(Apologies if this is too hetero-centric. Feel free to translate it into
politically correct terms for your own peace of mind if that's necessary.)
Rob Cakebread ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 July 2001 08:56 am, you wrote:
> > Check your premises. *Why* is it a problem for kids to have access to
> > porn?
> Because porn promotes sexual desire.
And why is that bad?
> Kids have more than enough of
> that without us giving them pornography.
Kids have no sexual desire to speak of. Teenagers are not kids. Please
define the age range you're talking about.
> What parent out there can come
> up with a good reason to give their kid access to porn?
I'm a parent. I let my kids have unrestricted access to the Internet.
My older son is 7, and he uses his freedom to look at web sites that
feature toys (Legos mostly) and monster movies (King Kong, Godzilla).
He also likes Cartoon Network, and their web site.
Later, I'm sure he'll use the Internet to look at pictures of nude or
scantily clad women (or even men). I don't see a problem with that.
(My 5-year-old does not show quite as much interest in the Internet yet.)
> I don't know about you, but I want to have sex when I when I see porno.
I want to have sex even when I *don't* see porno. Usually this desire
springs from seeing my wife, but even that isn't strictly necessary.
> >Why do assume parents should "protect" their children from sex?
>
> Because sex can be dangerous and result in a painful death.
Hence the need for sex education. Driving a car can be dangerous and can
result in a painful death, too -- I certainly wouldn't let my children
drive a car without teaching them how!
> That is why parents should protect their children from sex. That's why
> virtually every country has laws protecting children from sex.
Pornography is *not* the same as sex, any more than watching "Jaws" is the
same as being attacked by a shark.
You can't "protect your kids from sex". Instead, you teach them how to
be responsible and safe. Abstinence is one way to achieve this goal, but
it's a temporary solution. In the long term, a monogamous relationship,
combined with contraceptives, is a better approach.
> I think kids have enough trouble concentrating on what they should be doing
> (school, growing up) without having free access to porn.
In my experience growing up (with partial access to porn [magazines]
but no Internet) I found that having access to porn did *not* interfere
with my school work at all. I was valedictorian, despite having seen
a few pictures of breasts and vaginas (and later, the real items).
> And please don't suggest we bombard kids with porn and then tell them
> "Don't do that till you are old enough."
If you want to prevent your children from being bombarded by sexually
titillating imagery, you'll have to raise them outside the USA. Have
you taken a good look at commercial television lately? Or billboards
on the side of the road in urban areas?
For that matter, have you forgotten what the girls looked like when you
were in school? (Or were you unfortunate enough to have been forced to
attend a school that only admitted students of one sex?) Some of the
girls I went to school with were quite arousing even fully clothed.
Part of the education of any young man or woman is interaction with
members of the opposite sex. People need to learn to live with their
sexuality, and channel their emotions and needs into non-destructive
channels. At first this means masturbation. Later, we hope, it will
mean safe(r) sexual practices, leading to a stable long-term relationship.
By "protecting kids from sex" (by which I assume you mean suppressing
all that could possibly arouse them until they reach some arbitrary age,
then suddenly removing the blinders), all you do is prevent them from
undergoing a normal, gradual emotional growth.
--
Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | - The Red Hot Chili Peppers
http://wooledge.org/~greg/ |
PGP signature
