Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?

[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.

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.

Okay, I'm done being nice.

Look, you goddamned MORON, that quote of mine wasn't even directed at you. It was a gesture to someone here whom I truly respect: flacaltenn.

So, just because we're all suddenly into honesty, I'll just truthfully say that the irony in this charade is that you're so goddamned stupid that you can't even follow a primary-schoolish quote chain.

There's your evidence, you little limp-wristed, runt-of-the-litter imbecile.

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 ?"

Whoa, look at this: our boy GreenBean just tried to make a funny — ah'll be doggoned eaten by a sheep dog and shit off a cliff!!!

Again, the irony of the most simple of dumb phrases is lost on you: there is no such thing as a "wholesome porno"—wholesome implying health and wellness, the virility of nature; pornography representing the death of innocence and the triumph of decadence—you RETARD.

Maybe you took Humanities 101 at the U.Phoenix online, I dunno.

But I know that you sure as shit do have a special knack for making yourself look every bit of the moron that you truly are — every time you make as much as a three- to four-word post.

Give it up, man: you don't belong around sociopolitically astute or artistically savvy people.

Time for you to get back out there and finish fellin' them trees, boy.

 

[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.

Quit beating around the bush. Just come out and tell us what exactly it is you are suggesting with all of this nonsense.

WHAT is your purpose with all of these threads about children and sexuality?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.

I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.

 

[ChrisL]

In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.

I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.

Do you think in the 1950s and before, many children were watching pornography? You have just made the case AGAINST your own OP. Thank you!!!

Kids are exposed to more pornography NOW than ever before in history! Lol.

 

[jillian]

In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.

I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.

Do you think in the 1950s and before, many children were watching pornography? You have just made the case AGAINST your own OP. Thank you!!!

Kids are exposed to more pornography NOW than ever before in history! Lol.

how so?

most children are not exposed to "pornography" and are exposed to perverse levels of violence on screen. healthy sexual images are not pornography....

he is correct that the US has this bizarre strain of puritanism that demonizes anything sexual but glorifies violence.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.

I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.

Do you think in the 1950s and before, many children were watching pornography? You have just made the case AGAINST your own OP. Thank you!!!

Kids are exposed to more pornography NOW than ever before in history! Lol.

There was rather a lot of porn in the 50s. That people think the 50s were all 3-piece suits and "Pleantville" isn't surprising. But porn is ancient, only the medium's changed.

 

[ChrisL]

In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.

I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.

Do you think in the 1950s and before, many children were watching pornography? You have just made the case AGAINST your own OP. Thank you!!!

Kids are exposed to more pornography NOW than ever before in history! Lol.

how so?

most children are not exposed to "pornography" and are exposed to perverse levels of violence on screen. healthy sexual images are not pornography....

he is correct that the US has this bizarre strain of puritanism that demonizes anything sexual but glorifies violence.

Are you kidding me? You must not be of this younger generation. Pornography is just a mouse click away for any child who has access to a computer, whether that be at home, at friends' houses, etc.

I can agree with the fact that, in the US, nudity is a "big deal" but not violence, but that still does not justify saying that pornography is NOT harmful to children. I certainly do not agree with that. Pornography can be quite demeaning to women, in most cases.

 

[ChrisL]

In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.

I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.

Do you think in the 1950s and before, many children were watching pornography? You have just made the case AGAINST your own OP. Thank you!!!

Kids are exposed to more pornography NOW than ever before in history! Lol.

There was rather a lot of porn in the 50s. That people think the 50s were all 3-piece suits and "Pleantville" isn't surprising. But porn is ancient, only the medium's changed.

More children at younger ages have access to it than ever before in history. THAT is a fact. You are either old or dishonest. Which is it?

You didn't answer my question either. This is NOT the first thread you have started about children and sex. What is the point you are trying to make with all of these threads? You are trying to justify something. That much is quite obvious.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.

I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.

Do you think in the 1950s and before, many children were watching pornography? You have just made the case AGAINST your own OP. Thank you!!!

Kids are exposed to more pornography NOW than ever before in history! Lol.

There was rather a lot of porn in the 50s. That people think the 50s were all 3-piece suits and "Pleantville" isn't surprising. But porn is ancient, only the medium's changed.

More children at younger ages have access to it than ever before in history. THAT is a fact. You are either old or dishonest. Which is it?

You didn't answer my question either. This is NOT the first thread you have started about children and sex. What is the point you are trying to make with all of these threads? You are trying to justify something. That much is quite obvious.

Already answered this question. That you glossed over it says more about you than me.

 

[ChrisL]

In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.

I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.

Do you think in the 1950s and before, many children were watching pornography? You have just made the case AGAINST your own OP. Thank you!!!

Kids are exposed to more pornography NOW than ever before in history! Lol.

There was rather a lot of porn in the 50s. That people think the 50s were all 3-piece suits and "Pleantville" isn't surprising. But porn is ancient, only the medium's changed.

More children at younger ages have access to it than ever before in history. THAT is a fact. You are either old or dishonest. Which is it?

You didn't answer my question either. This is NOT the first thread you have started about children and sex. What is the point you are trying to make with all of these threads? You are trying to justify something. That much is quite obvious.

Already answered this question. That you glossed over it says more about you than me.

Oh? Which post number is that?

 

[jillian]

More children at younger ages have access to it than ever before in history. THAT is a fact. You are either old or dishonest. Which is it?

your evidence for that proposition?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

303.

 

[ChrisL]

More children at younger ages have access to it than ever before in history. THAT is a fact. You are either old or dishonest. Which is it?

your evidence for that proposition?

Uh, the internet? Are you saying it's not true? No shortage of naive people on the internet, I suppose.

 

[Esmeralda]

"children" shouldn't be viewing pornography

pornography is not harmful to adults unless, like any other addiction, it impedes the viewer's real life.

and "sex crimes" are not about sex, but are about violence.

Yep, the OP is creepy and nuts: why on Earth would children be viewing pornography? What kind of person would even consider such a thing.

 

[Piss Bucket]

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.

WHOA!! HOLY SHIT! You are one fucked up weirdo. NOTE: when I opened up herein about my past dick issues I did not telling that the thread was started by a whack job.

Dude, this is not fucking cool. I hope you are registered in your local community.

Two things:

1. Kids and porn do not mix. When I said I watched a lot of porn when I was a kid, I was at least old enough to blow a load. You seem to think that it is ok for children to watch hardcore porn. Let me tell you something, that is not only morally wrong, it is a felony in all 50 states.

2. You are posting a lot of prurient shit lately. There was recently a threat you started about masturbation in which you vigorously defend jacking it. Next, you start a thread in porno. Now, it is porno and kids. What's next? Sex with desks animals of the same sex?

There is another poster calling you a sex pervert. I was dismissive of this person at first. But now I see I was hasty. You are a sick fuck. Unless you are a research doctor exploring how are brains work on an academic level, it is not appropriate to be mixing the subjects of children and porno ( or anything involving the sexual gratification of an adult).

Now I know you feel different. But that is because you are mentally and emotionally abnormal, or should I say "fucked up in the head". You need to get off this subject, dude. I also suggest that you get some professional help. At a minimum go have a psych evaluation done.

 

[ChrisL]

In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.

I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.

There are plenty of other "studies" that I could post to contradict your studies. Lol! Google it and see. Those are also peer reviewed studies.

You can pretty much find a study that will agree with any position you can possibly take on most subjects, especially one as complicated as child sexual abuse. Exposing young children to pornography certainly cannot have any kind of benefits either, unless you are a child molester. Children develop at their own rates when it comes to sex. Most are not emotionally or mentally prepared for such adult intimacy. They do not have the understanding, and sex is an adult activity that has consequences!!!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"children" shouldn't be viewing pornography

pornography is not harmful to adults unless, like any other addiction, it impedes the viewer's real life.

and "sex crimes" are not about sex, but are about violence.

Yep, the OP is creepy and nuts|: why on Earth would children be viewing pornography? What kind of person would even consider such a thing.

Children view porn out of simple curiousity, to see what all the fuss is about that they're not supposed to (children naturally rebel doing whatever they're told not to,) and like adults because they masturbate.

The Australian study I referrenced a page or so ago and linked to earlier in the thread showed how adults assume children are naive about sex despite the fact they view porn just as adults do, and when asked only feign ignorance and innocence playing into the adult perception they're innocent.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

In the US, we have a reversed sensibility about media and children. We permit and glorify violence but repress positive expressions of sexuality. Then we wonder why there are more school shootings and bullying than in times past.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies into this have shown violent imagery affects children who view it as with movies, videogames, etc. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have also shown non-violent pornography does NOT harm children.

I wanted a dialogue into the question, hence the threads. Unfortunately since sex IS what gets repressed in our culture we can't have mature discussions about it without people such as yourself twisting the discussion into something perverse projecting your own problems into it.

There are plenty of other "studies" that I could post to contradict your studies. Lol! Google it and see. Those are also peer reviewed studies.

You can pretty much find a study that will agree with any position you can possibly take on most subjects, especially one as complicated as child sexual abuse. Exposing young children to pornography certainly cannot have any kind of benefits either, unless you are a child molester. Children develop at their own rates when it comes to sex. Most are not emotionally or mentally prepared for such adult intimacy. They do not have the understanding, and sex is an adult activity that has consequences!!!

Please do so.

 

[jillian]

More children at younger ages have access to it than ever before in history. THAT is a fact. You are either old or dishonest. Which is it?

your evidence for that proposition?

Uh, the internet? Are you saying it's not true? No shortage of naive people on the internet, I suppose.

the availability of internet porn does not mean it is more available to children.

like i said, do you have proof that CHILDREN are accessing things they shouldn't.

again... you keep glossing over the actual point.... that American children are subjected to absurd amounts of violence but people like you lose their minds when a child sees a boob.

 

[jillian]

"children" shouldn't be viewing pornography

pornography is not harmful to adults unless, like any other addiction, it impedes the viewer's real life.

and "sex crimes" are not about sex, but are about violence.

Yep, the OP is creepy and nuts|: why on Earth would children be viewing pornography? What kind of person would even consider such a thing.

Children view porn out of simple curiousity, to see what all the fuss is about that they're not supposed to (children naturally rebel doing whatever they're told not to,) and like adults because they masturbate.

The Australian study I referrenced a page or so ago and linked to earlier in the thread showed how adults assume children are naive about sex despite the fact they view porn just as adults do, and when asked only feign ignorance and innocence playing into the adult perception they're innocent.

i don't agree. that's where parenting comes in.