Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?

[Inevitable]

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.

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

Yes they do.

 

[Inevitable]

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?

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

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]

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]

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?

Tu quoque fallacy. Avoiding my criticism by posting criticism.

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

 

[Rikurzhen]

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?

Tu quoque fallacy. Avoiding my criticism by posting criticism.

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

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]

Prove why not.

Porn isn't addictive.

True.

We know people addicted by porn.

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

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

 

[Chuckt]

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]

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

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.

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

 

[Chuckt]

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.

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

 

[westwall]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Children can't consent. It is illegal.

 

[DriftingSand]

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]

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]

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?