Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?

[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.

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

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

 

[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.)

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?

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

 

[ChrisL]

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

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?

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

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

 

[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?

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

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

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

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

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

"Wholesome porno":

Best. Most. Delicious. Oxymoron. Ever.

I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool

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?

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

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

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

 

[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.

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.

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

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

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

 

[ChrisL]

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?

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

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

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

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

 

[ChrisL]

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[High_Gravity]

Porn is for adults.

 

[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.

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

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

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

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ChrisL]

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

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

 

[High_Gravity]

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

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

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

.

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

 

[ChrisL]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is the OP A registered sex offender?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ChrisL]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

 

[ChrisL]

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