES that it NEEDS to be studied. Rather than drawing the bright line that they WILL NOT BE exposed to certain things on common sense and principle..  Anyone here want to claim that it is GOOD for them? I have a few Cali friends who virtually ran nudie camps in their homes. But I'm certain that they would be appalled at the assertion that general porn is harmless to child development...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resent your opening line. We've been through this. It's something that gets studied and needs to be studied. Just because you and some others are immature and unable to discuss mature subject matter doesn't mean those that can are suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again..  It CANNOT be studied adequately because the act of EXPOSING children to pornography IS A CRIME.. What part of illegal don't you understand? Is it your intent to change the existing laws?
> 
> Or are merely trying to help parents evaluate the damage that has been done by having their children involved in chronic porn viewing?
> 
> If you need help with the concept why studies are so useless and rare -- here's one that repeats what I just told you..
> 
> .... due to ethical and legal considerations.. "bout sums it up.. Does it NEED to be studied??? What do YOU acheive by investing time in "studying" it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (deleted quoted material just to keep threads smaller)
> 
> Effects of exposure of pornography to children doesn't have to involve exposing children to pornography as most children have already seen it. You simply ask subjects involved "Have you ever seen pornography?" And that's what studies do.
> 
> Yes, sticking children who've never seen porn and giving them porn then observing the results is unethical and illegal. Good thing that ISN'T what happens in these studies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why do studies need to be done?  I'll ask again..
> 
> Is it your intent to change the existing laws?
> 
> Or are you merely trying to help parents evaluate the damage that has been done by having their children involved in chronic porn viewing?
> 
> By the way --- asking a 10 yr old if they've seen Porn is probably gonna give you an answer like --- "Porn? That's a strange name for a doggie" And pursuing that further with a 10 yr old is QUICKLY gonna get illegal and unethical...
Click to expand...


If that is what his intent is, he should be watched by the police.  There is definitely something the matter with people who want to sexualize children before they are ready.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

My intent is improve society by reducing violence. As I've mentione din other threads, people okay with pleasure are less likely to exhibit violence. Whereas those who reject pleasure are often more violent. 

In figuring on what can be done to effect violence in our society, the inverse relationship between pleasure and violence is long been understood. But if part of pleasure acceptance involves porn, we need to know what effects porn might have if it became more socially and legally acceptable. So far the consensus is there aren't enough downsides that they overwhelm the upsides. 

If anyone thinks they have a case to make, by all means inform the police, federal authorities. Continuing innuendo and allusion though is the act of desparate and infantile minds.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Internet Crime Complaint Center IC3 File a Complaint

FBI's white-collar crime division. Can fill in a complaint about anything relating to online crime. Knock yourselves out.


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> My intent is improve society by reducing violence. As I've mentione din other threads, people okay with pleasure are less likely to exhibit violence. Whereas those who reject pleasure are often more violent.
> 
> In figuring on what can be done to effect violence in our society, the inverse relationship between pleasure and violence is long been understood. But if part of pleasure acceptance involves porn, we need to know what effects porn might have if it became more socially and legally acceptable. So far the consensus is there aren't enough downsides that they overwhelm the upsides.
> 
> If anyone thinks they have a case to make, by all means inform the police, federal authorities. Continuing innuendo and allusion though is the act of desparate and infantile minds.







Pedophiles are not violent, except to children.  Pedo's are normal in every respect except for their infatuation with children.  Your stated goal is ridiculous on its face.  80% of violent crime is perpetrated by 8% of the criminal population.  If you truly want to reduce violence lock them up forever.  Sexualizing children so that they can be abused is simply criminal.  It is not an "adult" conversation in the slightest.  It is a NAMBLA ploy to try and make pedophilia legitimate.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

westwall said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My intent is improve society by reducing violence. As I've mentione din other threads, people okay with pleasure are less likely to exhibit violence. Whereas those who reject pleasure are often more violent.
> 
> In figuring on what can be done to effect violence in our society, the inverse relationship between pleasure and violence is long been understood. But if part of pleasure acceptance involves porn, we need to know what effects porn might have if it became more socially and legally acceptable. So far the consensus is there aren't enough downsides that they overwhelm the upsides.
> 
> If anyone thinks they have a case to make, by all means inform the police, federal authorities. Continuing innuendo and allusion though is the act of desparate and infantile minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are not violent, except to children.  Pedo's are normal in every respect except for their infatuation with children.  Your stated goal is ridiculous on its face.  80% of violent crime is perpetrated by 8% of the criminal population.  If you truly want to reduce violence lock them up forever.  Sexualizing children so that they can be abused is simply criminal.  It is not an "adult" conversation in the slightest.  It is a NAMBLA ploy to try and make pedophilia legitimate.
Click to expand...


Dunno whose proposing to sexualize children, but given how piss-poor some posters read I assume they're seeing things in their own minds they thought they saw in a thread. 

Many kinds of pedophile offenders. Situational, chronic, exclusively-boys/girls, etc. Pedophiles are not normal in ANY respect. 

Don't know how pedophiles even got into this discussion but for your bringing it here.


----------



## flacaltenn

Delta4Embassy said:


> My intent is improve society by reducing violence. As I've mentione din other threads, people okay with pleasure are less likely to exhibit violence. Whereas those who reject pleasure are often more violent.
> 
> In figuring on what can be done to effect violence in our society, the inverse relationship between pleasure and violence is long been understood. But if part of pleasure acceptance involves porn, we need to know what effects porn might have if it became more socially and legally acceptable. So far the consensus is there aren't enough downsides that they overwhelm the upsides.
> 
> If anyone thinks they have a case to make, by all means inform the police, federal authorities. Continuing innuendo and allusion though is the act of desparate and infantile minds.




Are you under the impression that porn is a cure all for violence? Is there really an epidemic of violence in the 10 to 18 yr old demographic?  Think this is gonna be the answer to gang violence in Chicago?  If only those under priviledged kids had been raised on a diet of pleasure and porn they wouldnt be so good at drivebys...  REALLY??


----------



## flacaltenn

Now would be the time to propose such a test frame for youth violence.  You have folks in office that might just believe in your plan.  Go see ole Rahm Emanuel or Eric Holder while you can. Be sure to bring the materials that you want minors to pleasure in...


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?

The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out. 

Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My intent is improve society by reducing violence. As I've mentione din other threads, people okay with pleasure are less likely to exhibit violence. Whereas those who reject pleasure are often more violent.
> 
> In figuring on what can be done to effect violence in our society, the inverse relationship between pleasure and violence is long been understood. But if part of pleasure acceptance involves porn, we need to know what effects porn might have if it became more socially and legally acceptable. So far the consensus is there aren't enough downsides that they overwhelm the upsides.
> 
> If anyone thinks they have a case to make, by all means inform the police, federal authorities. Continuing innuendo and allusion though is the act of desparate and infantile minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are not violent, except to children.  Pedo's are normal in every respect except for their infatuation with children.  Your stated goal is ridiculous on its face.  80% of violent crime is perpetrated by 8% of the criminal population.  If you truly want to reduce violence lock them up forever.  Sexualizing children so that they can be abused is simply criminal.  It is not an "adult" conversation in the slightest.  It is a NAMBLA ploy to try and make pedophilia legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dunno whose proposing to sexualize children, but given how piss-poor some posters read I assume they're seeing things in their own minds they thought they saw in a thread.
> 
> Many kinds of pedophile offenders. Situational, chronic, exclusively-boys/girls, etc. Pedophiles are not normal in ANY respect.
> 
> Don't know how pedophiles even got into this discussion but for your bringing it here.
Click to expand...


Do you not realize that by exposing to children to adult intimate sexual situations is confusing for them?  They don't understand that kind of "love" yet.  Also, it can give them the impression that this is the correct way to show love and affection towards people.  

Exposing children to such things is a form of abuse, especially when you consider that pornography is disturbing for some adults!  Also, there is a LOT of sexual violence, misogyny, and all sorts of degradation to women going on.  How on earth you or anyone else could think of exposing children to this as "healthy" I do not know.  IMO, it would be incredibly unhealthy.


----------



## hollowwhale

Hi, I do hope , I can still share my idea about Pornography. I look at it as a direct way to intend an action to cause sexual act. I find this not only harmful to children but also among adults.  We should be aware of preventing our own kids with this kind of exposure. We must remember that this might be one of the causes of crimes.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.



Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.  

Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.
Click to expand...


The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.

What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling. 

Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Thought occured after I logged off last night, if pornography harms children who view it, how much until the harm manifests itself? What sort of pornography harms the most? Playboy? Hardcore porn proper? What about violence on tv, in movies, and videogames?

Judging by people's assertions to this thread, you'd think they'd agree violence in media and entertainment harms just like porn does. Yet would you then support legislation to ban violent imagery from media like you presumedly would porn?


----------



## flacaltenn

Delta4Embassy said:


> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.





Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.
Click to expand...


I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence".  A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies".. 

THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated. That's a whole horse of a different color.. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins".. 

There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..


----------



## flacaltenn

I have an alternate theory that instilling the pleasure of LEARNING and ACHIEVEMENT inoculates children from frustration and violence.  For me, I was immune from violence because of an addiction to reading encyclopedias and learning to fly airplanes at age 16. Also chilled out by competing in shooting matches from age 12.. I got to 2nd and maybe 3rd base at a backyard astronomy club meeting. (it was dark and a long time ago)          Go figure..


----------



## ChrisL

flacaltenn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence".  A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies"..
> 
> THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated. That's a whole horse of a different color.. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins"..
> 
> There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..
Click to expand...


I've never heard of anything like this before either.  We have ALL been kids, so I don't know who he thinks he's fooling with this nonsense.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

I clearly remember what it was like to be a teenager.  There was nothing "innocent" about it lol​


----------



## GreenBean

Delta4Embassy said:


> No.
> 
> Google and read any and every .edu site with a paper about it to your heart's content. Been studying the question for decades and the even the Reagan Administration studied the question, came back with "no" and let the matter drop (silently not publishing the results either by the by.)
> 
> Just as violent movies and videogames doesn't then translate into real-world acting out of violent fantasies (as evidenced by such content availability in other countries,) pornography doesn't then result in minors acting out what they saw. Will always be able to find a news item suggesting otherwise, but this is not scientificly valid so much as sensationalism and fear-mongering.
> 
> "Research shows that healthy sexual development includes natural curiosity about sexuality. Retrospective studies show that accidental exposure to real-life scenes of sexuality does not harm children. Our survey shows that age of first exposure to pornography does not correlate with negative attitudes towards women. Studies with non-explicit representations of sexuality show that young people who seek out sexualised representations tend to be those with a pre-existing interest in sexuality. *These studies also suggest that current generations of children are no more sexualised than previous generations, that they are not innocent about sexuality, and that a key negative effect of this knowledge is the requirement for them to feign ignorance in order to satisfy adults expectations of them.* Research also suggests important differences between pre- and post-pubescent attitudes towards pornography, and that pornography is not addictive."
> Does pornography harm young people? | QUT ePrints
> 
> "A vocal segment of the population has serious concerns about the effect of pornography in society and challenges its public use and acceptance. This manuscript reviews the major issues associated with the availability of sexually explicit material. *It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.*"
> Pacific Center for Sex and Society - Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review
> 
> "Most of the recent studies in this field have been correlational. That means you ask a sample of young people whether they've seen pornography, or how often, and then ask them what they think of sex or gender role attitudes, for example.
> 
> *But it is not possible to establish causation from correlational studies, and to say whether pornography is changing or reinforcing attitudes.*
> 
> "That is the real next step that research needs to take," says Horvath, "to try to identify which came first.""
> BBC News - Do we know whether pornography harms people?
> 
> Thta's the most important part above, 'it's not possible to establish causation from correlation.' Ethics limit what you can investigate as in you can't expose subjects to particularly violent pornography tosee if it harms them, because what if it does? So you can't scientificly investigate whether porn harms children because to find out you have to expose potentially harmful things to children. Catch-22.
> 
> What we can and have discovered if where porn is widely available, sex crimes go down. Where porn is banned and restricted it goes up. When children are raised in nudist enviroments, they don't suffer the same stress over their developing bodies as their clothes-wearing counterparts.
> 
> I get people here will opt to make political hay out of this on both sides of the poltical divide while choosing to ignore the research and facts, this is not for them but people more interested in being right than popular.




I believe alot depends on the type of pornography you are referring to.  Wholesome porno. some nudey pics of the OPPOSITE sex are pretty much harmless.  Full fledged orgies , cum shots and so forth are not psych. healthy .   Being fully aware of your degeneracy [Delta4]  NO - Gay Porn is not healthy  and YES you will be arrested if you try showing little boys [or girls] your tally wacker.


----------



## ChrisL

Goddess_Ashtara said:


> I clearly remember what it was like to be a teenager.  There was nothing "innocent" about it lol​



He's talking about small children, not teenagers.


----------



## GreenBean

flacaltenn said:


> The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.. From a science viewpoint, the way to assess this issue would be to allow children to be EXPOSED to porn (an actual criminal act) and assess the results. Much like answering the question of what happens if you deprive children of light or education..
> 
> The topic IMPLIES that it NEEDS to be studied. Rather than drawing the bright line that they WILL NOT BE exposed to certain things on common sense and principle..  Anyone here want to claim that it is GOOD for them? I have a few Cali friends who virtually ran nudie camps in their homes. But I'm certain that they would be appalled at the assertion that general porn is harmless to child development...






> The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.



There was an entire thread on just how creepy this person Delta4 really is a few months back - he's an intelligent dude but his head isn't screwed on too tight so far as his morals go.


----------



## GreenBean

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.
Click to expand...



*The Columbine shooters were virgins.* *???*  Is that proven *? *  I believe they were suspected to be such , but it's not proven that they were - in fact there has been speculation that they may have been frustrated homosexuals or bisexuals  - We all know how deranged you guys can be


----------



## ChrisL

GreenBean said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.. From a science viewpoint, the way to assess this issue would be to allow children to be EXPOSED to porn (an actual criminal act) and assess the results. Much like answering the question of what happens if you deprive children of light or education..
> 
> The topic IMPLIES that it NEEDS to be studied. Rather than drawing the bright line that they WILL NOT BE exposed to certain things on common sense and principle..  Anyone here want to claim that it is GOOD for them? I have a few Cali friends who virtually ran nudie camps in their homes. But I'm certain that they would be appalled at the assertion that general porn is harmless to child development...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was an entire thread on just how creepy this person Delta4 really is a few months back - he's an intelligent dude but his head isn't screwed on too tight so far as his morals go.
Click to expand...


I have a difficult time trusting anyone who shows an "unusual" interest in children and their "sexuality."  It's something for people with young children to look out for.  Whether or not, this particular poster means anything by it, I cannot say, but going by his posts here people with small children should keep them away from him.  Better safe than sorry IMO, when it comes to your kids.  

I wonder if he has children of his own?


----------



## shart_attack

Delta4Embassy said:


> Thought occured after I logged off last night, if pornography harms children who view it, how much until the harm manifests itself? What sort of pornography harms the most? Playboy? Hardcore porn proper? What about violence on tv, in movies, and videogames?
> 
> Judging by people's assertions to this thread, you'd think they'd agree violence in media and entertainment harms just like porn does. Yet would you then support legislation to ban violent imagery from media like you presumedly would porn?



Please seek professional help, guy.

And I want you to know that I mean that in the most sincere, least curt way imaginable.

I also want you to know that—though I know you don't believe in my God—I am nonetheless praying for you.

It's not too late.

God loves you.

Talk to Him. Please.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

Perhaps Delta would make a great babysitter for peoples' children.  Maybe he'd teach them the Wonders of...











Judaism.

Help them release their Inner Jew.​


----------



## Piss Bucket

Well, from experience, I can say something on this. I viewed porn as a kid, and not just Playboy.  I viewed hardcore shit - porn movies.  I thought it was pretty fucking awesome at the time.  I also learned a lot from them.  Porn was just around.  It was around my house and my friends' houses.  

Now, as an adult I look back and wonder if being exposed to all that shit had an effect on me.  I have a pretty good education with a graduate degree.  I am pretty successful in life.  However, I have a pretty fucked up attitude toward women.  I admit it.  To me sex is like a sport.  That may have something to do with having a divorce one record?  Who knows.  I guess if I wasn't so much of a prick I would go get therapy and try to figure out this part of my life.  

Now that I am older and my libido has slowed down I have pulled back from women.  9 times out of 10 all I want to do with women I have contact with, either as friends, acquaintances or women I deal with in my professional life, is to fuck them.  Even during a business meeting all that is on my mind is how the chick would look naked and bent over a table.  I do not even know what "making love" is.  All I know is how to fuck.  Women equate with making fuck.  

So, now that my labido has slowed I am no longer counseled by my dick.  I thought that it was time to take a couple of steps back and reflect on my life, and to take a break from trying to have a relationship that usually degenerates into an awkward clusterfuck of hostility.  

I have noticed that others in my age group are still married, pursuing their careers and raising kids together.  I think that is nice, and wonder why I cannot confirm to such a paradigm.  By agreement I have custody of my nine year old son.  I get him to school each morning, go to work, pick him up from school each afternoon, do dinner, do homework, bathtime, bedtime and everything else parenting entails.  I can live with this.  But I wonder what this is doing to my son.  His mother and I now get along well, and she is involved in my son's life.  But I am my son's role model.  In a way I feel like I should get into a relationship for the purpose of appropriately socializing my son.  In other words, I am concerned that my current lifestyle, which resulted from my prior lifestyle may have some restrictive effect on my son's development.  

This all gets rather complicated.  If I did not have a child then I would just let it roll.  But I cannot be bringing home some new fuckpiece every few weeks.  I feel like I would be tracking my son that it is ok to use people and then throw them away when you are done with them.  BTW,  I do not keep porn around the house.  I do not even have any anymore.  

I am not going to say that porn caused me to have a shitty attitude toward women.  But, it would not surprise me if it did.


----------



## shart_attack

Delta4Embassy said:


> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.





			
				chrisl said:
			
		

> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.





			
				delta4embassy said:
			
		

> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.





			
				flacaltenn said:
			
		

> I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence". A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies"..
> 
> THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. *Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated.* That's a whole horse of a different color. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins"..
> 
> There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..



I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, so I'm not ashamed to ask you what you mean in the bold, underlined portion of your quote.

Not sure if it's awkwardly worded, or if I am myself just reading it incorrectly. 



			
				greenbean said:
			
		

> I believe alot depends on the type of pornography you are referring to. *Wholesome porno.* some nudey pics of the OPPOSITE sex are pretty much harmless. Full fledged orgies, cum shots and so forth are not psych. healthy. Being fully aware of your degeneracy [Delta4] NO - Gay Porn is not healthy and YES you will be arrested if you try showing little boys [or girls] your tally wacker.



I love a smokin' hot, STD-riddled porno honey just as much as the next guy (or gal), but I'm sorry: the bold, underlined portion of your post literally made me LOL.

"Wholesome porno":

Best. Most. Delicious. Oxymoron. _Ever_.


----------



## JohnA

Delta4Embassy said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pornographic is sooo underrated compared to the real thing.
> 
> As far as children?  Like sex, we shouldn't shield them from reality, but have a rational discussion with them when the subject comes up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have enjoyed both and I gotta say, no one ever got HIV from porn.
Click to expand...


true but you go blind  spanking the monkey


----------



## Delta4Embassy

flacaltenn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence".  A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies"..
> 
> THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated. That's a whole horse of a different color.. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins"..
> 
> There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..
Click to expand...


Once again, you're inserting your own hangups into a discussion. I'm not proposing 'activating children sexually' that's all you.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Piss Bucket said:


> Well, from experience, I can say something on this. I viewed porn as a kid, and not just Playboy.  I viewed hardcore shit - porn movies.  I thought it was pretty fucking awesome at the time.  I also learned a lot from them.  Porn was just around.  It was around my house and my friends' houses.
> 
> Now, as an adult I look back and wonder if being exposed to all that shit had an effect on me.  I have a pretty good education with a graduate degree.  I am pretty successful in life.  However, I have a pretty fucked up attitude toward women.  I admit it.  To me sex is like a sport.  That may have something to do with having a divorce one record?  Who knows.  I guess if I wasn't so much of a prick I would go get therapy and try to figure out this part of my life.
> 
> Now that I am older and my libido has slowed down I have pulled back from women.  9 times out of 10 all I want to do with women I have contact with, either as friends, acquaintances or women I deal with in my professional life, is to fuck them.  Even during a business meeting all that is on my mind is how the chick would look naked and bent over a table.  I do not even know what "making love" is.  All I know is how to fuck.  Women equate with making fuck.
> 
> So, now that my labido has slowed I am no longer counseled by my dick.  I thought that it was time to take a couple of steps back and reflect on my life, and to take a break from trying to have a relationship that usually degenerates into an awkward clusterfuck of hostility.
> 
> I have noticed that others in my age group are still married, pursuing their careers and raising kids together.  I think that is nice, and wonder why I cannot confirm to such a paradigm.  By agreement I have custody of my nine year old son.  I get him to school each morning, go to work, pick him up from school each afternoon, do dinner, do homework, bathtime, bedtime and everything else parenting entails.  I can live with this.  But I wonder what this is doing to my son.  His mother and I now get along well, and she is involved in my son's life.  But I am my son's role model.  In a way I feel like I should get into a relationship for the purpose of appropriately socializing my son.  In other words, I am concerned that my current lifestyle, which resulted from my prior lifestyle may have some restrictive effect on my son's development.
> 
> This all gets rather complicated.  If I did not have a child then I would just let it roll.  But I cannot be bringing home some new fuckpiece every few weeks.  I feel like I would be tracking my son that it is ok to use people and then throw them away when you are done with them.  BTW,  I do not keep porn around the house.  I do not even have any anymore.
> 
> I am not going to say that porn caused me to have a shitty attitude toward women.  But, it would not surprise me if it did.



If you don't mind an observation, your attitude towards women seems to have less to do with early porn exposure and more to do with being divorced and having custody of your son. Fact that you view women and sex as sport isn't unusual, but obviously a 9 yo at home will inhibit 'playing the game.' So I'd say your harboring some resentment towards your ex for whatever reason(s) you have custody instead of her.


----------



## GreenBean

shart_attack said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chrisl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delta4embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence". A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies"..
> 
> THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. *Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated.* That's a whole horse of a different color. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins"..
> 
> There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, so I'm not ashamed to ask you what you mean in the bold, underlined portion of your quote.
> 
> Not sure if it's awkwardly worded, or if I am myself just reading it incorrectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe alot depends on the type of pornography you are referring to. *Wholesome porno.* some nudey pics of the OPPOSITE sex are pretty much harmless. Full fledged orgies, cum shots and so forth are not psych. healthy. Being fully aware of your degeneracy [Delta4] NO - Gay Porn is not healthy and YES you will be arrested if you try showing little boys [or girls] your tally wacker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love a smokin' hot, STD-riddled porno honey just as much as the next guy (or gal), but I'm sorry: the bold, underlined portion of your post literally made me LOL.
> 
> "Wholesome porno":
> 
> Best. Most. Delicious. Oxymoron. _Ever_.
Click to expand...




> I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool



Very honest of you to admit that -  but it wasn't really necessary , as it is fairly evident.

I'm sorry to hear that you are unable to differentiate between nudes {wholesome porno] and cum shot orgies [Unwholesome Porno] - or perhaps it's your reading comprehension skills that are lacking ?  I dunno - but I think the separation was pretty clear, simple nudes as opposed to full blown cum shot orgies - did that help you any ... and please do NOT say... "cum again ?"


----------



## Delta4Embassy

GreenBean said:


> shart_attack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chrisl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delta4embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence". A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies"..
> 
> THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. *Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated.* That's a whole horse of a different color. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins"..
> 
> There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, so I'm not ashamed to ask you what you mean in the bold, underlined portion of your quote.
> 
> Not sure if it's awkwardly worded, or if I am myself just reading it incorrectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe alot depends on the type of pornography you are referring to. *Wholesome porno.* some nudey pics of the OPPOSITE sex are pretty much harmless. Full fledged orgies, cum shots and so forth are not psych. healthy. Being fully aware of your degeneracy [Delta4] NO - Gay Porn is not healthy and YES you will be arrested if you try showing little boys [or girls] your tally wacker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love a smokin' hot, STD-riddled porno honey just as much as the next guy (or gal), but I'm sorry: the bold, underlined portion of your post literally made me LOL.
> 
> "Wholesome porno":
> 
> Best. Most. Delicious. Oxymoron. _Ever_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very honest of you to admit that -  but it wasn't really necessary , as it is fairly evident.
> 
> I'm sorry to hear that you are unable to differentiate between nudes {wholesome porno] and cum shot orgies [Unwholesome Porno] - or perhaps it's your reading comprehension skills that are lacking ?  I dunno - but I think the separation was pretty clear, simple nudes as opposed to full blown cum shot orgies - did that help you any ... and please do NOT say... "cum again ?"
Click to expand...


Most place the line separating types of porn between non-violent, and violent porn (like S&M content.)


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shart_attack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chrisl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delta4embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence". A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies"..
> 
> THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. *Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated.* That's a whole horse of a different color. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins"..
> 
> There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, so I'm not ashamed to ask you what you mean in the bold, underlined portion of your quote.
> 
> Not sure if it's awkwardly worded, or if I am myself just reading it incorrectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe alot depends on the type of pornography you are referring to. *Wholesome porno.* some nudey pics of the OPPOSITE sex are pretty much harmless. Full fledged orgies, cum shots and so forth are not psych. healthy. Being fully aware of your degeneracy [Delta4] NO - Gay Porn is not healthy and YES you will be arrested if you try showing little boys [or girls] your tally wacker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love a smokin' hot, STD-riddled porno honey just as much as the next guy (or gal), but I'm sorry: the bold, underlined portion of your post literally made me LOL.
> 
> "Wholesome porno":
> 
> Best. Most. Delicious. Oxymoron. _Ever_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very honest of you to admit that -  but it wasn't really necessary , as it is fairly evident.
> 
> I'm sorry to hear that you are unable to differentiate between nudes {wholesome porno] and cum shot orgies [Unwholesome Porno] - or perhaps it's your reading comprehension skills that are lacking ?  I dunno - but I think the separation was pretty clear, simple nudes as opposed to full blown cum shot orgies - did that help you any ... and please do NOT say... "cum again ?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most place the line separating types of porn between non-violent, and violent porn (like S&M content.)
Click to expand...


What kind of impression do you think pornography gives young boys of women?  A good impression?  Do you think they would have respect for women who are, for lack of a better word, cum dumpsters?


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence".  A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies"..
> 
> THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated. That's a whole horse of a different color.. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins"..
> 
> There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you're inserting your own hangups into a discussion. I'm not proposing 'activating children sexually' that's all you.
Click to expand...


Have you already done this?  Exposed young children to pornography?  Are you exposed to any children on a regular basis?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence".  A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies"..
> 
> THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated. That's a whole horse of a different color.. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins"..
> 
> There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you're inserting your own hangups into a discussion. I'm not proposing 'activating children sexually' that's all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you already done this?  Exposed young children to pornography?  Are you exposed to any children on a regular basis?
Click to expand...


No, that isn't what this thread or the research it's about does. That's something sick minds injected into the discussion since they seem unable to discuss the subject matter unless they can villify the one who began the thread.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shart_attack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chrisl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delta4embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence". A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies"..
> 
> THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. *Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated.* That's a whole horse of a different color. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins"..
> 
> There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, so I'm not ashamed to ask you what you mean in the bold, underlined portion of your quote.
> 
> Not sure if it's awkwardly worded, or if I am myself just reading it incorrectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe alot depends on the type of pornography you are referring to. *Wholesome porno.* some nudey pics of the OPPOSITE sex are pretty much harmless. Full fledged orgies, cum shots and so forth are not psych. healthy. Being fully aware of your degeneracy [Delta4] NO - Gay Porn is not healthy and YES you will be arrested if you try showing little boys [or girls] your tally wacker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love a smokin' hot, STD-riddled porno honey just as much as the next guy (or gal), but I'm sorry: the bold, underlined portion of your post literally made me LOL.
> 
> "Wholesome porno":
> 
> Best. Most. Delicious. Oxymoron. _Ever_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very honest of you to admit that -  but it wasn't really necessary , as it is fairly evident.
> 
> I'm sorry to hear that you are unable to differentiate between nudes {wholesome porno] and cum shot orgies [Unwholesome Porno] - or perhaps it's your reading comprehension skills that are lacking ?  I dunno - but I think the separation was pretty clear, simple nudes as opposed to full blown cum shot orgies - did that help you any ... and please do NOT say... "cum again ?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most place the line separating types of porn between non-violent, and violent porn (like S&M content.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of impression do you think pornography gives young boys of women?  A good impression?  Do you think they would have respect for women who are, for lack of a better word, cum dumpsters?
Click to expand...


Surprised to read that from you. Didn't think you were the sort of person who of the countless terms possible uses that particular one.


----------



## ChrisL

This thread is VERY disturbing, to the core.  It makes me feel concerned for any children who may have contact with this poster.


Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence".  A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies"..
> 
> THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated. That's a whole horse of a different color.. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins"..
> 
> There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you're inserting your own hangups into a discussion. I'm not proposing 'activating children sexually' that's all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you already done this?  Exposed young children to pornography?  Are you exposed to any children on a regular basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that isn't what this thread or the research it's about does. That's something sick minds injected into the discussion since they seem unable to discuss the subject matter unless they can villify the one who began the thread.
Click to expand...


No.  Any parent who would read this would be concerned about his/her's child's well-being, or any good parent that cares about their child anyway.  This is extremely disturbing that you would want to expose young children to graphic sexual situations.  If anything, it would probably have the complete opposite effect.  Like I stated earlier, children are impressionable, and they could see that the correct way of showing love and affection.  They are not emotionally, nor mentally mature enough and not ready to "handle" those types of intense sexual relationships.  They are NOT miniature adults.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shart_attack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chrisl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delta4embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence". A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies"..
> 
> THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. *Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated.* That's a whole horse of a different color. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins"..
> 
> There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, so I'm not ashamed to ask you what you mean in the bold, underlined portion of your quote.
> 
> Not sure if it's awkwardly worded, or if I am myself just reading it incorrectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe alot depends on the type of pornography you are referring to. *Wholesome porno.* some nudey pics of the OPPOSITE sex are pretty much harmless. Full fledged orgies, cum shots and so forth are not psych. healthy. Being fully aware of your degeneracy [Delta4] NO - Gay Porn is not healthy and YES you will be arrested if you try showing little boys [or girls] your tally wacker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love a smokin' hot, STD-riddled porno honey just as much as the next guy (or gal), but I'm sorry: the bold, underlined portion of your post literally made me LOL.
> 
> "Wholesome porno":
> 
> Best. Most. Delicious. Oxymoron. _Ever_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very honest of you to admit that -  but it wasn't really necessary , as it is fairly evident.
> 
> I'm sorry to hear that you are unable to differentiate between nudes {wholesome porno] and cum shot orgies [Unwholesome Porno] - or perhaps it's your reading comprehension skills that are lacking ?  I dunno - but I think the separation was pretty clear, simple nudes as opposed to full blown cum shot orgies - did that help you any ... and please do NOT say... "cum again ?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most place the line separating types of porn between non-violent, and violent porn (like S&M content.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of impression do you think pornography gives young boys of women?  A good impression?  Do you think they would have respect for women who are, for lack of a better word, cum dumpsters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surprised to read that from you. Didn't think you were the sort of person who of the countless terms possible uses that particular one.
Click to expand...


Anyone who cares about children would be concerned.  It is disturbing and concerning that there are people out there who want to do this.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shart_attack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, so I'm not ashamed to ask you what you mean in the bold, underlined portion of your quote.
> 
> Not sure if it's awkwardly worded, or if I am myself just reading it incorrectly.
> 
> I love a smokin' hot, STD-riddled porno honey just as much as the next guy (or gal), but I'm sorry: the bold, underlined portion of your post literally made me LOL.
> 
> "Wholesome porno":
> 
> Best. Most. Delicious. Oxymoron. _Ever_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very honest of you to admit that -  but it wasn't really necessary , as it is fairly evident.
> 
> I'm sorry to hear that you are unable to differentiate between nudes {wholesome porno] and cum shot orgies [Unwholesome Porno] - or perhaps it's your reading comprehension skills that are lacking ?  I dunno - but I think the separation was pretty clear, simple nudes as opposed to full blown cum shot orgies - did that help you any ... and please do NOT say... "cum again ?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most place the line separating types of porn between non-violent, and violent porn (like S&M content.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of impression do you think pornography gives young boys of women?  A good impression?  Do you think they would have respect for women who are, for lack of a better word, cum dumpsters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surprised to read that from you. Didn't think you were the sort of person who of the countless terms possible uses that particular one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who cares about children would be concerned.  It is disturbing and concerning that there are people out there who want to do this.
Click to expand...


I care about people in general not differentiating or breaking it up into children or adults. Every child eventually becomes adult so giving adults 'less concern' only because they're not 'children' seems temporally wrong.


----------



## Piss Bucket

Delta4Embassy said:


> Piss Bucket said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, from experience, I can say something on this. I viewed porn as a kid, and not just Playboy.  I viewed hardcore shit - porn movies.  I thought it was pretty fucking awesome at the time.  I also learned a lot from them.  Porn was just around.  It was around my house and my friends' houses.
> 
> Now, as an adult I look back and wonder if being exposed to all that shit had an effect on me.  I have a pretty good education with a graduate degree.  I am pretty successful in life.  However, I have a pretty fucked up attitude toward women.  I admit it.  To me sex is like a sport.  That may have something to do with having a divorce one record?  Who knows.  I guess if I wasn't so much of a prick I would go get therapy and try to figure out this part of my life.
> 
> Now that I am older and my libido has slowed down I have pulled back from women.  9 times out of 10 all I want to do with women I have contact with, either as friends, acquaintances or women I deal with in my professional life, is to fuck them.  Even during a business meeting all that is on my mind is how the chick would look naked and bent over a table.  I do not even know what "making love" is.  All I know is how to fuck.  Women equate with making fuck.
> 
> So, now that my labido has slowed I am no longer counseled by my dick.  I thought that it was time to take a couple of steps back and reflect on my life, and to take a break from trying to have a relationship that usually degenerates into an awkward clusterfuck of hostility.
> 
> I have noticed that others in my age group are still married, pursuing their careers and raising kids together.  I think that is nice, and wonder why I cannot confirm to such a paradigm.  By agreement I have custody of my nine year old son.  I get him to school each morning, go to work, pick him up from school each afternoon, do dinner, do homework, bathtime, bedtime and everything else parenting entails.  I can live with this.  But I wonder what this is doing to my son.  His mother and I now get along well, and she is involved in my son's life.  But I am my son's role model.  In a way I feel like I should get into a relationship for the purpose of appropriately socializing my son.  In other words, I am concerned that my current lifestyle, which resulted from my prior lifestyle may have some restrictive effect on my son's development.
> 
> This all gets rather complicated.  If I did not have a child then I would just let it roll.  But I cannot be bringing home some new fuckpiece every few weeks.  I feel like I would be tracking my son that it is ok to use people and then throw them away when you are done with them.  BTW,  I do not keep porn around the house.  I do not even have any anymore.
> 
> I am not going to say that porn caused me to have a shitty attitude toward women.  But, it would not surprise me if it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't mind an observation, your attitude towards women seems to have less to do with early porn exposure and more to do with being divorced and having custody of your son. Fact that you view women and sex as sport isn't unusual, but obviously a 9 yo at home will inhibit 'playing the game.' So I'd say your harboring some resentment towards your ex for whatever reason(s) you have custody instead of her.
Click to expand...


Gee thanks, Mr. Freud.  You know, only a true idiot would attempt to psychoanalyze with such sketchy facts.  I clearly assert facts that create the inference that my attitudes led to my divorce, or that in my opinion it may have led to it.  Also, a shitty attitude clearly would not come exclusively from watching a lot of porn at a young age.  However, it may certainly contribute.  In addition to porn, there is the father figure, early experiences, etc... 

Go suck it, you pathetic arm-chair psychologist wannabe shit head.  I have been analyzed by far better people than you.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> This thread is VERY disturbing, to the core.  It makes me feel concerned for any children who may have contact with this poster.
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence".  A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies"..
> 
> THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated. That's a whole horse of a different color.. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins"..
> 
> There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you're inserting your own hangups into a discussion. I'm not proposing 'activating children sexually' that's all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you already done this?  Exposed young children to pornography?  Are you exposed to any children on a regular basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that isn't what this thread or the research it's about does. That's something sick minds injected into the discussion since they seem unable to discuss the subject matter unless they can villify the one who began the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Any parent who would read this would be concerned about his/her's child's well-being, or any good parent that cares about their child anyway.  This is extremely disturbing that you would want to expose young children to graphic sexual situations.  If anything, it would probably have the complete opposite effect.  Like I stated earlier, children are impressionable, and they could see that the correct way of showing love and affection.  They are not emotionally, nor mentally mature enough and not ready to "handle" those types of intense sexual relationships.  They are NOT miniature adults.
Click to expand...


Again, you're inserting something from your own imagination and apparent inability to read standard English. No where int his thread am I, or the research I mention suggesting to expose children to pornography. Am merely asking the question, is it harmful and citing research into that question. 

You're apparently reading every 4th or 5th word then replying without actually understanding what this is about. Like others have.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very honest of you to admit that -  but it wasn't really necessary , as it is fairly evident.
> 
> I'm sorry to hear that you are unable to differentiate between nudes {wholesome porno] and cum shot orgies [Unwholesome Porno] - or perhaps it's your reading comprehension skills that are lacking ?  I dunno - but I think the separation was pretty clear, simple nudes as opposed to full blown cum shot orgies - did that help you any ... and please do NOT say... "cum again ?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most place the line separating types of porn between non-violent, and violent porn (like S&M content.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of impression do you think pornography gives young boys of women?  A good impression?  Do you think they would have respect for women who are, for lack of a better word, cum dumpsters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surprised to read that from you. Didn't think you were the sort of person who of the countless terms possible uses that particular one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who cares about children would be concerned.  It is disturbing and concerning that there are people out there who want to do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I care about people in general not differentiating or breaking it up into children or adults. Every child eventually becomes adult so giving adults 'less concern' only because they're not 'children' seems temporally wrong.
Click to expand...


What do you mean, giving adults less concern?  You think that by showing how it is wrong and could be damaging to a young child to show him/her pornography means we are depriving the adult of something?  What is the adult being deprived of in this situation?


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is VERY disturbing, to the core.  It makes me feel concerned for any children who may have contact with this poster.
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence".  A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies"..
> 
> THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated. That's a whole horse of a different color.. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins"..
> 
> There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you're inserting your own hangups into a discussion. I'm not proposing 'activating children sexually' that's all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you already done this?  Exposed young children to pornography?  Are you exposed to any children on a regular basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that isn't what this thread or the research it's about does. That's something sick minds injected into the discussion since they seem unable to discuss the subject matter unless they can villify the one who began the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Any parent who would read this would be concerned about his/her's child's well-being, or any good parent that cares about their child anyway.  This is extremely disturbing that you would want to expose young children to graphic sexual situations.  If anything, it would probably have the complete opposite effect.  Like I stated earlier, children are impressionable, and they could see that the correct way of showing love and affection.  They are not emotionally, nor mentally mature enough and not ready to "handle" those types of intense sexual relationships.  They are NOT miniature adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're inserting something from your own imagination and apparent inability to read standard English. No where int his thread am I, or the research I mention suggesting to expose children to pornography. Am merely asking the question, is it harmful and citing research into that question.
> 
> You're apparently reading every 4th or 5th word then replying without actually understanding what this is about. Like others have.
Click to expand...


Now you're back pedaling.  That is exactly what you were suggesting.  You said that you believed exposing them to pornography at young ages could help curb violence, in so many words.  Amirite?


----------



## High_Gravity

Porn is for adults.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Piss Bucket said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Piss Bucket said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, from experience, I can say something on this. I viewed porn as a kid, and not just Playboy.  I viewed hardcore shit - porn movies.  I thought it was pretty fucking awesome at the time.  I also learned a lot from them.  Porn was just around.  It was around my house and my friends' houses.
> 
> Now, as an adult I look back and wonder if being exposed to all that shit had an effect on me.  I have a pretty good education with a graduate degree.  I am pretty successful in life.  However, I have a pretty fucked up attitude toward women.  I admit it.  To me sex is like a sport.  That may have something to do with having a divorce one record?  Who knows.  I guess if I wasn't so much of a prick I would go get therapy and try to figure out this part of my life.
> 
> Now that I am older and my libido has slowed down I have pulled back from women.  9 times out of 10 all I want to do with women I have contact with, either as friends, acquaintances or women I deal with in my professional life, is to fuck them.  Even during a business meeting all that is on my mind is how the chick would look naked and bent over a table.  I do not even know what "making love" is.  All I know is how to fuck.  Women equate with making fuck.
> 
> So, now that my labido has slowed I am no longer counseled by my dick.  I thought that it was time to take a couple of steps back and reflect on my life, and to take a break from trying to have a relationship that usually degenerates into an awkward clusterfuck of hostility.
> 
> I have noticed that others in my age group are still married, pursuing their careers and raising kids together.  I think that is nice, and wonder why I cannot confirm to such a paradigm.  By agreement I have custody of my nine year old son.  I get him to school each morning, go to work, pick him up from school each afternoon, do dinner, do homework, bathtime, bedtime and everything else parenting entails.  I can live with this.  But I wonder what this is doing to my son.  His mother and I now get along well, and she is involved in my son's life.  But I am my son's role model.  In a way I feel like I should get into a relationship for the purpose of appropriately socializing my son.  In other words, I am concerned that my current lifestyle, which resulted from my prior lifestyle may have some restrictive effect on my son's development.
> 
> This all gets rather complicated.  If I did not have a child then I would just let it roll.  But I cannot be bringing home some new fuckpiece every few weeks.  I feel like I would be tracking my son that it is ok to use people and then throw them away when you are done with them.  BTW,  I do not keep porn around the house.  I do not even have any anymore.
> 
> I am not going to say that porn caused me to have a shitty attitude toward women.  But, it would not surprise me if it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't mind an observation, your attitude towards women seems to have less to do with early porn exposure and more to do with being divorced and having custody of your son. Fact that you view women and sex as sport isn't unusual, but obviously a 9 yo at home will inhibit 'playing the game.' So I'd say your harboring some resentment towards your ex for whatever reason(s) you have custody instead of her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee thanks, Mr. Freud.  You know, only a true idiot would attempt to psychoanalyze with such sketchy facts.  I clearly assert facts that create the inference that my attitudes led to my divorce, or that in my opinion it may have led to it.  Also, a shitty attitude clearly would not come exclusively from watching a lot of porn at a young age.  However, it may certainly contribute.  In addition to porn, there is the father figure, early experiences, etc...
> 
> Go suck it, you pathetic arm-chair psychologist wannabe shit head.  I have been analyzed by far better people than you.
Click to expand...


Unless you receive a bill you weren't being psychoanalyzed.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is VERY disturbing, to the core.  It makes me feel concerned for any children who may have contact with this poster.
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you're inserting your own hangups into a discussion. I'm not proposing 'activating children sexually' that's all you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you already done this?  Exposed young children to pornography?  Are you exposed to any children on a regular basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that isn't what this thread or the research it's about does. That's something sick minds injected into the discussion since they seem unable to discuss the subject matter unless they can villify the one who began the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Any parent who would read this would be concerned about his/her's child's well-being, or any good parent that cares about their child anyway.  This is extremely disturbing that you would want to expose young children to graphic sexual situations.  If anything, it would probably have the complete opposite effect.  Like I stated earlier, children are impressionable, and they could see that the correct way of showing love and affection.  They are not emotionally, nor mentally mature enough and not ready to "handle" those types of intense sexual relationships.  They are NOT miniature adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're inserting something from your own imagination and apparent inability to read standard English. No where int his thread am I, or the research I mention suggesting to expose children to pornography. Am merely asking the question, is it harmful and citing research into that question.
> 
> You're apparently reading every 4th or 5th word then replying without actually understanding what this is about. Like others have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're back pedaling.  That is exactly what you were suggesting.  You said that you believed exposing them to pornography at young ages could help curb violence, in so many words.  Amirite?
Click to expand...


No, you're totally wrong. I said only pleasure (meaning adults, who're the ones who typically comit acts of violence) prevents violence.

Give it up. You and some others are grasping at straws trying to misrepresents facts everyone can use google to search back through to see what WAS said vs what you claim was said.


----------



## ChrisL

Just an FYI for parents and other adults out there who actually do care about children and their health and well-being, It is a widely acknowledged fact that pornography is used by adults to groom children for sexual abuse.  This is the adults way of desensitizing the child to sexual situations.  They will also sometimes give them alcohol or drugs to "loosen them up."  Sometimes they will offer to buy them gifts and/or give them money.  Of course, children fall for these ploys because they are "innocent."  Most child predators will target a child who is largely ignored by the adults in his or her life, has few friends, is withdrawn, or even children who are already being abused in some manner.  These children make good targets for the pedophile sexual predator because they are less likely to make a scene, tell anyone and are more easily manipulated.  

Yes, we should all be suspicious whenever an adult starts talking about grooming children for sex.


----------



## High_Gravity

Piss Bucket said:


> Well, from experience, I can say something on this. I viewed porn as a kid, and not just Playboy.  I viewed hardcore shit - porn movies.  I thought it was pretty fucking awesome at the time.  I also learned a lot from them.  Porn was just around.  It was around my house and my friends' houses.
> 
> Now, as an adult I look back and wonder if being exposed to all that shit had an effect on me.  I have a pretty good education with a graduate degree.  I am pretty successful in life.  However, I have a pretty fucked up attitude toward women.  I admit it.  To me sex is like a sport.  That may have something to do with having a divorce one record?  Who knows.  I guess if I wasn't so much of a prick I would go get therapy and try to figure out this part of my life.
> 
> Now that I am older and my libido has slowed down I have pulled back from women.  9 times out of 10 all I want to do with women I have contact with, either as friends, acquaintances or women I deal with in my professional life, is to fuck them.  Even during a business meeting all that is on my mind is how the chick would look naked and bent over a table.  I do not even know what "making love" is.  All I know is how to fuck.  Women equate with making fuck.
> 
> .


 
I don't know dude, I didn't watch my first porno until I was 19 and I look at things the same way as you lol, I think its just part of being a man.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is VERY disturbing, to the core.  It makes me feel concerned for any children who may have contact with this poster.
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you already done this?  Exposed young children to pornography?  Are you exposed to any children on a regular basis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that isn't what this thread or the research it's about does. That's something sick minds injected into the discussion since they seem unable to discuss the subject matter unless they can villify the one who began the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Any parent who would read this would be concerned about his/her's child's well-being, or any good parent that cares about their child anyway.  This is extremely disturbing that you would want to expose young children to graphic sexual situations.  If anything, it would probably have the complete opposite effect.  Like I stated earlier, children are impressionable, and they could see that the correct way of showing love and affection.  They are not emotionally, nor mentally mature enough and not ready to "handle" those types of intense sexual relationships.  They are NOT miniature adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're inserting something from your own imagination and apparent inability to read standard English. No where int his thread am I, or the research I mention suggesting to expose children to pornography. Am merely asking the question, is it harmful and citing research into that question.
> 
> You're apparently reading every 4th or 5th word then replying without actually understanding what this is about. Like others have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're back pedaling.  That is exactly what you were suggesting.  You said that you believed exposing them to pornography at young ages could help curb violence, in so many words.  Amirite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're totally wrong. I said only pleasure (meaning adults, who're the ones who typically comit acts of violence) prevents violence.
> 
> Give it up. You and some others are grasping at straws trying to misrepresents facts everyone can use google to search back through to see what WAS said vs what you claim was said.
Click to expand...


So then you agree that exposing children to pornography would probably do more harm than good?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Is the OP A registered sex offender?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is VERY disturbing, to the core.  It makes me feel concerned for any children who may have contact with this poster.
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that isn't what this thread or the research it's about does. That's something sick minds injected into the discussion since they seem unable to discuss the subject matter unless they can villify the one who began the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Any parent who would read this would be concerned about his/her's child's well-being, or any good parent that cares about their child anyway.  This is extremely disturbing that you would want to expose young children to graphic sexual situations.  If anything, it would probably have the complete opposite effect.  Like I stated earlier, children are impressionable, and they could see that the correct way of showing love and affection.  They are not emotionally, nor mentally mature enough and not ready to "handle" those types of intense sexual relationships.  They are NOT miniature adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're inserting something from your own imagination and apparent inability to read standard English. No where int his thread am I, or the research I mention suggesting to expose children to pornography. Am merely asking the question, is it harmful and citing research into that question.
> 
> You're apparently reading every 4th or 5th word then replying without actually understanding what this is about. Like others have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're back pedaling.  That is exactly what you were suggesting.  You said that you believed exposing them to pornography at young ages could help curb violence, in so many words.  Amirite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're totally wrong. I said only pleasure (meaning adults, who're the ones who typically comit acts of violence) prevents violence.
> 
> Give it up. You and some others are grasping at straws trying to misrepresents facts everyone can use google to search back through to see what WAS said vs what you claim was said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you agree that exposing children to pornography would probably do more harm than good?
Click to expand...


No I don't. Think violence harms children who view it, but not non-violent porn.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is VERY disturbing, to the core.  It makes me feel concerned for any children who may have contact with this poster.
> No.  Any parent who would read this would be concerned about his/her's child's well-being, or any good parent that cares about their child anyway.  This is extremely disturbing that you would want to expose young children to graphic sexual situations.  If anything, it would probably have the complete opposite effect.  Like I stated earlier, children are impressionable, and they could see that the correct way of showing love and affection.  They are not emotionally, nor mentally mature enough and not ready to "handle" those types of intense sexual relationships.  They are NOT miniature adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're inserting something from your own imagination and apparent inability to read standard English. No where int his thread am I, or the research I mention suggesting to expose children to pornography. Am merely asking the question, is it harmful and citing research into that question.
> 
> You're apparently reading every 4th or 5th word then replying without actually understanding what this is about. Like others have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're back pedaling.  That is exactly what you were suggesting.  You said that you believed exposing them to pornography at young ages could help curb violence, in so many words.  Amirite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're totally wrong. I said only pleasure (meaning adults, who're the ones who typically comit acts of violence) prevents violence.
> 
> Give it up. You and some others are grasping at straws trying to misrepresents facts everyone can use google to search back through to see what WAS said vs what you claim was said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you agree that exposing children to pornography would probably do more harm than good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't. Think violence harms children who view it, but not non-violent porn.
Click to expand...


So you ARE saying that you think pornography is "good" for children.  

 I've heard these talking points before on other forums, and from admitted child molesters and NAMBLA members.  This is part of their spiel!!!  

Of course, they will never ADMIT their true obsession with sexing up children, but that is their ultimate goal, to normalize sexual relationships between adults and children.  Maybe you have fallen for it.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

See, again you're inserting your words. I said I don't belive it harms children. To which you insert I mean it's good for them. Give it up.


----------



## ChrisL

Let's not forget people, that pedophilia doesn't just limit itself to a certain class of people.  Of course there are psychologists who are also pedophiles and will do "studies" or suggest things to try and justify their disease.  No one in their right mind would sit and watch pornography with a child.  That is sick beyond belief.


----------



## shart_attack

Delta4Embassy said:


> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.





			
				chrisl said:
			
		

> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.





			
				delta4embassy said:
			
		

> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.





			
				flacaltenn said:
			
		

> I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence". A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies"..
> 
> THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. *Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated.* That's a whole horse of a different color. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins"..
> 
> There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..





			
				the shart said:
			
		

> I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, so I'm not ashamed to ask you what you mean in the bold, underlined portion of your quote.
> 
> Not sure if it's awkwardly worded, or if I am myself just reading it incorrectly.





			
				greenbean said:
			
		

> I believe alot depends on the type of pornography you are referring to. *Wholesome porno.* some nudey pics of the OPPOSITE sex are pretty much harmless. Full fledged orgies, cum shots and so forth are not psych. healthy. Being fully aware of your degeneracy [Delta4] NO - Gay Porn is not healthy and YES you will be arrested if you try showing little boys [or girls] your tally wacker.





			
				the shart said:
			
		

> I love a smokin' hot, STD-riddled porno honey just as much as the next guy (or gal), but I'm sorry: the bold, underlined portion of your post literally made me LOL.
> 
> "Wholesome porno":
> 
> Best. Most. Delicious. Oxymoron. _Ever_.





			
				the shart said:
			
		

> I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool





			
				greenbean said:
			
		

> Very honest of you to admit that -  but it wasn't really necessary , as it is fairly evident.



Okay, I'm done being nice.

Look, you goddamned MORON, that quote of mine wasn't even directed at _you_. It was a gesture to someone here whom I _truly_ respect: flacaltenn.

So, just because we're all suddenly into honesty, I'll just truthfully say that the irony in this charade is that you're so goddamned stupid that you can't even follow a primary-schoolish quote chain.

There's your _evidence_, you little limp-wristed, runt-of-the-litter imbecile.



			
				greenbean said:
			
		

> I'm sorry to hear that you are unable to differentiate between nudes {wholesome porno] and cum shot orgies [Unwholesome Porno] - or perhaps it's your reading comprehension skills that are lacking ?  I dunno - but I think the separation was pretty clear, simple nudes as opposed to full blown cum shot orgies - did that help you any ... and please do NOT say... "cum again ?"



Whoa, look at this: our boy GreenBean just tried to make a funny — ah'll be doggoned eaten by a sheep dog and shit off a cliff!!!

Again, the irony of the most simple of dumb phrases is lost on you: there is no such thing as a "wholesome porno"—_wholesome_ implying health and wellness, the virility of nature; _pornography_ representing the death of innocence and the triumph of decadence—you RETARD.

Maybe you took Humanities 101 at the U.Phoenix online, I dunno.

But I know that you sure as shit do have a special knack for making yourself look every bit of the moron that you truly are — every time you make as much as a three- to four-word post.

Give it up, man: you don't belong around sociopolitically astute or artistically savvy people.

Time for you to get back out there and finish fellin' them trees, _boy_.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is VERY disturbing, to the core.  It makes me feel concerned for any children who may have contact with this poster.
> No.  Any parent who would read this would be concerned about his/her's child's well-being, or any good parent that cares about their child anyway.  This is extremely disturbing that you would want to expose young children to graphic sexual situations.  If anything, it would probably have the complete opposite effect.  Like I stated earlier, children are impressionable, and they could see that the correct way of showing love and affection.  They are not emotionally, nor mentally mature enough and not ready to "handle" those types of intense sexual relationships.  They are NOT miniature adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're inserting something from your own imagination and apparent inability to read standard English. No where int his thread am I, or the research I mention suggesting to expose children to pornography. Am merely asking the question, is it harmful and citing research into that question.
> 
> You're apparently reading every 4th or 5th word then replying without actually understanding what this is about. Like others have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're back pedaling.  That is exactly what you were suggesting.  You said that you believed exposing them to pornography at young ages could help curb violence, in so many words.  Amirite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're totally wrong. I said only pleasure (meaning adults, who're the ones who typically comit acts of violence) prevents violence.
> 
> Give it up. You and some others are grasping at straws trying to misrepresents facts everyone can use google to search back through to see what WAS said vs what you claim was said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you agree that exposing children to pornography would probably do more harm than good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't. Think violence harms children who view it, but not non-violent porn.
Click to expand...


Quit beating around the bush.  Just come out and tell us what exactly it is you are suggesting with all of this nonsense.

WHAT is your purpose with all of these threads about children and sexuality?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past. 

Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children. 

I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.
> 
> Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.
> 
> I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.



Do you think in the 1950s and before, many children were watching pornography?  You have just made the case AGAINST your own OP.  Thank you!!!  

Kids are exposed to more pornography NOW than ever before in history!  Lol.


----------



## jillian

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.
> 
> Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.
> 
> I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think in the 1950s and before, many children were watching pornography?  You have just made the case AGAINST your own OP.  Thank you!!!
> 
> Kids are exposed to more pornography NOW than ever before in history!  Lol.
Click to expand...


how so? 

most children are not exposed to "pornography" and are exposed to perverse levels of violence on screen. healthy sexual images are not pornography.... 

he is correct that the US has this bizarre strain of puritanism that demonizes anything sexual but glorifies violence.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.
> 
> Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.
> 
> I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think in the 1950s and before, many children were watching pornography?  You have just made the case AGAINST your own OP.  Thank you!!!
> 
> Kids are exposed to more pornography NOW than ever before in history!  Lol.
Click to expand...


There was rather a lot of porn in the 50s. That people think the 50s were all 3-piece suits and "Pleantville" isn't surprising. But porn is ancient, only the medium's changed.


----------



## ChrisL

jillian said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.
> 
> Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.
> 
> I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think in the 1950s and before, many children were watching pornography?  You have just made the case AGAINST your own OP.  Thank you!!!
> 
> Kids are exposed to more pornography NOW than ever before in history!  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how so?
> 
> most children are not exposed to "pornography" and are exposed to perverse levels of violence on screen. healthy sexual images are not pornography....
> 
> he is correct that the US has this bizarre strain of puritanism that demonizes anything sexual but glorifies violence.
Click to expand...


Are you kidding me?  You must not be of this younger generation.  Pornography is just a mouse click away for any child who has access to a computer, whether that be at home, at friends' houses, etc.  

I can agree with the fact that, in the US, nudity is a "big deal" but not violence, but that still does not justify saying that pornography is NOT harmful to children.  I certainly do not agree with that.  Pornography can be quite demeaning to women, in most cases.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.
> 
> Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.
> 
> I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think in the 1950s and before, many children were watching pornography?  You have just made the case AGAINST your own OP.  Thank you!!!
> 
> Kids are exposed to more pornography NOW than ever before in history!  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was rather a lot of porn in the 50s. That people think the 50s were all 3-piece suits and "Pleantville" isn't surprising. But porn is ancient, only the medium's changed.
Click to expand...


More children at younger ages have access to it than ever before in history.  THAT is a fact.  You are either old or dishonest.  Which is it?  

You didn't answer my question either.  This is NOT the first thread you have started about children and sex.  What is the point you are trying to make with all of these threads?  You are trying to justify something.  That much is quite obvious.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.
> 
> Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.
> 
> I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think in the 1950s and before, many children were watching pornography?  You have just made the case AGAINST your own OP.  Thank you!!!
> 
> Kids are exposed to more pornography NOW than ever before in history!  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was rather a lot of porn in the 50s. That people think the 50s were all 3-piece suits and "Pleantville" isn't surprising. But porn is ancient, only the medium's changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More children at younger ages have access to it than ever before in history.  THAT is a fact.  You are either old or dishonest.  Which is it?
> 
> You didn't answer my question either.  This is NOT the first thread you have started about children and sex.  What is the point you are trying to make with all of these threads?  You are trying to justify something.  That much is quite obvious.
Click to expand...


Already answered this question. That you glossed over it says more about you than me.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.
> 
> Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.
> 
> I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think in the 1950s and before, many children were watching pornography?  You have just made the case AGAINST your own OP.  Thank you!!!
> 
> Kids are exposed to more pornography NOW than ever before in history!  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was rather a lot of porn in the 50s. That people think the 50s were all 3-piece suits and "Pleantville" isn't surprising. But porn is ancient, only the medium's changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More children at younger ages have access to it than ever before in history.  THAT is a fact.  You are either old or dishonest.  Which is it?
> 
> You didn't answer my question either.  This is NOT the first thread you have started about children and sex.  What is the point you are trying to make with all of these threads?  You are trying to justify something.  That much is quite obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already answered this question. That you glossed over it says more about you than me.
Click to expand...


Oh?  Which post number is that?


----------



## jillian

ChrisL said:


> More children at younger ages have access to it than ever before in history.  THAT is a fact.  You are either old or dishonest.  Which is it?



your evidence for that proposition?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

303.


----------



## ChrisL

jillian said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> More children at younger ages have access to it than ever before in history.  THAT is a fact.  You are either old or dishonest.  Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your evidence for that proposition?
Click to expand...


Uh, the internet?  Are you saying it's not true?    No shortage of naive people on the internet, I suppose.


----------



## Esmeralda

jillian said:


> "children" shouldn't be viewing pornography
> 
> pornography is not harmful to adults unless, like any other addiction, it impedes the viewer's real life.
> 
> and "sex crimes" are not about sex, but are about violence.


Yep, the OP is creepy and nuts: why on Earth would children be viewing pornography? What kind of person would even consider such a thing.


----------



## Piss Bucket

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is VERY disturbing, to the core.  It makes me feel concerned for any children who may have contact with this poster.
> No.  Any parent who would read this would be concerned about his/her's child's well-being, or any good parent that cares about their child anyway.  This is extremely disturbing that you would want to expose young children to graphic sexual situations.  If anything, it would probably have the complete opposite effect.  Like I stated earlier, children are impressionable, and they could see that the correct way of showing love and affection.  They are not emotionally, nor mentally mature enough and not ready to "handle" those types of intense sexual relationships.  They are NOT miniature adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're inserting something from your own imagination and apparent inability to read standard English. No where int his thread am I, or the research I mention suggesting to expose children to pornography. Am merely asking the question, is it harmful and citing research into that question.
> 
> You're apparently reading every 4th or 5th word then replying without actually understanding what this is about. Like others have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're back pedaling.  That is exactly what you were suggesting.  You said that you believed exposing them to pornography at young ages could help curb violence, in so many words.  Amirite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're totally wrong. I said only pleasure (meaning adults, who're the ones who typically comit acts of violence) prevents violence.
> 
> Give it up. You and some others are grasping at straws trying to misrepresents facts everyone can use google to search back through to see what WAS said vs what you claim was said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you agree that exposing children to pornography would probably do more harm than good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't. Think violence harms children who view it, but not non-violent porn.
Click to expand...


WHOA!! HOLY SHIT!  You are one fucked up weirdo.  NOTE: when I opened up herein about my past dick issues I did not telling that the thread was started by a whack job.  

Dude, this is not fucking cool.  I hope you are registered in your local community.  

Two things:

1.  Kids and porn do not mix.  When I said I watched a lot of porn when I was a kid, I was at least old enough to blow a load.  You seem to think that it is ok for children to watch hardcore porn.  Let me tell you something, that is not only morally wrong, it is a felony in all 50 states.  

2.  You are posting a lot of prurient shit lately.  There was recently a threat you started about masturbation in which you vigorously defend jacking it.  Next, you start a thread in porno.  Now, it is porno and kids.  What's next?  Sex with desks animals of the same sex?

There is another poster calling you a sex pervert.  I was dismissive of this person at first.  But now I see I was hasty.  You are a sick fuck.  Unless you are a research doctor exploring how are brains work on an academic level, it is not appropriate to be mixing the subjects of children and porno ( or anything involving the sexual gratification of an adult).  

Now I know you feel different.  But that is because you are mentally and emotionally abnormal, or should I say "fucked up in the head".  You need to get off this subject, dude.  I also suggest that you get some professional help. At a minimum go have a psych evaluation done.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.
> 
> Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.
> 
> I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.



There are plenty of other "studies" that I could post to contradict your studies.  Lol!  Google it and see.  Those are also peer reviewed studies.  

You can pretty much find a study that will agree with any position you can possibly take on most subjects, especially one as complicated as child sexual abuse.  Exposing young children to pornography certainly cannot have any kind of benefits either, unless you are a child molester.  Children develop at their own rates when it comes to sex.  Most are not emotionally or mentally prepared for such adult intimacy.  They do not have the understanding, and sex is an adult activity that has consequences!!!


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Esmeralda said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> "children" shouldn't be viewing pornography
> 
> pornography is not harmful to adults unless, like any other addiction, it impedes the viewer's real life.
> 
> and "sex crimes" are not about sex, but are about violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the OP is creepy and nuts|: why on Earth would children be viewing pornography? What kind of person would even consider such a thing.
Click to expand...


Children view porn out of simple curiousity, to see what all the fuss is about that they're not supposed to (children naturally rebel doing whatever they're told not to,) and like adults because they masturbate. 

The Australian study I referrenced a page or so ago and linked to earlier in the thread showed how adults assume children are naive about sex despite the fact they view porn just as adults do, and when asked only feign ignorance and innocence playing into the adult perception they're innocent.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.
> 
> Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.
> 
> I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of other "studies" that I could post to contradict your studies.  Lol!  Google it and see.  Those are also peer reviewed studies.
> 
> You can pretty much find a study that will agree with any position you can possibly take on most subjects, especially one as complicated as child sexual abuse.  Exposing young children to pornography certainly cannot have any kind of benefits either, unless you are a child molester.  Children develop at their own rates when it comes to sex.  Most are not emotionally or mentally prepared for such adult intimacy.  They do not have the understanding, and sex is an adult activity that has consequences!!!
Click to expand...


Please do so.


----------



## jillian

ChrisL said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> More children at younger ages have access to it than ever before in history.  THAT is a fact.  You are either old or dishonest.  Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your evidence for that proposition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, the internet?  Are you saying it's not true?    No shortage of naive people on the internet, I suppose.
Click to expand...


the availability of internet porn does not mean it is more available to children.

like i said, do you have proof that CHILDREN are accessing things they shouldn't.

again... you keep glossing over the actual point.... that American children are subjected to absurd amounts of violence but people like you lose their minds when a child sees a boob.


----------



## jillian

Delta4Embassy said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> "children" shouldn't be viewing pornography
> 
> pornography is not harmful to adults unless, like any other addiction, it impedes the viewer's real life.
> 
> and "sex crimes" are not about sex, but are about violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the OP is creepy and nuts|: why on Earth would children be viewing pornography? What kind of person would even consider such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children view porn out of simple curiousity, to see what all the fuss is about that they're not supposed to (children naturally rebel doing whatever they're told not to,) and like adults because they masturbate.
> 
> The Australian study I referrenced a page or so ago and linked to earlier in the thread showed how adults assume children are naive about sex despite the fact they view porn just as adults do, and when asked only feign ignorance and innocence playing into the adult perception they're innocent.
Click to expand...


i don't agree. that's where parenting comes in.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Piss Bucket said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're inserting something from your own imagination and apparent inability to read standard English. No where int his thread am I, or the research I mention suggesting to expose children to pornography. Am merely asking the question, is it harmful and citing research into that question.
> 
> You're apparently reading every 4th or 5th word then replying without actually understanding what this is about. Like others have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're back pedaling.  That is exactly what you were suggesting.  You said that you believed exposing them to pornography at young ages could help curb violence, in so many words.  Amirite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're totally wrong. I said only pleasure (meaning adults, who're the ones who typically comit acts of violence) prevents violence.
> 
> Give it up. You and some others are grasping at straws trying to misrepresents facts everyone can use google to search back through to see what WAS said vs what you claim was said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you agree that exposing children to pornography would probably do more harm than good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't. Think violence harms children who view it, but not non-violent porn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHOA!! HOLY SHIT!  You are one fucked up weirdo.  NOTE: when I opened up herein about my past dick issues I did not telling that the thread was started by a whack job.
> 
> Dude, this is not fucking cool.  I hope you are registered in your local community.
> 
> Two things:
> 
> 1.  Kids and porn do not mix.  When I said I watched a lot of porn when I was a kid, I was at least old enough to blow a load.  You seem to think that it is ok for children to watch hardcore porn.  Let me tell you something, that is not only morally wrong, it is a felony in all 50 states.
> 
> 2.  You are posting a lot of prurient shit lately.  There was recently a threat you started about masturbation in which you vigorously defend jacking it.  Next, you start a thread in porno.  Now, it is porno and kids.  What's next?  Sex with desks animals of the same sex?
> 
> There is another poster calling you a sex pervert.  I was dismissive of this person at first.  But now I see I was hasty.  You are a sick fuck.  Unless you are a research doctor exploring how are brains work on an academic level, it is not appropriate to be mixing the subjects of children and porno ( or anything involving the sexual gratification of an adult).
> 
> Now I know you feel different.  But that is because you are mentally and emotionally abnormal, or should I say "fucked up in the head".  You need to get off this subject, dude.  I also suggest that you get some professional help. At a minimum go have a psych evaluation done.
Click to expand...


Coming from someone incapable of having a discussion without hurling expletives all over I can't say your opinion means much to me. I was in the Navy and I don't even cuss this much.


----------



## ChrisL

Another thing that is bogus.  This guy claims that he is only talking about violence?  Then WHY is he bringing children watching porno into the discussion?  You can discuss our problems with violence without THAT little part there.  

Basically, he is saying that he thinks watching pornography is beneficial to children.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

jillian said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> "children" shouldn't be viewing pornography
> 
> pornography is not harmful to adults unless, like any other addiction, it impedes the viewer's real life.
> 
> and "sex crimes" are not about sex, but are about violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the OP is creepy and nuts|: why on Earth would children be viewing pornography? What kind of person would even consider such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children view porn out of simple curiousity, to see what all the fuss is about that they're not supposed to (children naturally rebel doing whatever they're told not to,) and like adults because they masturbate.
> 
> The Australian study I referrenced a page or so ago and linked to earlier in the thread showed how adults assume children are naive about sex despite the fact they view porn just as adults do, and when asked only feign ignorance and innocence playing into the adult perception they're innocent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't agree. that's where parenting comes in.
Click to expand...


Science isn't a matter of personal opinions like whether we agree or not. This is not my opinion but my knowledge of the material.


----------



## High_Gravity

Looking at a womans nude body is way different tha watching Belladonnas latest interracial gang bang, that said are we really having a serious discussion about kids and porn?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

So your kid is looking at porn. Now what SafeKids.com

So your kid is looking at porn. Now what?
Posted on December 17, 2011 by Larry Magid

by Larry Magid

Let’s be honest. Many children — especially post-pubescent boys — are interested in what we commonly call “porn.” You might not like the idea that some kids are looking at these images, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a pretty common occurrence.

This column isn’t about young children or children who accidentally come across unwanted sexual material. Those are different issues. The question I want to explore is how a parent should react if they discover their growing child — typically 12 or older — is deliberately looking at sexually explicit material on the Internet.

Nothing new or unusual

First, recognize that there’s nothing new about teens looking at such material.

We didn’t have the Internet when I was 14, but that didn’t stop kids from getting their  hands on copies of Playboy. Porn has been around for centuries and we’re far from the first generation of parents who have had to deal with it.

rest at link.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Everything in the above article echos this thread. Perhaps coming from:

"SafeKids.com is one of the oldest and most enduring sites for Internet safety. It’s founder and editor, Larry Magid, is the author of the original National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s 1994 brochure, “Child Safety on the Information Highway.” He is co-director of ConnectSafely.org and a technology journalist. Click here for Larry’s full bio and here for a shortened one."

will helps people accept it.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.
> 
> Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.
> 
> I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of other "studies" that I could post to contradict your studies.  Lol!  Google it and see.  Those are also peer reviewed studies.
> 
> You can pretty much find a study that will agree with any position you can possibly take on most subjects, especially one as complicated as child sexual abuse.  Exposing young children to pornography certainly cannot have any kind of benefits either, unless you are a child molester.  Children develop at their own rates when it comes to sex.  Most are not emotionally or mentally prepared for such adult intimacy.  They do not have the understanding, and sex is an adult activity that has consequences!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do so.
Click to expand...


Like I said, GOOGLE it and post some up, if you want to be "fair and balanced" here.  There are TONS to choose from, TONS.  

Let me google that for you


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> So your kid is looking at porn. Now what SafeKids.com
> 
> So your kid is looking at porn. Now what?
> Posted on December 17, 2011 by Larry Magid
> 
> by Larry Magid
> 
> Let’s be honest. Many children — especially post-pubescent boys — are interested in what we commonly call “porn.” You might not like the idea that some kids are looking at these images, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a pretty common occurrence.
> 
> This column isn’t about young children or children who accidentally come across unwanted sexual material. Those are different issues. The question I want to explore is how a parent should react if they discover their growing child — typically 12 or older — is deliberately looking at sexually explicit material on the Internet.
> 
> Nothing new or unusual
> 
> First, recognize that there’s nothing new about teens looking at such material.
> 
> We didn’t have the Internet when I was 14, but that didn’t stop kids from getting their  hands on copies of Playboy. Porn has been around for centuries and we’re far from the first generation of parents who have had to deal with it.
> 
> rest at link.



If you are denying that it is easier now than ever for children to get their hands on explicit pornographic material (not JUST nude magazines), then you are incredibly dishonest.  

I can already see your intellectual dishonesty throughout this time we have been conversing anyway.  You have an agenda that has to do with children and sexuality.  This is obvious from your posting history.  What is it that you want from the children?  

Also, to counter all of your points, there are plenty of people exposed to violence who never commit a violent act in their lives.  More do not than do.  

I wish you would just come out and tell us what your point here is with the pornography/children angle?


----------



## ChrisL

jillian said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> More children at younger ages have access to it than ever before in history.  THAT is a fact.  You are either old or dishonest.  Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your evidence for that proposition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, the internet?  Are you saying it's not true?    No shortage of naive people on the internet, I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the availability of internet porn does not mean it is more available to children.
> 
> like i said, do you have proof that CHILDREN are accessing things they shouldn't.
> 
> again... you keep glossing over the actual point.... that American children are subjected to absurd amounts of violence but people like you lose their minds when a child sees a boob.
Click to expand...


Obviously you are in denial.  It is just common sense that with a computer in every home and the ease in which one can access pornography that children would also have easier exposure to it.  Good grief!!!


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your kid is looking at porn. Now what SafeKids.com
> 
> So your kid is looking at porn. Now what?
> Posted on December 17, 2011 by Larry Magid
> 
> by Larry Magid
> 
> Let’s be honest. Many children — especially post-pubescent boys — are interested in what we commonly call “porn.” You might not like the idea that some kids are looking at these images, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a pretty common occurrence.
> 
> This column isn’t about young children or children who accidentally come across unwanted sexual material. Those are different issues. The question I want to explore is how a parent should react if they discover their growing child — typically 12 or older — is deliberately looking at sexually explicit material on the Internet.
> 
> Nothing new or unusual
> 
> First, recognize that there’s nothing new about teens looking at such material.
> 
> We didn’t have the Internet when I was 14, but that didn’t stop kids from getting their  hands on copies of Playboy. Porn has been around for centuries and we’re far from the first generation of parents who have had to deal with it.
> 
> rest at link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are denying that it is easier now than ever for children to get their hands on explicit pornographic material (not JUST nude magazines), then you are incredibly dishonest.
> 
> I can already see your intellectual dishonesty throughout this time we have been conversing anyway.  You have an agenda that has to do with children and sexuality.  This is obvious from your posting history.  What is it that you want from the children?
> 
> Also, to counter all of your points, there are plenty of people exposed to violence who never commit a violent act in their lives.  More do not than do.
> 
> I wish you would just come out and tell us what your point here is with the pornography/children angle?
Click to expand...


I want society to be less violent and focus its' efforts on regulating content proven to harm children, not knee-jerk react and ban things because religious institutions would rather ban joy than misery since they thrive on the latter.

As the safety online site above says, I'm right, you're wrong. Twas ever thus.


----------



## Esmeralda

High_Gravity said:


> Looking at a womans nude body is way different tha watching Belladonnas latest interracial gang bang, that said are we really having a serious discussion about kids and porn?


Exactly


----------



## GreenBean

Delta4Embassy said:


> See, again you're inserting your words. I said I don't belive it harms children. To which you insert* I mean it's good for them. *Give it up.



You don't know that ...so ... Basically when you're done, you would ask the Child - *It was good for me - was it good for you ? *


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your kid is looking at porn. Now what SafeKids.com
> 
> So your kid is looking at porn. Now what?
> Posted on December 17, 2011 by Larry Magid
> 
> by Larry Magid
> 
> Let’s be honest. Many children — especially post-pubescent boys — are interested in what we commonly call “porn.” You might not like the idea that some kids are looking at these images, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a pretty common occurrence.
> 
> This column isn’t about young children or children who accidentally come across unwanted sexual material. Those are different issues. The question I want to explore is how a parent should react if they discover their growing child — typically 12 or older — is deliberately looking at sexually explicit material on the Internet.
> 
> Nothing new or unusual
> 
> First, recognize that there’s nothing new about teens looking at such material.
> 
> We didn’t have the Internet when I was 14, but that didn’t stop kids from getting their  hands on copies of Playboy. Porn has been around for centuries and we’re far from the first generation of parents who have had to deal with it.
> 
> rest at link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are denying that it is easier now than ever for children to get their hands on explicit pornographic material (not JUST nude magazines), then you are incredibly dishonest.
> 
> I can already see your intellectual dishonesty throughout this time we have been conversing anyway.  You have an agenda that has to do with children and sexuality.  This is obvious from your posting history.  What is it that you want from the children?
> 
> Also, to counter all of your points, there are plenty of people exposed to violence who never commit a violent act in their lives.  More do not than do.
> 
> I wish you would just come out and tell us what your point here is with the pornography/children angle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want society to be less violent and focus its' efforts on regulating content proven to harm children, not knee-jerk react and ban things because religious institutions would rather ban joy than misery since they thrive on the latter.
> 
> As the safety online site above says, I'm right, you're wrong. Twas ever thus.
Click to expand...


That still does NOT explain all of your threads about children and sexuality.  Please explain what you want with our children.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

High_Gravity said: ↑

    Looking at a womans nude body is way different tha watching Belladonnas latest interracial gang bang, that said are we really having a serious discussion about kids and porn?

I'm having a serious dicussion, others not so much.


----------



## ChrisL

What about the thread about "teaching" very young children how to masturbate?  What do you mean by that?  Do you mean you want to show a child how to bring him or herself to climax?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your kid is looking at porn. Now what SafeKids.com
> 
> So your kid is looking at porn. Now what?
> Posted on December 17, 2011 by Larry Magid
> 
> by Larry Magid
> 
> Let’s be honest. Many children — especially post-pubescent boys — are interested in what we commonly call “porn.” You might not like the idea that some kids are looking at these images, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a pretty common occurrence.
> 
> This column isn’t about young children or children who accidentally come across unwanted sexual material. Those are different issues. The question I want to explore is how a parent should react if they discover their growing child — typically 12 or older — is deliberately looking at sexually explicit material on the Internet.
> 
> Nothing new or unusual
> 
> First, recognize that there’s nothing new about teens looking at such material.
> 
> We didn’t have the Internet when I was 14, but that didn’t stop kids from getting their  hands on copies of Playboy. Porn has been around for centuries and we’re far from the first generation of parents who have had to deal with it.
> 
> rest at link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are denying that it is easier now than ever for children to get their hands on explicit pornographic material (not JUST nude magazines), then you are incredibly dishonest.
> 
> I can already see your intellectual dishonesty throughout this time we have been conversing anyway.  You have an agenda that has to do with children and sexuality.  This is obvious from your posting history.  What is it that you want from the children?
> 
> Also, to counter all of your points, there are plenty of people exposed to violence who never commit a violent act in their lives.  More do not than do.
> 
> I wish you would just come out and tell us what your point here is with the pornography/children angle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want society to be less violent and focus its' efforts on regulating content proven to harm children, not knee-jerk react and ban things because religious institutions would rather ban joy than misery since they thrive on the latter.
> 
> As the safety online site above says, I'm right, you're wrong. Twas ever thus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That still does NOT explain all of your threads about children and sexuality.  Please explain what you want with our children.
Click to expand...


The same thing the child safety sites do. Safe kids and people in general. 

Keep up with this sick projection I'm gonna banish you to the phantom zone along with kosher and shart.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> High_Gravity said: ↑
> 
> Looking at a womans nude body is way different tha watching Belladonnas latest interracial gang bang, that said are we really having a serious discussion about kids and porn?
> 
> I'm having a serious dicussion, others not so much.



I am DEAD serious here.  I find people such as yourself to be very disturbing individuals.  You seem to have a preoccupation with children and sex.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> What about the thread about "teaching" very young children how to masturbate?  What do you mean by that?  Do you mean you want to show a child how to bring him or herself to climax?



That wasn't my thread. 

You're ignored.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your kid is looking at porn. Now what SafeKids.com
> 
> So your kid is looking at porn. Now what?
> Posted on December 17, 2011 by Larry Magid
> 
> by Larry Magid
> 
> Let’s be honest. Many children — especially post-pubescent boys — are interested in what we commonly call “porn.” You might not like the idea that some kids are looking at these images, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a pretty common occurrence.
> 
> This column isn’t about young children or children who accidentally come across unwanted sexual material. Those are different issues. The question I want to explore is how a parent should react if they discover their growing child — typically 12 or older — is deliberately looking at sexually explicit material on the Internet.
> 
> Nothing new or unusual
> 
> First, recognize that there’s nothing new about teens looking at such material.
> 
> We didn’t have the Internet when I was 14, but that didn’t stop kids from getting their  hands on copies of Playboy. Porn has been around for centuries and we’re far from the first generation of parents who have had to deal with it.
> 
> rest at link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are denying that it is easier now than ever for children to get their hands on explicit pornographic material (not JUST nude magazines), then you are incredibly dishonest.
> 
> I can already see your intellectual dishonesty throughout this time we have been conversing anyway.  You have an agenda that has to do with children and sexuality.  This is obvious from your posting history.  What is it that you want from the children?
> 
> Also, to counter all of your points, there are plenty of people exposed to violence who never commit a violent act in their lives.  More do not than do.
> 
> I wish you would just come out and tell us what your point here is with the pornography/children angle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want society to be less violent and focus its' efforts on regulating content proven to harm children, not knee-jerk react and ban things because religious institutions would rather ban joy than misery since they thrive on the latter.
> 
> As the safety online site above says, I'm right, you're wrong. Twas ever thus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That still does NOT explain all of your threads about children and sexuality.  Please explain what you want with our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same thing the child safety sites do. Safe kids and people in general.
> 
> Keep up with this sick projection I'm gonna banish you to the phantom zone along with kosher and shart.
Click to expand...


And you think that exposing them to pornography and teaching them to masturbate keeps them safe?  What if a child predator were to approach them?  Do you NOT think that makes them more vulnerable to being sexually abused?  Especially since we KNOW that such things are used for the specific purpose of grooming a child for sexual abuse?


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the thread about "teaching" very young children how to masturbate?  What do you mean by that?  Do you mean you want to show a child how to bring him or herself to climax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't my thread.
> 
> You're ignored.
Click to expand...


Oh, interesting!  Looks like you have something to hide after all.  Lol!  You guys ALWAYS crack under pressure from an adult, don't you?


----------



## ChrisL

WTF???!!!  He's "concerned" about the well-being and safety of children, so he wants to introduce them to sex!  Any normal adult is going to question his motives.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Apropo since I have 3 on ignore


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> Apropo since I have 3 on ignore



  As if your weirdness towards children will be missed?  Just do NOT do any of things that you have suggested in your threads.  IF you do, hopefully you will be prosecuted to the FULLEST extent.


----------



## flacaltenn

Delta4Embassy said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasure cures violence. How societies regard pleasure including, but not limited to porn effects how violent they are. More a society represses opportunities for pleasure, more violent it is. This is what's been studied for decades and is irerefutable. So what needs to be studied now, and is being studied, is are there more negative effects on kids seeing porn than positive?
> 
> The internet has made a lot of prior research invalid back prior to internet porn availability. Now anyone with a smartphone, home pc can view porn if they choose. Do we need better laws controlling access to porn because it's harmful? Or not, because it isn't? And if we're combatting violence in society, is encouraging sexuality more advantageous than suppressing or postponing embracing it. These are what we need to find out.
> 
> Can't use 1950s era thinking for modern laws and expect good results. Can't put everything away in father's closet and hope for the best with kids growing up in the data age. And assuming children today with access to technology are as naive' and innocent as they used to be has already been disproven in other studies. As I linked to somewhere in this or another thread. Was an Australian study as I recall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you were to be honest, it would seem that most people tend to be violent AFTER they were exposed to sexual situations that they were not prepared for as children.
> 
> Also, if you look at ages of children where violence seems most prevalence (teen years), that would also indicate that they had already been exposed to sexual situations.  I think that tells you all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Columbine shooters were both virgins. ISIS/Muslim terrorists are often virgins or otherwise dissatisfied sexually. Hence the allure of 72 virgins in the afterlife. Premise that violent acts are perpetuated by sexual abuse victims isn't borne out by statistical analysis.
> 
> What is borne out though is that absent neural connections being made in the brain early on from positive affection of parents, children's development suffers a kind of stunting or retarding of such connections. To put it another way, if you grew up absent hugs and other parental affection you tend to seek such fulfillment other ways like being sexually aggressive or controlling.
> 
> Learning is another way of describing how our brain makes connections when we do things. If you experience pleasure, your brain makes connections so you can remember how good things felt. And why you seek them out the rest of your life. Absent this memory, you seek fulfillment is less desireable ways. Repressing sex or other intimacies never has positive results. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at what happens when clergy who're supposed to be celibate break that vow. Celibacy isn't natural, we're all sexually reproducing animals. Trying to overcome that evolutionary imperative to reproduce never ends well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was surprised that you interest is actually motivated NOT by helping parents to understand the risks -- but that you actually believe that children should be activated sexually at young ages "to prevent violence".  A premise that certainly needs to be questioned since I know of no recommendations from health professionals that say "expose your children to porn to inoculate them from violent tendencies"..
> 
> THEN -- your reasoning comes into question when you bring up the Columbine culprits. Apparently there ---- exposing them to porn would not have been ENOUGH to inoculate them from violence because you reason that they were virgins. Implying that mere exposure to porn is inadequate in that they have to COPULATE to be inoculated. That's a whole horse of a different color.. Because they must hook-up and consumate sex to not "be virgins"..
> 
> There MAY BE something here to discuss in terms of dangers/benefits of sexualizing children at young ages, but your reasoning and excess zeal really sucks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you're inserting your own hangups into a discussion. I'm not proposing 'activating children sexually' that's all you.
Click to expand...


Oh but you are.. You're theory is that activating sexuality in younger children inoculates them against violence. As I said -- you PRETEND that this is accomplished thru exposure to porn (whatever the hell that is) -- but you specifically BELIEVE that losing their virginity is also a requirement beyond the exposure to media instances of porn -- as when you mentioned Columbine. Couldn't be clearer about encouraging and activating sexuality in minors..


----------



## koshergrl

Why the fuck is this nightmare thread still rolling?

There's something seriously wrong with this site.


----------



## flacaltenn

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who cares about children would be concerned.  It is disturbing and concerning that there are people out there who want to do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I care about people in general not differentiating or breaking it up into children or adults. Every child eventually becomes adult so giving adults 'less concern' only because they're not 'children' seems temporally wrong.
Click to expand...


You clearly lack the nurturing skills that parenting requires. Depriving children of that protective nurturing can cause all manner of harm as they attempt to GROW into adults and discover how to think and handle emotions. Don't know WHY you see children as midget adults, but folks with experience and common sense are horrified at your callous and ill-conceived pitch to sexualize children at young ages.


----------



## koshergrl

I know why he sees children as midget adults. I also know why he's posting.


----------



## flacaltenn

koshergrl said:


> Why the fuck is this nightmare thread still rolling?
> 
> There's something seriously wrong with this site.





koshergrl said:


> Why the fuck is this nightmare thread still rolling?
> 
> There's something seriously wrong with this site.



Nothing wrong with this site. The way society sorts good ideas from bad is by discussing them. EVERYONE gets to assert theories and ideas, but they also have to assume the consequences and responsibilities FOR those ideas. That's how you get fewer BAD ideas proposed and discussed..


----------



## koshergrl

Well, except when you're promoting illegal activity.

And it is illegal to distribute porn to kids, btw.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

flacaltenn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who cares about children would be concerned.  It is disturbing and concerning that there are people out there who want to do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I care about people in general not differentiating or breaking it up into children or adults. Every child eventually becomes adult so giving adults 'less concern' only because they're not 'children' seems temporally wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly lack the nurturing skills that parenting requires. Depriving children of that protective nurturing can cause all manner of harm as they attempt to GROW into adults and discover how to think and handle emotions. Don't know WHY you see children as midget adults, but folks with experience and common sense are horrified at your callous and ill-conceived pitch to sexualize children at young ages.
Click to expand...


Well, as I said earlier, you and all the other detractors have a problem as everything I've said in this thread is echoed on sites like safekids.com whose reputations are above reproach.


----------



## flacaltenn

koshergrl said:


> Well, except when you're promoting illegal activity.
> 
> And it is illegal to distribute porn to kids, btw.



Not too long ago, marijuana and gay marraige were illegal. *ADVOCATING for those positions never was.*. Although advocating for the unpopular should be done RESPONSIBLY and with full acknowledgement of the risks of being wrong. They were discussed and modified and in some instances tested and adopted..


----------



## flacaltenn

Delta4Embassy said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly lack the nurturing skills that parenting requires. Depriving children of that protective nurturing can cause all manner of harm as they attempt to GROW into adults and discover how to think and handle emotions. Don't know WHY you see children as midget adults, but folks with experience and common sense are horrified at your callous and ill-conceived pitch to sexualize children at young ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I said earlier, you and all the other detractors have a problem as everything I've said in this thread is echoed on sites like safekids.com whose reputations are above reproach.
Click to expand...


I have yet to these factoids and theories ADOPTED as standard practice by any reputable professionals. When there is an "adolescent porn exposure therapy" developed and taught in Psych schools, then I'll reconsider. Although I don't necessarily believe that MOST of the Psych field gives a shit about science and methods.


----------



## shart_attack

ChrisL said:


> Anyone who cares about children would be concerned. It is disturbing and concerning that there are people out there who want to do this.





			
				delta4embassy said:
			
		

> I care about people in general not differentiating or breaking it up into children or adults. Every child eventually becomes adult so giving adults 'less concern' only because they're not 'children' seems temporally wrong.





			
				flacaltenn said:
			
		

> You clearly lack the nurturing skills that parenting requires. Depriving children of that protective nurturing can cause all manner of harm as they attempt to GROW into adults and discover how to think and handle emotions. Don't know WHY you see children as midget adults, but folks with experience and common sense are horrified at your callous and ill-conceived pitch to sexualize children at young ages.





			
				delta4embassy said:
			
		

> Well, as I said earlier, you and all the other detractors have a problem as everything I've said in this thread is echoed on sites like safekids.com whose reputations are above reproach.



And what's your handle on those sites? Is it the same one that you use here?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

flacaltenn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly lack the nurturing skills that parenting requires. Depriving children of that protective nurturing can cause all manner of harm as they attempt to GROW into adults and discover how to think and handle emotions. Don't know WHY you see children as midget adults, but folks with experience and common sense are horrified at your callous and ill-conceived pitch to sexualize children at young ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I said earlier, you and all the other detractors have a problem as everything I've said in this thread is echoed on sites like safekids.com whose reputations are above reproach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have yet to these factoids and theories ADOPTED as standard practice by any reputable professionals. When there is an "adolescent porn exposure therapy" developed and taught in Psych schools, then I'll reconsider. Although I don't necessarily believe that MOST of the Psych field gives a shit about science and methods.
Click to expand...


He who cusses first has lost the debate.


----------



## flacaltenn

OK -- you win...


----------



## koshergrl

flacaltenn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, except when you're promoting illegal activity.
> 
> And it is illegal to distribute porn to kids, btw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too long ago, marijuana and gay marraige were illegal. *ADVOCATING for those positions never was.*. Although advocating for the unpopular should be done RESPONSIBLY and with full acknowledgement of the risks of being wrong. They were discussed and modified and in some instances tested and adopted..
Click to expand...


Advocating for crimes against children is illegal.


----------



## flacaltenn

koshergrl said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, except when you're promoting illegal activity.
> 
> And it is illegal to distribute porn to kids, btw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too long ago, marijuana and gay marraige were illegal. *ADVOCATING for those positions never was.*. Although advocating for the unpopular should be done RESPONSIBLY and with full acknowledgement of the risks of being wrong. They were discussed and modified and in some instances tested and adopted..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advocating for crimes against children is illegal.
Click to expand...


Looking at the issue of exposure to sexual material in adolescents is not illegal. If there is evidence that it matters HOW and WHEN this happens, then that's valid knowledge. Especially if we can assess the damage (or as Delta4 would prefer -- the benefit). Because it is GONNA happen --- a lot these days..


----------



## koshergrl

"
The CAPTA definition of sexual abuse includes:
The employment, use, _persuasion, inducement_, enticement,
or coercion of any child to engage in, or assist any other
person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct"

https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.pdf


----------



## Delta4Embassy

flacaltenn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly lack the nurturing skills that parenting requires. Depriving children of that protective nurturing can cause all manner of harm as they attempt to GROW into adults and discover how to think and handle emotions. Don't know WHY you see children as midget adults, but folks with experience and common sense are horrified at your callous and ill-conceived pitch to sexualize children at young ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I said earlier, you and all the other detractors have a problem as everything I've said in this thread is echoed on sites like safekids.com whose reputations are above reproach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have yet to these factoids and theories ADOPTED as standard practice by any reputable professionals. When there is an "adolescent porn exposure therapy" developed and taught in Psych schools, then I'll reconsider. Although I don't necessarily believe that MOST of the Psych field gives a shit about science and methods.
Click to expand...


Baking cookies here so only have about 10 mins at a time to chat, but as to the 'yet to see these factoids adopted...'

Request Rejected

Guides and Rules to Safe Surfing

    * A Call to Stop Bullying - Informative Info on Bullying
    * A Parent's Guide to Internet Safety - Federal Bureau of Investigation. English or Spanish.
    * Children's Partnership Online - The latest statistics and data of where things stand today with children, families and the Internet.
    * Disney's Internet Safety - Help Mickey and the gang with their adventures in Internet safety!
    * DLTK's - DLTK's Crafts for Kids (Safety Ideas)
    * FCC Parents' Information Site- Includes information on filtering software, the V chip, cable lock boxes and more.
    * Finding Data on the Internet - You've cast your lines into the sea of sources, but still aren't finding the information you need. That's what happens when you don't know the right place to look.
    * GetNetWise - A collaborative effort from Internet industry and public interest organizations to help insure that families have safe, constructive, and educational or entertaining online experiences.
    * Home Security - News, tips, and information to help consumers keep their homes and families safe.
    * CyberSmart! - The superhighway where kids drive.
    * ILC Glossary of Internet Terms - by Matisse Enzer.
    * Safety Education - U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    * Kid Safety on the Internet - The POLICE NOTEBOOK.
    * Kids - Safety Tips (FBI) - FBI.Gov (Fun and Games Site)
    * My Rules for Online Safety - Kids' Rules for Online Safety.
    * Netsafe.org.nz - The web site of the Internet Safety Group, a New Zealand government supported entity committed to keeping our kids safe on the Net.
    * OnGuardOnline.gov - Protect Kids Online
** SafeKids.com - Online safety and civility SafeKids Online Safety Quiz*
    * The Police Notebook - Law Enforcement Internet site to promote safety and crime prevention information. Kid Safety of the Internet.
    * USOUTDOOR.COM - Ski, Snowboard, & Winter Sport Safety Guide
    * What Can I do to be 'Net' safe - The Police Notebook - Law Enforcement Internet site to promote safety and crime prevention information.
    * Yahooligans! Parents Guide - Safe surfing is a family affair.

So your kid is looking at porn. Now what SafeKids.com

(relevant excerpts)

"Let’s be honest. Many children — especially post-pubescent boys — are interested in what we commonly call “porn.” You might not like the idea that some kids are looking at these images, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a pretty common occurrence.

There are a number of reasons why kids look at pornography.  For some, it’s to be “cool.” There are reported cases of relatively young children using porn to impress their friends, much as kids sometimes smoke to show their independence.

Sometimes it’s curiosity, but in many cases — especially for males past puberty, it’s for stimulation at times when no one else is around.

Don’t overreact. How you respond to the situation can have more of an effect than the exposure itself, according to Richard Toft, a child psychologist in Palo Alto, California.

“Parents,” said Dr. Toft, “need to approach porn the same way they approach any issue about their child’s sexuality.  There are laws involved, there is responsibility involved, and there is a life long impact of everything they do whether they want to admit it or not.” Dr. Toft added, “Parents are going to do best if they do not consider porn isolated from sexuality.  They need to address their moral feelings about sex, and porn is part of that.  It is also best addressed ahead of time not after the fact.” *He added, “A parent’s reaction can have a tremendous impact, and you could make it traumatic by ranting, raving and threatening reprisals.”‘*

[emphasis added by me for some people here]

Dr. Marty Klein, a Silicon Valley-based marriage counselor, psychotherapist, and sex therapist, said that “many parents are blissfully ignoring their kids’ sexuality. They don’t talk about sex with their children when they’re young and when they trip over their kid’s porn at age 14, they suddenly realize their kid is a sexual being. ” Finding that your kid is using porn, said Dr. Klein, “can be a teachable moment. It can be turned into a positive thing. It may be long overdue for a parent to have a few conversations about sex with their kid.” He added,” we don’t wait around for our kids to ask about taking care of their teeth. We teach them dental hygiene when they’re young. It’s the same with sex.”  Dr. Klein argues that “you can’t talk about porn without talking about your kid masturbating. One of the reason parents don’t want their kids looking at porn is because they’re uncomfortable with their kid masturbating.” Klein said that there is no evidence that masturbation is harmful or dangerous unless the child is doing it so much that it’s interfering with other activities."


I could go on, but I like short succinct posts. Short n skinny is it IS adopted. Nothing in this thread isn't already implemented by psychologists, counsellors, law enforcement, and child safety advocates.


----------



## koshergrl

Yes, it's illegal to attempt to persuade children to look at porn.


----------



## koshergrl

ChrisL said:


> WTF???!!!  He's "concerned" about the well-being and safety of children, so he wants to introduce them to sex!  Any normal adult is going to question his motives.



Normal adults are in short supply here. This site attracts people like this for just this reason...they can post and network all they like, and they're protected by the staff.


----------



## flacaltenn

Delta4Embassy said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly lack the nurturing skills that parenting requires. Depriving children of that protective nurturing can cause all manner of harm as they attempt to GROW into adults and discover how to think and handle emotions. Don't know WHY you see children as midget adults, but folks with experience and common sense are horrified at your callous and ill-conceived pitch to sexualize children at young ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I said earlier, you and all the other detractors have a problem as everything I've said in this thread is echoed on sites like safekids.com whose reputations are above reproach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have yet to these factoids and theories ADOPTED as standard practice by any reputable professionals. When there is an "adolescent porn exposure therapy" developed and taught in Psych schools, then I'll reconsider. Although I don't necessarily believe that MOST of the Psych field gives a shit about science and methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baking cookies here so only have about 10 mins at a time to chat, but as to the 'yet to see these factoids adopted...'
> 
> Request Rejected
> 
> Guides and Rules to Safe Surfing
> 
> * A Call to Stop Bullying - Informative Info on Bullying
> * A Parent's Guide to Internet Safety - Federal Bureau of Investigation. English or Spanish.
> * Children's Partnership Online - The latest statistics and data of where things stand today with children, families and the Internet.
> * Disney's Internet Safety - Help Mickey and the gang with their adventures in Internet safety!
> * DLTK's - DLTK's Crafts for Kids (Safety Ideas)
> * FCC Parents' Information Site- Includes information on filtering software, the V chip, cable lock boxes and more.
> * Finding Data on the Internet - You've cast your lines into the sea of sources, but still aren't finding the information you need. That's what happens when you don't know the right place to look.
> * GetNetWise - A collaborative effort from Internet industry and public interest organizations to help insure that families have safe, constructive, and educational or entertaining online experiences.
> * Home Security - News, tips, and information to help consumers keep their homes and families safe.
> * CyberSmart! - The superhighway where kids drive.
> * ILC Glossary of Internet Terms - by Matisse Enzer.
> * Safety Education - U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
> * Kid Safety on the Internet - The POLICE NOTEBOOK.
> * Kids - Safety Tips (FBI) - FBI.Gov (Fun and Games Site)
> * My Rules for Online Safety - Kids' Rules for Online Safety.
> * Netsafe.org.nz - The web site of the Internet Safety Group, a New Zealand government supported entity committed to keeping our kids safe on the Net.
> * OnGuardOnline.gov - Protect Kids Online
> ** SafeKids.com - Online safety and civility SafeKids Online Safety Quiz*
> * The Police Notebook - Law Enforcement Internet site to promote safety and crime prevention information. Kid Safety of the Internet.
> * USOUTDOOR.COM - Ski, Snowboard, & Winter Sport Safety Guide
> * What Can I do to be 'Net' safe - The Police Notebook - Law Enforcement Internet site to promote safety and crime prevention information.
> * Yahooligans! Parents Guide - Safe surfing is a family affair.
> 
> So your kid is looking at porn. Now what SafeKids.com
> 
> (relevant excerpts)
> 
> "Let’s be honest. Many children — especially post-pubescent boys — are interested in what we commonly call “porn.” You might not like the idea that some kids are looking at these images, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a pretty common occurrence.
> 
> There are a number of reasons why kids look at pornography.  For some, it’s to be “cool.” There are reported cases of relatively young children using porn to impress their friends, much as kids sometimes smoke to show their independence.
> 
> Sometimes it’s curiosity, but in many cases — especially for males past puberty, it’s for stimulation at times when no one else is around.
> 
> Don’t overreact. How you respond to the situation can have more of an effect than the exposure itself, according to Richard Toft, a child psychologist in Palo Alto, California.
> 
> “Parents,” said Dr. Toft, “need to approach porn the same way they approach any issue about their child’s sexuality.  There are laws involved, there is responsibility involved, and there is a life long impact of everything they do whether they want to admit it or not.” Dr. Toft added, “Parents are going to do best if they do not consider porn isolated from sexuality.  They need to address their moral feelings about sex, and porn is part of that.  It is also best addressed ahead of time not after the fact.” *He added, “A parent’s reaction can have a tremendous impact, and you could make it traumatic by ranting, raving and threatening reprisals.”‘*
> 
> [emphasis added by me for some people here]
> 
> Dr. Marty Klein, a Silicon Valley-based marriage counselor, psychotherapist, and sex therapist, said that “many parents are blissfully ignoring their kids’ sexuality. They don’t talk about sex with their children when they’re young and when they trip over their kid’s porn at age 14, they suddenly realize their kid is a sexual being. ” Finding that your kid is using porn, said Dr. Klein, “can be a teachable moment. It can be turned into a positive thing. It may be long overdue for a parent to have a few conversations about sex with their kid.” He added,” we don’t wait around for our kids to ask about taking care of their teeth. We teach them dental hygiene when they’re young. It’s the same with sex.”  Dr. Klein argues that “you can’t talk about porn without talking about your kid masturbating. One of the reason parents don’t want their kids looking at porn is because they’re uncomfortable with their kid masturbating.” Klein said that there is no evidence that masturbation is harmful or dangerous unless the child is doing it so much that it’s interfering with other activities."
> 
> 
> I could go on, but I like short succinct posts. Short n skinny is it IS adopted. Nothing in this thread isn't already implemented by psychologists, counsellors, law enforcement, and child safety advocates.
Click to expand...


You have NO CASE for any BENEFIT of exposing children to porn INTENTIONALLY with ANYTHING said at that site. In fact, the main effort of that site is to PROTECT kids from pornography and other questionable material.

It is intended to brief parents about their kids naturally developing sexuality -- not an advocation of ENHANCING for bogus benefits that you believe to exist. 

Ironic that you chastise me for using the word shit, when "Fuck me Harder Baby -- shit -- that's right" is the standard dialogue of porn.. 
(or so I hear )
THAT'S certainly not gonna create any developmental issues now -- is it?


----------



## flacaltenn

koshergrl said:


> "
> The CAPTA definition of sexual abuse includes:
> The employment, use, _persuasion, inducement_, enticement,
> or coercion of any child to engage in, or assist any other
> person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct"
> 
> https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.pdf



You suspect there are children here at USMB?
Could be -- I s'pose...


----------



## Delta4Embassy

flacaltenn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly lack the nurturing skills that parenting requires. Depriving children of that protective nurturing can cause all manner of harm as they attempt to GROW into adults and discover how to think and handle emotions. Don't know WHY you see children as midget adults, but folks with experience and common sense are horrified at your callous and ill-conceived pitch to sexualize children at young ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I said earlier, you and all the other detractors have a problem as everything I've said in this thread is echoed on sites like safekids.com whose reputations are above reproach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have yet to these factoids and theories ADOPTED as standard practice by any reputable professionals. When there is an "adolescent porn exposure therapy" developed and taught in Psych schools, then I'll reconsider. Although I don't necessarily believe that MOST of the Psych field gives a shit about science and methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baking cookies here so only have about 10 mins at a time to chat, but as to the 'yet to see these factoids adopted...'
> 
> Request Rejected
> 
> Guides and Rules to Safe Surfing
> 
> * A Call to Stop Bullying - Informative Info on Bullying
> * A Parent's Guide to Internet Safety - Federal Bureau of Investigation. English or Spanish.
> * Children's Partnership Online - The latest statistics and data of where things stand today with children, families and the Internet.
> * Disney's Internet Safety - Help Mickey and the gang with their adventures in Internet safety!
> * DLTK's - DLTK's Crafts for Kids (Safety Ideas)
> * FCC Parents' Information Site- Includes information on filtering software, the V chip, cable lock boxes and more.
> * Finding Data on the Internet - You've cast your lines into the sea of sources, but still aren't finding the information you need. That's what happens when you don't know the right place to look.
> * GetNetWise - A collaborative effort from Internet industry and public interest organizations to help insure that families have safe, constructive, and educational or entertaining online experiences.
> * Home Security - News, tips, and information to help consumers keep their homes and families safe.
> * CyberSmart! - The superhighway where kids drive.
> * ILC Glossary of Internet Terms - by Matisse Enzer.
> * Safety Education - U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
> * Kid Safety on the Internet - The POLICE NOTEBOOK.
> * Kids - Safety Tips (FBI) - FBI.Gov (Fun and Games Site)
> * My Rules for Online Safety - Kids' Rules for Online Safety.
> * Netsafe.org.nz - The web site of the Internet Safety Group, a New Zealand government supported entity committed to keeping our kids safe on the Net.
> * OnGuardOnline.gov - Protect Kids Online
> ** SafeKids.com - Online safety and civility SafeKids Online Safety Quiz*
> * The Police Notebook - Law Enforcement Internet site to promote safety and crime prevention information. Kid Safety of the Internet.
> * USOUTDOOR.COM - Ski, Snowboard, & Winter Sport Safety Guide
> * What Can I do to be 'Net' safe - The Police Notebook - Law Enforcement Internet site to promote safety and crime prevention information.
> * Yahooligans! Parents Guide - Safe surfing is a family affair.
> 
> So your kid is looking at porn. Now what SafeKids.com
> 
> (relevant excerpts)
> 
> "Let’s be honest. Many children — especially post-pubescent boys — are interested in what we commonly call “porn.” You might not like the idea that some kids are looking at these images, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a pretty common occurrence.
> 
> There are a number of reasons why kids look at pornography.  For some, it’s to be “cool.” There are reported cases of relatively young children using porn to impress their friends, much as kids sometimes smoke to show their independence.
> 
> Sometimes it’s curiosity, but in many cases — especially for males past puberty, it’s for stimulation at times when no one else is around.
> 
> Don’t overreact. How you respond to the situation can have more of an effect than the exposure itself, according to Richard Toft, a child psychologist in Palo Alto, California.
> 
> “Parents,” said Dr. Toft, “need to approach porn the same way they approach any issue about their child’s sexuality.  There are laws involved, there is responsibility involved, and there is a life long impact of everything they do whether they want to admit it or not.” Dr. Toft added, “Parents are going to do best if they do not consider porn isolated from sexuality.  They need to address their moral feelings about sex, and porn is part of that.  It is also best addressed ahead of time not after the fact.” *He added, “A parent’s reaction can have a tremendous impact, and you could make it traumatic by ranting, raving and threatening reprisals.”‘*
> 
> [emphasis added by me for some people here]
> 
> Dr. Marty Klein, a Silicon Valley-based marriage counselor, psychotherapist, and sex therapist, said that “many parents are blissfully ignoring their kids’ sexuality. They don’t talk about sex with their children when they’re young and when they trip over their kid’s porn at age 14, they suddenly realize their kid is a sexual being. ” Finding that your kid is using porn, said Dr. Klein, “can be a teachable moment. It can be turned into a positive thing. It may be long overdue for a parent to have a few conversations about sex with their kid.” He added,” we don’t wait around for our kids to ask about taking care of their teeth. We teach them dental hygiene when they’re young. It’s the same with sex.”  Dr. Klein argues that “you can’t talk about porn without talking about your kid masturbating. One of the reason parents don’t want their kids looking at porn is because they’re uncomfortable with their kid masturbating.” Klein said that there is no evidence that masturbation is harmful or dangerous unless the child is doing it so much that it’s interfering with other activities."
> 
> 
> I could go on, but I like short succinct posts. Short n skinny is it IS adopted. Nothing in this thread isn't already implemented by psychologists, counsellors, law enforcement, and child safety advocates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have NO CASE for any BENEFIT of exposing children to porn INTENTIONALLY with ANYTHING said at that site. In fact, the main effort of that site is to PROTECT kids from pornography and other questionable material.
> 
> It is intended to brief parents about their kids naturally developing sexuality -- not an advocation of ENHANCING for bogus benefits that you believe to exist.
> 
> Ironic that you chastise me for using the word shit, when "Fuck me Harder Baby -- shit -- that's right" is the standard dialogue of porn..
> (or so I hear )
> THAT'S certainly not gonna create any developmental issues now -- is it?
Click to expand...


Would say you're living proof of it's effect. 

Never claimed or asserted deliberately exposing kids to porn should be done. Site above, myself, and the science-sites previously mentioned say kids expose themselves to porn often. Haven't asserted a position about advocating showing kids porn, like other claims, you and others have made those and other claims and allusions because you're all too immature to have this discussion. You're the 'ranting and raving' the aforementioned article warns about.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

flacaltenn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> The CAPTA definition of sexual abuse includes:
> The employment, use, _persuasion, inducement_, enticement,
> or coercion of any child to engage in, or assist any other
> person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct"
> 
> https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You suspect there are children here at USMB?
> Could be -- I s'pose...
Click to expand...


Presumedly there are. Can read the site without registering if the hundreds of 'Guests' are any indication.


----------



## koshergrl

flacaltenn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> The CAPTA definition of sexual abuse includes:
> The employment, use, _persuasion, inducement_, enticement,
> or coercion of any child to engage in, or assist *any other*
> *person* to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct"
> 
> https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You suspect there are children here at USMB?
> Could be -- I s'pose...
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

If you're encouraging adults to share porn with children, you're breaking the law. Bottom line.


----------



## flacaltenn

Delta4Embassy said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic that you chastise me for using the word shit, when "Fuck me Harder Baby -- shit -- that's right" is the standard dialogue of porn..
> (or so I hear )
> THAT'S certainly not gonna create any developmental issues now -- is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would say you're living proof of it's effect.
> 
> Never claimed or asserted deliberately exposing kids to porn should be done. Site above, myself, and the science-sites previously mentioned say kids expose themselves to porn often. Haven't asserted a position about advocating showing kids porn, like other claims, you and others have made those and other claims and allusions because you're all too immature to have this discussion. You're the 'ranting and raving' the aforementioned article warns about.
Click to expand...


Actually you did.. In that you postulated a more peaceful society if children had access to porn. And you implied such ridiculous things as Columbine might not have happen if they were NOT virgins (completely divorced from the subject of porn). So in these pages you have advocated sexualizing children at young ages for the benefits to society.

Now -- my issue really isn't with whatever motives keeps you typing in threads like these.. *My issue with you is a MOUNTAIN full of faulty reasoning, failures of logic/science and MASSIVE insensitivity to societal norms..* But I suspect, that something in your beliefs is gonna keep you in the thread much longer than I can personally bear.. 

So -- I'm pretty much at my limit and out of humble opinions...


----------



## ChrisL

koshergrl said:


> I know why he sees children as midget adults. I also know why he's posting.



I've had contact with posters who were quite questionable in the past too.  One in particular would not even bother to try to hide his disease.  He would INSIST that children should be sexually active as young as 5 years old.  The way he talked about children was absolutely disgusting, as if they were "sexual" objects for pleasure.  I would get very upset and had reported him numerous times to staff, but they had told me that there was nothing they could do about because it was just talking and that does not constitute an actual crime.  Hopefully, the people in their lives would do something about this and turn them in.  Unfortunately there was nothing I could do because I didn't know anything about him.  However, there were several other posters who had supposedly made some phone calls to the authorities about this particular poster.  I doubt if anything ever happened, but these kinds of people need to be watched and scrutinized.  Our children are more important than they are.


----------



## ChrisL

Interesting that this same poster who started this OP, also started this thread.  Not only is he starting threads about children and sex, but he is looking up his state laws regarding age of consent, etc.  This is quite concerning, coupled with this thread and a few others, IMO.  

OP, if you are considering any kind of "activity" with a child, you had best go seek help for yourself.  



Delta4Embassy said:


> Rereading my state's sex-related laws this morning something I never thought much about jumped out at me:
> RSMO-Chapter 566
> 
> "Marriage to victim, at time of offense, affirmative defense, for certain crimes.
> 
> 566.023. It shall be an affirmative defense to prosecutions pursuant to sections 566.032, 566.034, 566.062, 566.064, 566.068, and 566.090 that the defendant was married to the victim at the time of the offense. "
> 
> Sections mentioned above are statutory rape and sodomy, child molestation, and sexual abuse sections. Above statute makes it legal to have sex with your spouse so long as you're married thereby protecting you from what would otherwise be consider unlawful statutory rape type charges.
> 
> Outside of marriage, you must be 17 or older to have sex with someone else 17 or older. But you can get married at 15 if you have parental consent. And even younger still if with a judge's permission 'when such a marriage is advisable with good cause.' (statute doesn't define what such a good cause is unfortunately.)
> 
> This is the meat of the issue though,
> 
> 566.090.     (Transferred 2013; now 566.101)
> 
> Sexual abuse, second degree, penalties.
> 
> 566.101. 1. A person commits the offense of sexual abuse in the second degree if he or she purposely subjects another person to sexual contact without that person's consent.
> 
> In other words, as the first section at top says, if you're married you're immune from being prosecuted for the following sections including the one above. "Without their consent" This seems to be saying you can lawfully 'sexually abuse' you own spouse without their consent so long as they in fact are your lawful spouse.
> 
> 
> (3) "Sexual contact", any touching of another person with the genitals or any touching of the genitals or anus of another person, or the breast of a female person, or such touching through the clothing, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire of any person;


----------



## shart_attack

ChrisL said:


> Interesting that this same poster who started this OP, also started this thread.  *Not only is he starting threads about children and sex, but he is looking up his state laws regarding age of consent, etc.*  This is quite concerning, coupled with this thread and a few others, IMO.



Dunno 'bout that one.

Think you just might be tryin' to make sumin' outta nuttin', right there.

It's really a _must_ for every man today to be well aware of each state's law regarding that state's legal age of consent, what with all the steroids they keep pumpin' into these teen honeys' foods, and the way the honeys love to dress scantily, to boot.

Matter of fact, it's also a must for every man today to know what ID cards for each state look like, so as to know when one of the little hotties tries to flash one in an attempt to get him into the sack.

Got to be alert, if you're an American man today.


----------



## koshergrl

No, he's right on the money.


----------



## ChrisL

shart_attack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that this same poster who started this OP, also started this thread.  *Not only is he starting threads about children and sex, but he is looking up his state laws regarding age of consent, etc.*  This is quite concerning, coupled with this thread and a few others, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno 'bout that one.
> 
> Think you just might be tryin' to make sumin' outta nuttin', right there.
> 
> It's really a _must_ for every man today to be well aware of each state's law regarding that state's legal age of consent, what with all the steroids they keep pumpin' into these teen honeys' foods, and the way the honeys love to dress scantily, to boot.
> 
> Matter of fact, it's also a must for every man today to know what ID cards for each state look like, so as to know when one of the little hotties tries to flash one in an attempt to get him into the sack.
> 
> Got to be alert, if you're an American man today.
Click to expand...


Oh really?  Do you and he have many "hot" teenage girls throwing themselves at you?  Somehow, I doubt it.


----------



## ChrisL

koshergrl said:


> No, he's right on the money.



Who is right on the money?  Me?  I'm a she and not a he thankfully.


----------



## ChrisL

MOST teenage girls do not find "older" men attractive and are NOT interested in hooking up with any guy over 25 years old, to be honest.  My friends and I, when we were teens, thought any men older than age were "old men."  Kind of like dads.  Usually, young girls who show an interest in men that much older than themselves (over 25 years old), have ulterior motives.


----------



## Coyote

*This thread is closed for several reasons.*
*
One - it is against the rules to imply or accuse or infer another member is pedo.  This has occurred now multiple times.\

Two - in looking over this thread, I see no instance of any member claiming it is in any way "ok" for adults to have sex with children. Despite that the inferences continue.

Clearly, this is a hot and very sensitive topic and clearly in this thread at least it can't be discussed without breaking USMB rules.

Closed.*


----------

