Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?

[Delta4Embassy]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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.

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]

I'll assume you misread that.

 

[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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

I'll assume you misread that.

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

 

[westwall]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.

[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.

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]