Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?

[flacaltenn]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

 

[September]

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

 

[GreenBean]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[September]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

true but you go blind spanking the monkey

 

[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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?"

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

 

[ChrisL]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?"

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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