shart_attack
Gold Member
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.
chrisl said: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.
delta4embassy said: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.
flacaltenn said: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..
the shart said: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.
greenbean said: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.
the shart said: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.
the shart said:I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool
greenbean said: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.
greenbean said: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.