On Tuesday 31 July 2001 03:26 pm, you wrote:
> (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.
Ok, how about 'child'? I consider teenagers kids, but consult your local
laws for what age 'child' in 'child-endangerment' law means.
I had sexual desires when I was 10. Before that, I dont't remember.
Babies masturbate, so don't tell me children don't have sexual desires.
> > 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.
You didn't answer my question.
> 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.)
Later? So now you define an age range.
> > 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!
Giving kids pornography is sex education? Kids don't have a natural
urge to drive a car. They do have a natural hormone-driven desire
to have sex. Giving them porn will just increase the rate of child
pregnancy and children with STDs.
> > 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.
I didn't say pornography was sex so your analogy means nothing. Watching
pornos does make kids want to have sex. Why encourage them?
> 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.
Giving them pornography won't promote abstinence, teach them to be
responsible and safe, or promote monogomy.
> > 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).
You didn't have free access to porn. You had partial, and without your
parent's consent, I imagine. A world of difference when your parents
aren't the ones giving you pornography.
>
> > 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?
>
I didn't say sexually titillating, I said PORN.
> 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.
And how would you like your child hanging out with a child he/she found
arousing and they watched porno movies together?
> 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.
Your children need to see Jenna Jaimeson get gang banged by two
guys and a girl while 7 others wait their turn in line to learn 'interaction
with members of the opposite sex'... ?
> 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.
Why do you question what I mean by 'protecting kids from sex'? I wrote about
not giving children access to porn.
Quit assuming and read what I wrote. I said the word 'porno' over and over.
I doubt the child-endangerment laws where you live don't have an arbitrary
age.
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
