Children and sex

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-04-16 11:40pm

Kojikun, what is your position? Because as near as I can tell you're advocating showing hardcore porn to kids (as in less then 13 or so). Please clarify your position because if you're on shaky ground here.

Like i said in the first post, show the kids real nudes not just medical stuff. Not hardcore stuff, but real stuff not textbook pictures or drawings so they know what theyre going to be exposed to.

like, "This goes in here and it looks like this" whoop dee shit, yanno? Im not saying show kids XXX hardcore porn, fuck no. Thats stupid and unnecessary. If the kid wants to look at hardcore shit he'll go on the net and look at it himself. Fuck knows I was, and I was only 11 years old.

And look how I ended up!

.. Forget I said anything.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-17 12:33am

two freshmen in my school tell me they've both had sex. a middle schooler in my boy scout troop tell me hes done pretty much everything but that, with both genders.

damn it, why are they getting more action then me?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-04-17 01:37am

::points and laughs::

hey, dont feel bad, ive not even kissed a guy

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-04-17 07:54am

i don´t think there´s anything wrong with showing normal hardcore porn to kids even if they´re under 13.
showing them glorified violence is bad but not normal porn.

there´s nothing moraly wrong with sex.
why shouldn´t kids see it?

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-04-17 09:35am

Queeb Salaron wrote:
verilon wrote:Okay, my stance on the porn (let's try this again... [kills servers])

There are, indeed, porn shots in magazines that might be considered tasteful (as horny as they make you). However, I know there are many gay mags that show really hardcore stuff, and it's not the best thing to show a kid. You must realize, though, that these types of shots ARE possible, and wouldn't be more disturbing than, say, "David" or "Venus DeMilo."
PLEASE tell me you didn't just link the statue of David with really mild porn...

Kids aren't disturbed by porn. They're intrigued by it, some of them, and others repulsed. Like adults. The only thing that would mentally harm a child is if he were forcibly subjected to porn and learned to associate it with some kind of negative stimulus.

And substituting David in for MILD porn would be different how? Softcore porn is just that ~ softcore porn, meaning that it doesn't necessarily haeanything but a sexually luring atmosphere about it.

The argument that porn harms children submits to the false cause fallacy. The same is true for serial murderers like Ted Bundy. Ted Bundy had a collection of violent snuff porn. But it was not the snuff porn that made him rape dead bodies. Rather, because of his desire to defile the bodies, he became attracted to snuff porn. The same parallel can be drawn for children: Children intrigued by sex will be naturally intrigued by pornography. It is not the pornography that leads to their fascination with sex, but rather their predisposition towards sexual curiosity that leads to their fascination towards porno.

And a sculpture of a naked wo/man couldn't intrigue a child in the same way...?

PS: On a shitty ass keyboard excuse typos.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-17 10:38am

verilon wrote:And substituting David in for MILD porn would be different how? Softcore porn is just that ~ softcore porn, meaning that it doesn't necessarily haeanything but a sexually luring atmosphere about it.

I see your point, but the statue of David is, as far as I'm concerned, the most perfect sculpture of the human form ever created. Comparing it to softcore porn just struck me wrong. David is ART. Porn is... well... erotica. The two overlap sometimes, but jiggling titties will never compare to the beauty that is David.

And a sculpture of a naked wo/man couldn't intrigue a child in the same way...?

Oh, of course it could. In fact, one might lead to the other. The child could, say, see the Venus de Milo, and say, "Wow! Naked women are fascinating!" (Probably not in those words, of course.) It would follow naturally, then, that he would be intrigued by porn. Or, conversely, the child could be introduced to porn, and say, "Wow! Naked women fascinate me, but sexual postures are a little to extreme for me." (Again, diction notwithstanding.) In such a case, less-sexually-agressive works of art (like the Venus de Milo, The Birth of Venus (Aphrodite?)) might be more appealing.

Take it in what sense thou wilst.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-04-17 01:32pm

i don´t think there´s anything wrong with showing normal hardcore porn to kids even if they´re under 13.

Child rapist.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-04-17 09:04pm

I personally am the type of freak that knew what sex was, what it accomplished etc...when I was TWO! I knew the mating habits of hammerhead sharks when I was that age...When I went to the library, I never set foot in childrens books...It was always non-fiction, in the adult section...and usually biology oriented.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-04-18 01:20am

Queeb Salaron wrote:
verilon wrote:And substituting David in for MILD porn would be different how? Softcore porn is just that ~ softcore porn, meaning that it doesn't necessarily haeanything but a sexually luring atmosphere about it.
I see your point, but the statue of David is, as far as I'm concerned, the most perfect sculpture of the human form ever created. Comparing it to softcore porn just struck me wrong. David is ART. Porn is... well... erotica. The two overlap sometimes, but jiggling titties will never compare to the beauty that is David.

And I never said it HAD to be jiggling titties. There are some very tasteful pics out there, but like I said, very difficult to find. Though David and Venus DeMilo are the best representations of nude art that I know of, they aren't shown to little kids as often as some might think.

And a sculpture of a naked wo/man couldn't intrigue a child in the same way...?
Oh, of course it could. In fact, one might lead to the other. The child could, say, see the Venus de Milo, and say, "Wow! Naked women are fascinating!" (Probably not in those words, of course.) It would follow naturally, then, that he would be intrigued by porn. Or, conversely, the child could be introduced to porn, and say, "Wow! Naked women fascinate me, but sexual postures are a little to extreme for me." (Again, diction notwithstanding.) In such a case, less-sexually-agressive works of art (like the Venus de Milo, The Birth of Venus (Aphrodite?)) might be more appealing.

Take it in what sense thou wilst.

Venus + Aphrodite, yes.. but really.. kids aren't going to know the difference between erotica and art til puberty, really.. At least, this is what I think, so I say that the child will be fascinated, yes, by either sculpture, and equally so by the erotica. But the erotica can sometimes be tasteful, sometimes ass much as art. [shrugs]

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-18 01:38am

verilon wrote:And I never said it HAD to be jiggling titties. There are some very tasteful pics out there, but like I said, very difficult to find. Though David and Venus DeMilo are the best representations of nude art that I know of, they aren't shown to little kids as often as some might think.

And a crying shame it is, too.

Venus + Aphrodite, yes.. but really.. kids aren't going to know the difference between erotica and art til puberty, really.. At least, this is what I think, so I say that the child will be fascinated, yes, by either sculpture, and equally so by the erotica. But the erotica can sometimes be tasteful, sometimes ass much as art. [shrugs]

Hehe. You said "ass much as art."

And that's where that gray area is between art and porn. Tasteful porn and tasteless art kinda blend together into that weird mix of stuff that you wouldn't show to 14-year olds, but might show to 15-year olds (or something; age distinctions are lost on me.) So maybe that gray area is a good place to start letting kids into, so they become more desensitized to sex. Maybe that's the solution to those teen pregnancy problems and all that. ::Shrugs:: Pure speculation, of course. I don't think porn exposure has that much to do with behavior anyway. But that's me.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-04-18 01:40am

I'm tired. Give me a break. And right now, I don't care about the damned title.. I have a lot of walking to do tomorrow..

And actually, I don't think that would be a bad idea, to do that.. But then desensitization might cause more things to go wrong.. 50/50 chance, I'd say..

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-18 09:55am

verilon wrote:And actually, I don't think that would be a bad idea, to do that.. But then desensitization might cause more things to go wrong.. 50/50 chance, I'd say..

::Shrugs:: Problem is this: It's all speculation on our part as to what the effects might be, considering I can't think of any culture that has recently tried an expansive social reform of pornography for children.

I've got a loaded 9mm. Who turned out the lights?

Know what I mean?