> Here's my reason: the alternative (censorship) is worse. I would rather
> let my children explore the Internet than a walled-off subset thereof.
> Pixels and sonic vibrations are not harmful. The ideas they convey may
> be confusing to children, which is why my wife and I are here with them.
> They're certainly too young to be left unsupervised!
The alternative is not censorship of the net, filters etc. The alternative is
to supervise children. I hate to break it to you but they already are viewing
a walled-off subset of the Internet because you are standing behind
them. I doubt you'll ever have to tell them, "Don't you dare go
to www.double-anal.com!" (I didn't check, but a buck says that
is a real site).
You're offering a different picture now. You said ' I let my kids have
unrestricted access to the Internet'. Now you're saying you supervise
them, and good for you. You're the only filter that works.
Watching over their shoulder isn't exactly un-restricted. Even if my parents
had said, "Go ahead, look at whatever you want", I'd have been too
embarassed to explore where I wanted.
By the way, I can't believe there are rooms full of people getting paid to go
to porn sites and add the address to a list in filtering software. It is so
laughable to think they are even coming close to making a list of 'all' porn
sites.
Any parent who buys that software and thinks they don't have to still
watch their kids are real geniuses.
> Of course, as I said earlier, this specific issue hasn't come up yet,
> because my 5- and 7-year-olds have shown no inclination to seek erotic
> material on the Internet yet.
I doubt very seriously they'll show that inclination while you're watching
them use the Internet, even when they are 13, 16, whatever.
You're an adult and I doubt you'd surf your 'erotic material' in front
of your relatives, adult peers etc.
> > > 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.
> >
> > Later? So now you define an age range.
>
> Whenever he is ready to search for erotic material, I'm sure he will find
> it. (He already knows how to use Google.) I'm guessing he will be about
> 12 at the time, but it might happen sooner. (My 7-year-old is mildly
> autistic, so his development is not at the rate of a "normal" child.)
Again, porn: Whips, chains, gay dogs doing dwarves, horses doing monkeys.
Not vanilla.
> My 5-year-old is more "normal", so he may actually be the first one to
> bring this issue to my immediate attention.
I doubt your kid is going to say 'Hey pop, where's all the sophisticated
erotic literature and imagery? I'm ready!'.
> > 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.
>
> Nitpick #2: please define 'porn'. David offered a definition that I've
> never heard before. In this message, I'm switching to the phrase "erotic
> material" to more clearly state what I'm talking about.
See above. Horses doing monkies, anything goes.
> I'll also give an example: <http://www.sexuality.org/>. I consider that
> one of the best sites on the entire World Wide Web.
Sounds boring. Thanks, but I like the nasty dirty stuff.
> I see no basis for your argument. If anything, I'd expect to see the
> opposite -- giving them access to erotic material (especially of the
> more educational variety) is likely to lead to higher self-esteem and a
> greater awareness of the nature of sex and its consequences. I'd expect
> an increase in masturbation, and a decrease in the guilt associated with
> it by our society.
>
> Pregnancy and STDs would require a partner, which is not something
> they're going to find by watching movies and masturbating!
I think kids have plenty of wank material just from watching tv, peeking
up the teachers skirt, watching the washing machine, the dirty
magazines they find etc. Do they really needed unrestricted access
to porn?
The number of young girls getting pregnant is going up and up. The age
is going down. Sexual disease in children is on the rise.
Maybe its the hormones in milk. Maybe its Pamela Anderson on
Bay Watch.
Giving them full, unrestricted access to porn wouldn't affect those numbers?
> > > 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?
>
> I expect that by the time my sons start dating, they'll keep their
> activities largely secret from me. If they tell me they went to see a
> movie, I'd probably assume it was something a bit more mainstream.
>
> My wife and I never watched erotic movies together while we were dating;
> if one of my sons were to find a young woman willing to do that, I'd
> quite frankly be a bit envious. I think the odds of that occurring are
> a bit low, however, given what I know of young (high-school-aged) women.
> Maybe I'm mistaken and there are hordes of sexually open young women out
> there eager to watch erotic movies with young men -- but I was never
> fortunate enough to meet any of them.
I would be suprised too. But since you said you gave your kids unrestricted
access, I could only think you meant, uh, unrestricted access. My scenario was
in this imaginary world where children watch pornos in between cartoons
without parents caring. (More likely cartoons in-between pornos)
> (I'm assuming my sons will be heterosexual. So far they've both shown
> signs of being attracted to girls.)
>
> > 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'... ?
>
> Wow, your taste in erotic material is vastly different from mine,
> it seems!
Yeah, love that girl. But that is porn. And that is what I've been talking
about. If you let your kids watch 'anything', Jenna would certainly fall
in that category. Your kids might have tastes like mine when they
are older but still children. Suprise suprise.
> Perhaps something from http://www.bluedoor.com/ would be a bit more
> suitable for the rest of us.
This is a Freenet mailing list, so judging by the majority of porn found in
Freenet, I doubt it. }:^)
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
