Does Pornography Harm Children Who View It?

[flacaltenn]

The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.. From a science viewpoint, the way to assess this issue would be to allow children to be EXPOSED to porn (an actual criminal act) and assess the results. Much like answering the question of what happens if you deprive children of light or education..

The topic IMPLIES that it NEEDS to be studied. Rather than drawing the bright line that they WILL NOT BE exposed to certain things on common sense and principle.. Anyone here want to claim that it is GOOD for them? I have a few Cali friends who virtually ran nudie camps in their homes. But I'm certain that they would be appalled at the assertion that general porn is harmless to child development...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.. From a science viewpoint, the way to assess this issue would be to allow children to be EXPOSED to porn (an actual criminal act) and assess the results. Much like answering the question of what happens if you deprive children of light or education..

The topic IMPLIES that it NEEDS to be studied. Rather than drawing the bright line that they WILL NOT BE exposed to certain things on common sense and principle.. Anyone here want to claim that it is GOOD for them? I have a few Cali friends who virtually ran nudie camps in their homes. But I'm certain that they would be appalled at the assertion that general porn is harmless to child development...

Resent your opening line. We've been through this. It's something that gets studied and needs to be studied. Just because you and some others are immature and unable to discuss mature subject matter doesn't mean those that can are suspect.

 

[shart_attack]

 

[flacaltenn]

The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.. From a science viewpoint, the way to assess this issue would be to allow children to be EXPOSED to porn (an actual criminal act) and assess the results. Much like answering the question of what happens if you deprive children of light or education..

The topic IMPLIES that it NEEDS to be studied. Rather than drawing the bright line that they WILL NOT BE exposed to certain things on common sense and principle.. Anyone here want to claim that it is GOOD for them? I have a few Cali friends who virtually ran nudie camps in their homes. But I'm certain that they would be appalled at the assertion that general porn is harmless to child development...

Resent your opening line. We've been through this. It's something that gets studied and needs to be studied. Just because you and some others are immature and unable to discuss mature subject matter doesn't mean those that can are suspect.

Again.. It CANNOT be studied adequately because the act of EXPOSING children to pornography IS A CRIME.. What part of illegal don't you understand? Is it your intent to change the existing laws?

Or are merely trying to help parents evaluate the damage that has been done by having their children involved in chronic porn viewing?

If you need help with the concept why studies are so useless and rare -- here's one that repeats what I just told you..

http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV76.pdf

Those who report intentional exposure to pornography, irrespective
of source, are significantly more likely to cross-sectionally report delinquent behavior and substance use in the previous year. Further, online seekers versus offline seekers are more likely to report clinical features associated with depression and lower levels of emotional
bonding with their caregiver.


The majority of pornography studies have been
conducted with adults.3–5 This is largely due to the
ethical and legal considerations of exposing children
and adolescents to potentially harmful material.

Ratings for all three aspects of the caregiver-child
relationship were significantly different across the
three groups of pornography seeking youth. Almost
one-third of online seekers rated their emotional
bond with their caregiver as poor compared
to 15% of offline seekers, and 10% of non-seekers
(p < .001). One quarter of online as well as 23% offline
seekers reported low caregiver monitoring as
compared to 9% of non-seekers (p < .001). Frequent
coercive discipline was most commonly reported
by offline seekers, with 31% of youth indicating
such caregiver behavior, as compared to 23% of online
seekers and 17% of non-seekers (p < .001).


Psychosocial challenge
All indications of psychosocial challenge significantly
differed based upon self-report of pornography
seeking behavior among young, regular
Internet users. Overall, 25% of youth in the survey
reported an unwanted exposure to sexual material
at least once in the previous year. When examined
by pornography-seeking behavior, 53% of online
seekers reported unwanted exposure versus 35% of
offline-only seekers and 22% of non-seekers (p <
.001). Fifty percent of online seekers indicated
physical or sexual victimization versus 37% of
offline seekers and 31% of non-seekers (p < .001).
Delinquent behavior was reported four times more
often by pornography seekers, with 48% of online

seekers and 42% of offline seekers reporting this behavior
in the previous year, as compared to 11% of
non-seekers (p < .001). Higher percentages of
young people reported seriously involved substance
use who also reported pornography seeking
versus non-seeking, with 37% of online-seekers
versus 26% of offline-only seekers and 10% of nonseekers
reporting such use (p < .001). Twice as
many online seekers (11%) reported clinical features
of major depression compared to offline (4%)
and non-seekers (5%) (p < .05). Two in five offlineonly
seekers (42%) reported at least one negative
life experience in the previous year versus 31% of
online seekers and 27% of non-seekers (p < .01).

.... due to ethical and legal considerations.. "bout sums it up.. Does it NEED to be studied??? What do YOU acheive by investing time in "studying" it?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.. From a science viewpoint, the way to assess this issue would be to allow children to be EXPOSED to porn (an actual criminal act) and assess the results. Much like answering the question of what happens if you deprive children of light or education..

The topic IMPLIES that it NEEDS to be studied. Rather than drawing the bright line that they WILL NOT BE exposed to certain things on common sense and principle.. Anyone here want to claim that it is GOOD for them? I have a few Cali friends who virtually ran nudie camps in their homes. But I'm certain that they would be appalled at the assertion that general porn is harmless to child development...

Resent your opening line. We've been through this. It's something that gets studied and needs to be studied. Just because you and some others are immature and unable to discuss mature subject matter doesn't mean those that can are suspect.

Again.. It CANNOT be studied adequately because the act of EXPOSING children to pornography IS A CRIME.. What part of illegal don't you understand? Is it your intent to change the existing laws?

Or are merely trying to help parents evaluate the damage that has been done by having their children involved in chronic porn viewing?

If you need help with the concept why studies are so useless and rare -- here's one that repeats what I just told you..

.... due to ethical and legal considerations.. "bout sums it up.. Does it NEED to be studied??? What do YOU acheive by investing time in "studying" it?

(deleted quoted material just to keep threads smaller)

Effects of exposure of pornography to children doesn't have to involve exposing children to pornography as most children have already seen it. You simply ask subjects involved "Have you ever seen pornography?" And that's what studies do.

Yes, sticking children who've never seen porn and giving them porn then observing the results is unethical and illegal. Good thing that ISN'T what happens in these studies.

 

[flacaltenn]

The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.. From a science viewpoint, the way to assess this issue would be to allow children to be EXPOSED to porn (an actual criminal act) and assess the results. Much like answering the question of what happens if you deprive children of light or education..

The topic IMPLIES that it NEEDS to be studied. Rather than drawing the bright line that they WILL NOT BE exposed to certain things on common sense and principle.. Anyone here want to claim that it is GOOD for them? I have a few Cali friends who virtually ran nudie camps in their homes. But I'm certain that they would be appalled at the assertion that general porn is harmless to child development...

Resent your opening line. We've been through this. It's something that gets studied and needs to be studied. Just because you and some others are immature and unable to discuss mature subject matter doesn't mean those that can are suspect.

Again.. It CANNOT be studied adequately because the act of EXPOSING children to pornography IS A CRIME.. What part of illegal don't you understand? Is it your intent to change the existing laws?

Or are merely trying to help parents evaluate the damage that has been done by having their children involved in chronic porn viewing?

If you need help with the concept why studies are so useless and rare -- here's one that repeats what I just told you..

.... due to ethical and legal considerations.. "bout sums it up.. Does it NEED to be studied??? What do YOU acheive by investing time in "studying" it?

(deleted quoted material just to keep threads smaller)

Effects of exposure of pornography to children doesn't have to involve exposing children to pornography as most children have already seen it. You simply ask subjects involved "Have you ever seen pornography?" And that's what studies do.

Yes, sticking children who've never seen porn and giving them porn then observing the results is unethical and illegal. Good thing that ISN'T what happens in these studies.

Then why do studies need to be done? I'll ask again..
Is it your intent to change the existing laws?

Or are you merely trying to help parents evaluate the damage that has been done by having their children involved in chronic porn viewing?

By the way --- asking a 10 yr old if they've seen Porn is probably gonna give you an answer like --- "Porn? That's a strange name for a doggie" And pursuing that further with a 10 yr old is QUICKLY gonna get illegal and unethical...

 

[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.

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

I don't have to. Google is your friend. Also, this is just common sense. Children think you are disgusting, as they do most nude adults. I thought they were disgusting looking when I was small too. Kids don't really want to see naked adults doing it.

 

[ChrisL]

The OP fixating on children is truely creepy.. From a science viewpoint, the way to assess this issue would be to allow children to be EXPOSED to porn (an actual criminal act) and assess the results. Much like answering the question of what happens if you deprive children of light or education..

The topic IMPLIES that it NEEDS to be studied. Rather than drawing the bright line that they WILL NOT BE exposed to certain things on common sense and principle.. Anyone here want to claim that it is GOOD for them? I have a few Cali friends who virtually ran nudie camps in their homes. But I'm certain that they would be appalled at the assertion that general porn is harmless to child development...

Resent your opening line. We've been through this. It's something that gets studied and needs to be studied. Just because you and some others are immature and unable to discuss mature subject matter doesn't mean those that can are suspect.

Again.. It CANNOT be studied adequately because the act of EXPOSING children to pornography IS A CRIME.. What part of illegal don't you understand? Is it your intent to change the existing laws?

Or are merely trying to help parents evaluate the damage that has been done by having their children involved in chronic porn viewing?

If you need help with the concept why studies are so useless and rare -- here's one that repeats what I just told you..

.... due to ethical and legal considerations.. "bout sums it up.. Does it NEED to be studied??? What do YOU acheive by investing time in "studying" it?

(deleted quoted material just to keep threads smaller)

Effects of exposure of pornography to children doesn't have to involve exposing children to pornography as most children have already seen it. You simply ask subjects involved "Have you ever seen pornography?" And that's what studies do.

Yes, sticking children who've never seen porn and giving them porn then observing the results is unethical and illegal. Good thing that ISN'T what happens in these studies.

Then why do studies need to be done? I'll ask again..

Is it your intent to change the existing laws?

Or are you merely trying to help parents evaluate the damage that has been done by having their children involved in chronic porn viewing?

By the way --- asking a 10 yr old if they've seen Porn is probably gonna give you an answer like --- "Porn? That's a strange name for a doggie" And pursuing that further with a 10 yr old is QUICKLY gonna get illegal and unethical...

If that is what his intent is, he should be watched by the police. There is definitely something the matter with people who want to sexualize children before they are ready.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

My intent is improve society by reducing violence. As I've mentione din other threads, people okay with pleasure are less likely to exhibit violence. Whereas those who reject pleasure are often more violent.

In figuring on what can be done to effect violence in our society, the inverse relationship between pleasure and violence is long been understood. But if part of pleasure acceptance involves porn, we need to know what effects porn might have if it became more socially and legally acceptable. So far the consensus is there aren't enough downsides that they overwhelm the upsides.

If anyone thinks they have a case to make, by all means inform the police, federal authorities. Continuing innuendo and allusion though is the act of desparate and infantile minds.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Internet Crime Complaint Center IC3 File a Complaint

FBI's white-collar crime division. Can fill in a complaint about anything relating to online crime. Knock yourselves out.

 

[westwall]

My intent is improve society by reducing violence. As I've mentione din other threads, people okay with pleasure are less likely to exhibit violence. Whereas those who reject pleasure are often more violent.

In figuring on what can be done to effect violence in our society, the inverse relationship between pleasure and violence is long been understood. But if part of pleasure acceptance involves porn, we need to know what effects porn might have if it became more socially and legally acceptable. So far the consensus is there aren't enough downsides that they overwhelm the upsides.

If anyone thinks they have a case to make, by all means inform the police, federal authorities. Continuing innuendo and allusion though is the act of desparate and infantile minds.

Pedophiles are not violent, except to children. Pedo's are normal in every respect except for their infatuation with children. Your stated goal is ridiculous on its face. 80% of violent crime is perpetrated by 8% of the criminal population. If you truly want to reduce violence lock them up forever. Sexualizing children so that they can be abused is simply criminal. It is not an "adult" conversation in the slightest. It is a NAMBLA ploy to try and make pedophilia legitimate.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

My intent is improve society by reducing violence. As I've mentione din other threads, people okay with pleasure are less likely to exhibit violence. Whereas those who reject pleasure are often more violent.

In figuring on what can be done to effect violence in our society, the inverse relationship between pleasure and violence is long been understood. But if part of pleasure acceptance involves porn, we need to know what effects porn might have if it became more socially and legally acceptable. So far the consensus is there aren't enough downsides that they overwhelm the upsides.

If anyone thinks they have a case to make, by all means inform the police, federal authorities. Continuing innuendo and allusion though is the act of desparate and infantile minds.

Pedophiles are not violent, except to children. Pedo's are normal in every respect except for their infatuation with children. Your stated goal is ridiculous on its face. 80% of violent crime is perpetrated by 8% of the criminal population. If you truly want to reduce violence lock them up forever. Sexualizing children so that they can be abused is simply criminal. It is not an "adult" conversation in the slightest. It is a NAMBLA ploy to try and make pedophilia legitimate.

Dunno whose proposing to sexualize children, but given how piss-poor some posters read I assume they're seeing things in their own minds they thought they saw in a thread.

Many kinds of pedophile offenders. Situational, chronic, exclusively-boys/girls, etc. Pedophiles are not normal in ANY respect.

Don't know how pedophiles even got into this discussion but for your bringing it here.

 

[flacaltenn]

My intent is improve society by reducing violence. As I've mentione din other threads, people okay with pleasure are less likely to exhibit violence. Whereas those who reject pleasure are often more violent.

In figuring on what can be done to effect violence in our society, the inverse relationship between pleasure and violence is long been understood. But if part of pleasure acceptance involves porn, we need to know what effects porn might have if it became more socially and legally acceptable. So far the consensus is there aren't enough downsides that they overwhelm the upsides.

If anyone thinks they have a case to make, by all means inform the police, federal authorities. Continuing innuendo and allusion though is the act of desparate and infantile minds.

Are you under the impression that porn is a cure all for violence? Is there really an epidemic of violence in the 10 to 18 yr old demographic? Think this is gonna be the answer to gang violence in Chicago? If only those under priviledged kids had been raised on a diet of pleasure and porn they wouldnt be so good at drivebys... REALLY??

 

[flacaltenn]

Now would be the time to propose such a test frame for youth violence. You have folks in office that might just believe in your plan. Go see ole Rahm Emanuel or Eric Holder while you can. Be sure to bring the materials that you want minors to pleasure in...

 

[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.

 

[ChrisL]

My intent is improve society by reducing violence. As I've mentione din other threads, people okay with pleasure are less likely to exhibit violence. Whereas those who reject pleasure are often more violent.

In figuring on what can be done to effect violence in our society, the inverse relationship between pleasure and violence is long been understood. But if part of pleasure acceptance involves porn, we need to know what effects porn might have if it became more socially and legally acceptable. So far the consensus is there aren't enough downsides that they overwhelm the upsides.

If anyone thinks they have a case to make, by all means inform the police, federal authorities. Continuing innuendo and allusion though is the act of desparate and infantile minds.

Pedophiles are not violent, except to children. Pedo's are normal in every respect except for their infatuation with children. Your stated goal is ridiculous on its face. 80% of violent crime is perpetrated by 8% of the criminal population. If you truly want to reduce violence lock them up forever. Sexualizing children so that they can be abused is simply criminal. It is not an "adult" conversation in the slightest. It is a NAMBLA ploy to try and make pedophilia legitimate.

Dunno whose proposing to sexualize children, but given how piss-poor some posters read I assume they're seeing things in their own minds they thought they saw in a thread.

Many kinds of pedophile offenders. Situational, chronic, exclusively-boys/girls, etc. Pedophiles are not normal in ANY respect.

Don't know how pedophiles even got into this discussion but for your bringing it here.

Do you not realize that by exposing to children to adult intimate sexual situations is confusing for them? They don't understand that kind of "love" yet. Also, it can give them the impression that this is the correct way to show love and affection towards people.

Exposing children to such things is a form of abuse, especially when you consider that pornography is disturbing for some adults! Also, there is a LOT of sexual violence, misogyny, and all sorts of degradation to women going on. How on earth you or anyone else could think of exposing children to this as "healthy" I do not know. IMO, it would be incredibly unhealthy.

 

[hollowwhale]

Hi, I do hope , I can still share my idea about Pornography. I look at it as a direct way to intend an action to cause sexual act. I find this not only harmful to children but also among adults. We should be aware of preventing our own kids with this kind of exposure. We must remember that this might be one of the causes of crimes.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Thought occured after I logged off last night, if pornography harms children who view it, how much until the harm manifests itself? What sort of pornography harms the most? Playboy? Hardcore porn proper? What about violence on tv, in movies, and videogames?

Judging by people's assertions to this thread, you'd think they'd agree violence in media and entertainment harms just like porn does. Yet would you then support legislation to ban violent imagery from media like you presumedly would porn?