Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?

[BillyP]

My personal life is irrelevant.

Not really, because if you raised children, you would already know it is harmful.

If you are inexperienced then it explains the dumb question

I figured that was the point you'd try to assert. Let me counter with this:

does a good gynecologist have to be a female?

ABSOLUTELY! Male gynos are all perverts.

 

[BillyP]

Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?

Only if the TV falls on them.

 

[rdean]

Until the hormones kick in, they don't really have much interest.

 

[DriftingSand]

I figured that was the point you'd try to assert. Let me counter with this:

does a good gynecologist have to be a female?

Let me counter with this, if you post medical journals suggesting cancer patients are not "helped" by pain medication in the context of a cure, does that mean people who have cancer and feel relief from pain medication shouldn't take it.

Context is everything.

To make a statement that children aren't harmed is bogus.

It's total crap.

You know it and I know it and your fluff is just intellectual masterbation quite frankly because you have an axe to grind with religious people and homophobes.

It's just stupid

In conjunction with the statement I included proofs. I'm not offering opinions but peer-reviewed science.

And if going to talk about this stuff you might wanna learn how to spell 'masturbation.'

"Peer reviewed science?" Do you know that there are still folks who believe in a "flat earth?" When their "science" is reviewed by other flat-earthers then their science has been reviewed by their peers. So before we can accept ANY science we need to know the manner in which the experiments were conducted and then we would have to know exactly who reviewed the study and what their actual background is.

By the way, what "scientist" would conduct such experiments in the first place? Did they literally gather groups of little kids and show "Debbie Does Dallas" to them? With parental consent? What decent parent on earth would allow such experiments in the first place. Sounds like a group of pedophiles in the act of desensitizing kids (but that's just my scientific opinion).

 

[DriftingSand]

Until the hormones kick in, they don't really have much interest.

Really? I remember being completely enthralled by my first view of a Playboy magazine I saw in my neighbor's garage. I was fixated on it and I was only 6 or 7. It was information that my mind wasn't ready for and that was "soft porn."

Bottom line: What purpose is served by showing porn to little kids? Why test their limits and reactions in the first place? What's the goal? Who's sick mind thought that it was necessary to put that theory to the test in the first place and what did they hope to accomplish?

 

[GISMYS]

Until the hormones kick in, they don't really have much interest.

Really? I remember being completely enthralled by my first view of a Playboy magazine I saw in my neighbor's garage. I was fixated on it and I was only 6 or 7. It was information that my mind wasn't ready for and that was "soft porn."

Bottom line: What purpose is served by showing porn to little kids? Why test their limits and reactions in the first place? What's the goal? Who's sick mind thought that it was necessary to put that theory to the test in the first place and what did they hope to accomplish?

SATAN and evil are VERY REAL!!!! HUH??? think!

 

[DriftingSand]

Let me counter with this, if you post medical journals suggesting cancer patients are not "helped" by pain medication in the context of a cure, does that mean people who have cancer and feel relief from pain medication shouldn't take it.

Context is everything.

To make a statement that children aren't harmed is bogus.

It's total crap.

You know it and I know it and your fluff is just intellectual masterbation quite frankly because you have an axe to grind with religious people and homophobes.

It's just stupid

In conjunction with the statement I included proofs. I'm not offering opinions but peer-reviewed science.

And if going to talk about this stuff you might wanna learn how to spell 'masturbation.'

Peer reviewed journals are just mental masterbation amongst liberal scholars.

And.....they are also just opinions. I read them alot because Professors are in love with them.

You can intellectualize anything but that does not account for feelings.

The brain does not fully mature until you are around 25.

Your topic is simply to troll religious people and homophobes.

Yet, there are real children (not teens) who have been exposed and felt different then what peer journals supposedly report.

At any rate I only came to the thread because NLT posted a link to it.

I said my opinion about it and I am not religious or homophobic so I will let you get back to taunting your real audience.

Exactly. Good post. I like to read scientific articles put out by the ICR (Institute for Creation Research). Anyone who reads them knows that true, educated scientists write them yet the mainstream "scientific" community poo-poos them because they're coming from a Christian perspective. Therefore, they don't ever get an honest "peer review."

 

[BillyP]

Until the hormones kick in, they don't really have much interest.

Really? I remember being completely enthralled by my first view of a Playboy magazine I saw in my neighbor's garage. I was fixated on it and I was only 6 or 7. It was information that my mind wasn't ready for and that was "soft porn."

Bottom line: What purpose is served by showing porn to little kids? Why test their limits and reactions in the first place? What's the goal? Who's sick mind thought that it was necessary to put that theory to the test in the first place and what did they hope to accomplish?

So did reading Playboy **** you up? Or is that a rhetorical question?

 

[PixieStix]

Let me counter with this, if you post medical journals suggesting cancer patients are not "helped" by pain medication in the context of a cure, does that mean people who have cancer and feel relief from pain medication shouldn't take it.

Context is everything.

To make a statement that children aren't harmed is bogus.

It's total crap.

You know it and I know it and your fluff is just intellectual masterbation quite frankly because you have an axe to grind with religious people and homophobes.

It's just stupid

In conjunction with the statement I included proofs. I'm not offering opinions but peer-reviewed science.

And if going to talk about this stuff you might wanna learn how to spell 'masturbation.'

"Peer reviewed science?" Do you know that there are still folks who believe in a "flat earth?" When their "science" is reviewed by other flat-earthers then their science has been reviewed by their peers. So before we can accept ANY science we need to know the manner in which the experiments were conducted and then we would have to know exactly who reviewed the study and what their actual background is.

By the way, what "scientist" would conduct such experiments in the first place? Did they literally gather groups of little kids and show "Debbie Does Dallas" to them? With parental consent? What decent parent on earth would allow such experiments in the first place. Sounds like a group of pedophiles in the act of desensitizing kids (but that's just my scientific opinion).

indeed
https://www.google.com/search?clien...gle+Search&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&gws_rd=ssl

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?

Only if the TV falls on them.

(chokes not swallowing a sip of water in time) LOL!

 

[GISMYS]

Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?

Only if the TV falls on them.

(chokes not swallowing a sip of water in time) LOL!

Pornography=demon inspired brain poison =the cause of much harm and sick perversions. Wise up!!

 

[DriftingSand]

Until or unless one of your posts is an apology and acknowledgement that assertions I've made are widely held positions by the science-community West, this conversation is over and serves no useful purpose.

Sidestep. You have been defeated!!!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Let me counter with this, if you post medical journals suggesting cancer patients are not "helped" by pain medication in the context of a cure, does that mean people who have cancer and feel relief from pain medication shouldn't take it.

Context is everything.

To make a statement that children aren't harmed is bogus.

It's total crap.

You know it and I know it and your fluff is just intellectual masterbation quite frankly because you have an axe to grind with religious people and homophobes.

It's just stupid

In conjunction with the statement I included proofs. I'm not offering opinions but peer-reviewed science.

And if going to talk about this stuff you might wanna learn how to spell 'masturbation.'

"Peer reviewed science?" Do you know that there are still folks who believe in a "flat earth?" When their "science" is reviewed by other flat-earthers then their science has been reviewed by their peers. So before we can accept ANY science we need to know the manner in which the experiments were conducted and then we would have to know exactly who reviewed the study and what their actual background is.

By the way, what "scientist" would conduct such experiments in the first place? Did they literally gather groups of little kids and show "Debbie Does Dallas" to them? With parental consent? What decent parent on earth would allow such experiments in the first place. Sounds like a group of pedophiles in the act of desensitizing kids (but that's just my scientific opinion).

Ethicacy of sex research involving minors is deserving of its own thread

My reading suggests a lot of the research into whether pornography is harmful or not was conducted back when porn first became more widely available because of both VHS being invented, and less puritanical laws restricting it.

Worth mentioning here then that the porn in the 70s was positively tame by modern standards. Have likened it myself to graphic lovemaking moreso than what probably comes to mind when you think about porn of today. So it's possible we're all discussing different things.

Insofar as the material studied in decades past, studies showed it didn't harm children who viewed it. Whether that would hold true with today's stuff I can't say, though my personal opinion is it wouldn't because it's so radicly different that what came before. 70s porn was great, plots and everything, now though it's absolute crap from an aethestic pov. Plus, today's material is very much doing exactly what porn has always been accused of, denegrating women, cheapening the sexual act, etc..

Couple porn documentaries exist which illustrate this well including "The Porn Brokers" (American porn,) and "Sexual Freedom in Denmark" (Euro porn.) Both from 1970 or thereabouts. The Denmark one in particular is very good being more discussion-oriented including comparing images that are 'acceptable' to society as with violence, whereas anything showing sex in any fashion is railed against. Obviously comparing European sensibilities to American ones doesn't necessarily stand up to scientific scutiny, but I mention it as examples of the subject at hand.

For a more scientific perspective the all-timebest site I've found is the International Encyclopedia of Sexuality which is all science. Kinda dry as a result but with all the varied countries being on one site, comparing one to another for how they approach sex is invaluable for illustrative purposes. Though afaik there's no imagery on the site, I haven't explored every nook and cranny so will refrain from posting a link as per Rules. Can google the name though.

 

[rdean]

Until the hormones kick in, they don't really have much interest.

Really? I remember being completely enthralled by my first view of a Playboy magazine I saw in my neighbor's garage. I was fixated on it and I was only 6 or 7. It was information that my mind wasn't ready for and that was "soft porn."

Bottom line: What purpose is served by showing porn to little kids? Why test their limits and reactions in the first place? What's the goal? Who's sick mind thought that it was necessary to put that theory to the test in the first place and what did they hope to accomplish?

I saw a playboy at 6. My first thought was "that woman's naked". 6 years later, my thought was "good".

 

[westwall]

Until or unless one of your posts is an apology and acknowledgement that assertions I've made are widely held positions by the science-community West, this conversation is over and serves no useful purpose.

I need to know what you think the links you posted mean before I can answer that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

You have got to be ******* kidding me.


What is this utter horseshit?


I would never let my daughter even get close to anything pornographic at this time in her life.


Damn, this thread is just plain old sad. Sad, sad, sad.

 

[BillyP]

Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?

Only if the TV falls on them.

(chokes not swallowing a sip of water in time) LOL!

Pornography=demon inspired brain poison =the cause of much harm and sick perversions. Wise up!!

Porn is just pictures or movies of what everyday people do behind closed doors. Gysm, sex is more than the missionary position and not just for procreation.

 

[emilynghiem]

Pedophilia is not "fixable". That's the problem. It is truly sad that an otherwise normal productive person can't ever be allowed around children. They just can't. Pedophiles have a 100% recidivism rate...... It's hard to argue with facts like that.

[MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION]
of the cases I've heard reports of curing people of pedophilia,
these require deep spiritual therapy, going back into the generational history of the person for deep cleansing and healing that is beyond what psychiatry teaches or practices.

One man reported being cured after 25 years.
One of my friends, who agrees that the relapse rate is strongest for these types of addictions/sicknesses, where I would say most require either constant treatment and supervision if not detention, did have at least one person become completely healed.

I believe the medical technology will be developed to diagnosis, monitor and manage these types of illness, similar to tracking the progress, remission or return of cancer in stages.

Even if these cases cannot be fully cured, they should be diagnosed for public safety, especially BEFORE any crimes or damages occur. So medical diagnosis should be perfected in order to make the process scientific, where people or family members willingly seek diagnosis and help for such conditions, and not have to violate anyone's rights legally.

There is no case of a pedophile being cured. There simply isn't enough oversight of those who have been "cured" to know if it was effective or not. The pedo's refuse to grant access 24/7 so the ability to monitor is severely limited.

They are not stupid, they are just sick. Just like sociopaths, their brains are wired differently and that can't be undone.

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

Hi [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION]
it depends on the cause and severity of the case.

The cases I'm talking about being cured are caused by a spiritual sickness where the root cause is able to be identified and healed while also removing the demonic obsessions and addictions attached to it.

A similar case to this level of treatment is
David Berkowitz, formerly Son of Sam, who was able to be healed of his demonic sickness
and restored to normal.
NOTE: THIS DOES NOT MEAN TO RETURN SUCH PEOPLE TO SOCIETY

JUST BECAUSE YOU CURE THEIR MAIN SPIRITUAL SICKNESS DOES NOT MEAN YOU RELEASE THEM.

So this whole idea of either/or, either they are incureable and need to be killed off, or they can't be proven to be a threat so they are allowed to run free is BULL CRAP.

The level and stage of sickness can be determined to be either in constant danger or relapse, or in a process of helping the person to become aware and in control of their will, where they can tell they are in danger or not and will work with authorities and doctors.

So even if they are the type that are not or cannot be cured,
there are some that are aware of their sickness and still cooperate
which is Different from the cases that refuse help and stay addicted to harming others.

so there are different levels, stages and types.

Through medical research and development of diagnostics on the brain,
then these types and levels can be distinguished
EVEN THOUGH IT WILL STILL BE REQUIRED TO DETAIN SUCH PEOPLE.

by doing the medical research and development
this will give a scientific and medical process for diagnosis sickness
so you don't have to wait for a crime to be committed to detain someone.

just like you don't have to wait for someone to die of cancer to know how dangerous it is
same with criminal sickness

we can protect the public better by studying this
not sticking our heads in the sand and thinking there is nothing that can be done differently

yes there is

see also Scott peck's books on healing "incureable schizophrenic" patients
who were dangers to themselves and refused treatment until they had the
demonic sickness identified and removed through the standard procedure for this.

he wrote People of the Lie and Glimpses of the Devil
about finding out there was a method to the madness and some cases
could have identifiable causes that could be cured and fully monitored safely by doctors

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]:
1. Can we backtrack and maybe make a distinction between:
a. explicit depictions of sexual intercourse, such as for sex education purposes.
neutral, such as showing dogs mating or insects, and just show adult humans mating.
that might not cause harm as long as the parents, teachers and children all have the same attitude toward it. But if there is any conflict or mixed agenda/message between the adults, don't you think that harms the kids to impose their issues onto the children?

So the content of the explicit material is one thing in itself.

But Delta I think you are missing the fact that when adults have mixed agenda
or beliefs, and that is getting imposed on the kids, then that causes conflict and harm too.

b. violent or abusive depictions where the porn is "degrading" women

c. in between, where the porn is designed to stimulate the viewers sexually
and isn't just medical or sex education, but is for the intention of sexual stimulation

Delta if we don't even distinguish at least these three levels
how can we be sure we are even discussing the same things?

Can you agree that
a b c above would all have different effects on children?

and then
2. the fact that adults attach their own emotions and values, so if these are in conflict,
then it is being imposed on the kids.

all the shame, blame and fear about sex.

So that is an additional factor.

So really there are at least 3 levels
1. the content itself
2. the spirit or intent of the presentation, is it sexually stimulating is it abusive etc.
3. the issues between the parents and teachers and whether the kids are
getting a consistent message or getting mixed msgs about shame or blame or abuse of sex

Delta if you realy want to discuss Which Level the harm is coming from,
might we start by distinguishing all three levels 1, 2, and 3 and also
at least 3 types or intent of sexually explicit materials?

How can you discuss this without distinguishing these from each other????

In conjunction with the statement I included proofs. I'm not offering opinions but peer-reviewed science.

And if going to talk about this stuff you might wanna learn how to spell 'masturbation.'

"Peer reviewed science?" Do you know that there are still folks who believe in a "flat earth?" When their "science" is reviewed by other flat-earthers then their science has been reviewed by their peers. So before we can accept ANY science we need to know the manner in which the experiments were conducted and then we would have to know exactly who reviewed the study and what their actual background is.

By the way, what "scientist" would conduct such experiments in the first place? Did they literally gather groups of little kids and show "Debbie Does Dallas" to them? With parental consent? What decent parent on earth would allow such experiments in the first place. Sounds like a group of pedophiles in the act of desensitizing kids (but that's just my scientific opinion).

Ethicacy of sex research involving minors is deserving of its own thread

My reading suggests a lot of the research into whether pornography is harmful or not was conducted back when porn first became more widely available because of both VHS being invented, and less puritanical laws restricting it.

Worth mentioning here then that the porn in the 70s was positively tame by modern standards. Have likened it myself to graphic lovemaking moreso than what probably comes to mind when you think about porn of today. So it's possible we're all discussing different things.

Insofar as the material studied in decades past, studies showed it didn't harm children who viewed it. Whether that would hold true with today's stuff I can't say, though my personal opinion is it wouldn't because it's so radicly different that what came before. 70s porn was great, plots and everything, now though it's absolute crap from an aethestic pov. Plus, today's material is very much doing exactly what porn has always been accused of, denegrating women, cheapening the sexual act, etc..

Couple porn documentaries exist which illustrate this well including "The Porn Brokers" (American porn,) and "Sexual Freedom in Denmark" (Euro porn.) Both from 1970 or thereabouts. The Denmark one in particular is very good being more discussion-oriented including comparing images that are 'acceptable' to society as with violence, whereas anything showing sex in any fashion is railed against. Obviously comparing European sensibilities to American ones doesn't necessarily stand up to scientific scutiny, but I mention it as examples of the subject at hand.

For a more scientific perspective the all-timebest site I've found is the International Encyclopedia of Sexuality which is all science. Kinda dry as a result but with all the varied countries being on one site, comparing one to another for how they approach sex is invaluable for illustrative purposes. Though afaik there's no imagery on the site, I haven't explored every nook and cranny so will refrain from posting a link as per Rules. Can google the name though.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Dear [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]:
1. Can we backtrack and maybe make a distinction between:
a. explicit depictions of sexual intercourse, such as for sex education purposes.
neutral, such as showing dogs mating or insects, and just show adult humans mating.
that might not cause harm as long as the parents, teachers and children all have the same attitude toward it. But if there is any conflict or mixed agenda/message between the adults, don't you think that harms the kids to impose their issues onto the children?

So the content of the explicit material is one thing in itself.

But Delta I think you are missing the fact that when adults have mixed agenda
or beliefs, and that is getting imposed on the kids, then that causes conflict and harm too.

b. violent or abusive depictions where the porn is "degrading" women

c. in between, where the porn is designed to stimulate the viewers sexually
and isn't just medical or sex education, but is for the intention of sexual stimulation

Delta if we don't even distinguish at least these three levels
how can we be sure we are even discussing the same things?

Can you agree that
a b c above would all have different effects on children?

and then
2. the fact that adults attach their own emotions and values, so if these are in conflict,
then it is being imposed on the kids.

all the shame, blame and fear about sex.

So that is an additional factor.

So really there are at least 3 levels
1. the content itself
2. the spirit or intent of the presentation, is it sexually stimulating is it abusive etc.
3. the issues between the parents and teachers and whether the kids are
getting a consistent message or getting mixed msgs about shame or blame or abuse of sex

Delta if you realy want to discuss Which Level the harm is coming from,
might we start by distinguishing all three levels 1, 2, and 3 and also
at least 3 types or intent of sexually explicit materials?

How can you discuss this without distinguishing these from each other????

"Peer reviewed science?" Do you know that there are still folks who believe in a "flat earth?" When their "science" is reviewed by other flat-earthers then their science has been reviewed by their peers. So before we can accept ANY science we need to know the manner in which the experiments were conducted and then we would have to know exactly who reviewed the study and what their actual background is.

By the way, what "scientist" would conduct such experiments in the first place? Did they literally gather groups of little kids and show "Debbie Does Dallas" to them? With parental consent? What decent parent on earth would allow such experiments in the first place. Sounds like a group of pedophiles in the act of desensitizing kids (but that's just my scientific opinion).

Ethicacy of sex research involving minors is deserving of its own thread

My reading suggests a lot of the research into whether pornography is harmful or not was conducted back when porn first became more widely available because of both VHS being invented, and less puritanical laws restricting it.

Worth mentioning here then that the porn in the 70s was positively tame by modern standards. Have likened it myself to graphic lovemaking moreso than what probably comes to mind when you think about porn of today. So it's possible we're all discussing different things.

Insofar as the material studied in decades past, studies showed it didn't harm children who viewed it. Whether that would hold true with today's stuff I can't say, though my personal opinion is it wouldn't because it's so radicly different that what came before. 70s porn was great, plots and everything, now though it's absolute crap from an aethestic pov. Plus, today's material is very much doing exactly what porn has always been accused of, denegrating women, cheapening the sexual act, etc..

Couple porn documentaries exist which illustrate this well including "The Porn Brokers" (American porn,) and "Sexual Freedom in Denmark" (Euro porn.) Both from 1970 or thereabouts. The Denmark one in particular is very good being more discussion-oriented including comparing images that are 'acceptable' to society as with violence, whereas anything showing sex in any fashion is railed against. Obviously comparing European sensibilities to American ones doesn't necessarily stand up to scientific scutiny, but I mention it as examples of the subject at hand.

For a more scientific perspective the all-timebest site I've found is the International Encyclopedia of Sexuality which is all science. Kinda dry as a result but with all the varied countries being on one site, comparing one to another for how they approach sex is invaluable for illustrative purposes. Though afaik there's no imagery on the site, I haven't explored every nook and cranny so will refrain from posting a link as per Rules. Can google the name though.

Children will seek sexual stimulation and pleasure whether they've ever seen pornography before or not. Let's assume strict Amish communities don't have a lot of porn mags floating around, and certainly don't have tvs and 'vcr's to view it, or computers to go online. Yet Amish communities have a well-known and profound problem with child sexual abuse. So where's that coming from if not pornography?

Answer is it's a natural, ever-present desire within everyone. We're biologically programmed to desire sex so we can reproduce our species. Rather than denying it, suppressing/repressing it, accept it and celebrate it out in the open. Societies and cultures that do don't have the same problems as societies that hide it away.

Children are creatures of routine. Any deviation from familar routines stands out in their minds. So when sexuality finally presents itself in their lives it stands out. More so if it's been hidden away until then. Numers of people traumatized by well-meaning parents who "caught" them masturbating causing a psychological issue for them later as adults is positively stunning. Whereas those parents who discovering their children masturbating and don't acknowledge it, or don't make it into a hideous crime have kids who develop into adults without hangups about such things. This is why making 'porn' available and acceptable doesn't result in the same issues we see in families, cultures, and socities that secret it away.

In my own case, I remember masturbating as far back as whatever age I was when wearing two-piece 'Batman' jammies. I also remember the first time I noticed my own semen afterwords and being stressed I'd 'ruptured something and was bleeding white stuff.' There was no sex education then, no internet porn, and at that age I certainly couldn't buy a Playboy. Years later when starting to experiment with sexual behaviours with girls my Mom walked in on me and girls multiple times. But she never read us the riot act, instead she encouraged me to pleasure myself instead of possibly getting young girls pregnant. From that time foward I opted for that instead of girlfriends, and still prefer it to this day. If we learn to pleasure ourselves, relationships with other people aren't about sex as much and are more ideal in their motives. If we insist sex and sexual pleasures like masturbation have to wait for marriage, we're gonna get married too young, and for the wrong reasons.