Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?

[Statistikhengst]

This thread is just plain old sad.


So many important things to discuss.


I don't think this is one of them.

Spit.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

This thread is just plain old sad.


So many important things to discuss.


I don't think this is one of them.

Spit.

Disagree. If we don't talk about problems like child sexual abuse it doesn't just go away magically so much as get worse because now no one's willing to talk about it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This thread is just plain old sad.


So many important things to discuss.


I don't think this is one of them.

Spit.

Disagree. If we don't talk about problems like child sexual abuse it doesn't just go away magically so much as get worse because now no one's willing to talk about it.

As far as I can tell, this thread is not about the sexual abuse of children.

And that is certainly not in the title of your thread.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

I agree whole heartedly with your comments.

I know several women who have confided in me about being sexually molested as children. It is a horrible crime. Most people who have been introduced to sexual relationships as children have trouble with trust, communication and having relationships.

Looking at pornography and being exposed to sex at an early age gives children the impression that this is how you "love" a person. They associate sex with love. A lot of children who have been sexually abused go on to become either withdrawn or promiscuous. There is no "happy medium" for them because they have been traumatized sexually and emotionally.

Are children going to be curious about sex, nudity, etc.? Of course, but that in no way does that make it okay to introduce them to such things before they are ready to understand the consequences of sex. As much as others would like to convince us that there are no negative consequences from these types of things, there most certainly are and if you know a person who was sexually abused or sexualized at too young of an age, it is QUITE obvious that they have been damaged. Sad really.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

I agree whole heartedly with your comments.

I know several women who have confided in me about being sexually molested as children. It is a horrible crime. Most people who have been introduced to sexual relationships as children have trouble with trust, communication and having relationships.

Looking at pornography and being exposed to sex at an early age gives children the impression that this is how you "love" a person. They associate sex with love. A lot of children who have been sexually abused go on to become either withdrawn or promiscuous. There is no "happy medium" for them because they have been traumatized sexually and emotionally.

Are children going to be curious about sex, nudity, etc.? Of course, but that in no way does that make it okay to introduce them to such things before they are ready to understand the consequences of sex. As much as others would like to convince us that there are no negative consequences from these types of things, there most certainly are and if you know a person who was sexually abused or sexualized at too young of an age, it is QUITE obvious that they have been damaged. Sad really.

 

[ChrisL]

Videos?

My thinking is the thinking of scientists, attorneys, law enforcement, professors, and policy makers.

Who's your thinking shared by?

Cite them. My thinking is shared by the entire psychological community and experts in the field.

There are some outliers who will try and convince us that it is okay and not harmful. Having personally known several victims of CSA, I know for a FACT that is not the case. If you ask me, CSA and/or grooming/sexualizing children is a crime not much less despicable than murder. These people who try to justify their obsession with "sexing up" children are the lowest of the lowly.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Videos?

My thinking is the thinking of scientists, attorneys, law enforcement, professors, and policy makers.

Who's your thinking shared by?

Cite them. My thinking is shared by the entire psychological community and experts in the field.

There are some outliers who will try and convince us that it is okay and not harmful. Having personally known several victims of CSA, I know for a FACT that is not the case. If you ask me, CSA and/or grooming/sexualizing children is a crime not much less despicable than murder. These people who try to justify their obsession with "sexing up" children are the lowest of the lowly.

Indeed.

 

[BillyP]

Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?

It does, because if kids are watching porn, they are being raised by complete morons, which is harmful.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

This thread is just plain old sad.


So many important things to discuss.


I don't think this is one of them.

Spit.

Disagree. If we don't talk about problems like child sexual abuse it doesn't just go away magically so much as get worse because now no one's willing to talk about it.

As far as I can tell, this thread is not about the sexual abuse of children.

And that is certainly not in the title of your thread.

Which part of 'does porn HARM children' didn't strike you as child sexual abuse? You're a msart guy, try seeing the forest for the trees.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Videos?

My thinking is the thinking of scientists, attorneys, law enforcement, professors, and policy makers.

Who's your thinking shared by?

Cite them. My thinking is shared by the entire psychological community and experts in the field.

There are some outliers who will try and convince us that it is okay and not harmful. Having personally known several victims of CSA, I know for a FACT that is not the case. If you ask me, CSA and/or grooming/sexualizing children is a crime not much less despicable than murder. These people who try to justify their obsession with "sexing up" children are the lowest of the lowly.

Grooming is not what this is about. Grooming implies a motive behind an act. In this case to befriend or get-closer to a potential victim.

Making pornography (read, sexually explicit information) available to children and teens is simply accepting the reality that it's something they want. Can either accept that reality, or deny it, but one has positive outcomes as evidence by decades of study, one has negative outcomes as evidenced by centuries of study (science vs religious models of parenting et al.)

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Can say anything we like, but I can and have cited my sources. Whereas I've yet to see dissenters cite any of their's. Could it be because it's all religious in nature and nothing from the science community?

 

[ChrisL]

Cite them. My thinking is shared by the entire psychological community and experts in the field.

There are some outliers who will try and convince us that it is okay and not harmful. Having personally known several victims of CSA, I know for a FACT that is not the case. If you ask me, CSA and/or grooming/sexualizing children is a crime not much less despicable than murder. These people who try to justify their obsession with "sexing up" children are the lowest of the lowly.

Grooming is not what this is about. Grooming implies a motive behind an act. In this case to befriend or get-closer to a potential victim.

Making pornography (read, sexually explicit information) available to children and teens is simply accepting the reality that it's something they want. Can either accept that reality, or deny it, but one has positive outcomes as evidence by decades of study, one has negative outcomes as evidenced by centuries of study (science vs religious models of parenting et al.)

Exposing children to sexually explicit material is desensitizing them and is most CERTAINLY a tool used for grooming. Stop being dishonest, and please explain in detail what exactly your goal is with this thread.

 

[ChrisL]

Can say anything we like, but I can and have cited my sources. Whereas I've yet to see dissenters cite any of their's. Could it be because it's all religious in nature and nothing from the science community?

Are you kidding, there are TONS of valid peer-reviewed studies which have shown exposure to pornography to not only be harmful to children, but it can also be harmful in ADULTS in some instances. There are ALL kinds of pornography out there. A lot of it centering around degradation and abuse of women! You are way over simplifying this. Why?

Children should be informed about sex with AGE APPROPRIATE material that they can understand, not with pornography. That is sick and quite disturbing.

 

[koshergrl]

This thread is just plain old sad.


So many important things to discuss.


I don't think this is one of them.

Spit.

Disagree. If we don't talk about problems like child sexual abuse it doesn't just go away magically so much as get worse because now no one's willing to talk about it.

Yes, but you propose that we make child sexual abuse go away by making it legal.

Nauseating. And criminal.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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".

First Playboy I saw my thought was "where's the naked women? ad, ad, ad, article about some tripe, ad, ad, ad..."

 

[koshergrl]

Way to advocate that adults share porn with kids there, pscho.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Cite them. My thinking is shared by the entire psychological community and experts in the field.

There are some outliers who will try and convince us that it is okay and not harmful. Having personally known several victims of CSA, I know for a FACT that is not the case. If you ask me, CSA and/or grooming/sexualizing children is a crime not much less despicable than murder. These people who try to justify their obsession with "sexing up" children are the lowest of the lowly.

Grooming is not what this is about. Grooming implies a motive behind an act. In this case to befriend or get-closer to a potential victim.

Making pornography (read, sexually explicit information) available to children and teens is simply accepting the reality that it's something they want. Can either accept that reality, or deny it, but one has positive outcomes as evidence by decades of study, one has negative outcomes as evidenced by centuries of study (science vs religious models of parenting et al.)

Exposing children to sexually explicit material is desensitizing them and is most CERTAINLY a tool used for grooming. Stop being dishonest, and please explain in detail what exactly your goal is with this thread.

Reducing violence in our society and the world by mitigating the harmful effects of body-shaming, sexual repression, and denial of reality.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Can say anything we like, but I can and have cited my sources. Whereas I've yet to see dissenters cite any of their's. Could it be because it's all religious in nature and nothing from the science community?

Are you kidding, there are TONS of valid peer-reviewed studies which have shown exposure to pornography to not only be harmful to children, but it can also be harmful in ADULTS in some instances. There are ALL kinds of pornography out there. A lot of it centering around degradation and abuse of women! You are way over simplifying this. Why?

Children should be informed about sex with AGE APPROPRIATE material that they can understand, not with pornography. That is sick and quite disturbing.

Can't help but notice despite there being 'tons' you didn't link to even one.

 

[shart_attack]

Can say anything we like, but I can and have cited my sources. Whereas I've yet to see dissenters cite any of their's. Could it be because it's all religious in nature and nothing from the science community?

Are you kidding, there are TONS of valid peer-reviewed studies which have shown exposure to pornography to not only be harmful to children, but it can also be harmful in ADULTS in some instances. There are ALL kinds of pornography out there. A lot of it centering around degradation and abuse of women! You are way over simplifying this. Why?

Children should be informed about sex with AGE APPROPRIATE material that they can understand, not with pornography. That is sick and quite disturbing.

Can't help but notice despite there being 'tons' you didn't link to even one.

LOL, that's prolly 'cause you seem to be the only one here who knows where to find it — ya think?!?!?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Peer-reviewed? Google has a thing for 'scholarly articles' when googling such materials you can switch to, or can add 'peer-reviewed' in you search query.

As with,
effects of pornography on children peer-reviewed