6 ms·

We did a good job keeping our kids away from porn on our home network but my 11-year-old daughter was shown porn by one of her friends during a sleep over. This

We did a good job keeping our kids away from porn on our home network but my 11-year-old daughter was shown porn by one of her friends during a sleep over. This was years ago before unlimited phone data and before pornhub was doing mainstream advertising. I cannot imagine how a parent can keep their children safe today.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> cannot imagine how a parent can keep their children safe today Is there evidence such prohibition keeps kids safe? It’s the environment I grew up in. But the kids who had healthy home environments where such topics weren’t taboo seemed to have a leg up.
- zirgs 4y ago
  When I was a kid - it was not possible to access hardcore porn with one click. Even adults could not do it back then.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    Kind of a weird statement since we are anon here. It is entirely possible that when you were a kid, computers didn't even display graphics.
    - zirgs 4y ago
      My whole childhood - the 90s - was computer-free. Pornhub didn't exist back then.
- notinfuriated 4y ago
  It's a bit of a leap to assume that not wanting or allowing your 11-year-old to watch pornography means that such topics (presumably, sex) are completely "taboo" in the home.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    It's quite a leap to assume that the parent had in mind exactly two scenarios and wasn't mentioning specifics from their life experience.
    - notinfuriated 4y ago
      The difference is that my comment didn't suggest anyone had an unhealthy home environment based on their opinion on this topic. The parent comment did.
- bhouston 4y ago
  My daughter has a girlfriend who was watching hardcore porn at age 7 or 8 and telling my daughter all about it. That is not healthy for that kid. They are going to get the wrong impression of how to interact with boys and it is pretty clear something is off with that kid now. We limit alcohol, driving, tobacco, voting for minors because we judge them not smart enough to make good decisions. Why do you feel we should not exclude hardcore porn?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Why do you feel we should not exclude hardcore porn? I don’t think kids should watch porn. I do think banning it will be as successful as we’ve been with alcohol, with the same blowback that comes from surrounding something in mystery and black markets.
    - bhouston 4y ago
      Raising barriers to access works. Kids generally do not drink alcohol, drive, vote or smoke. There are exceptions but it makes it a lot harder and does reduce access. And when they do drink and smoke it is generally when they are close in age to the end of the ban. To say that some will get around it doesn’t mean we should not do what is best for that group as a whole. Unlimited and early extensive use of social media and hardcore porn is not healthy for kids. It will screw up their worldview. We should ban and limit them smartly if we want to support healthy kids.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        Porn, a digital good, is easier to circumvent access controls to than alcohol. And we’re crap at keeping our kids from drinking before they’re even fifteen [1]. So I agree with the goal: less porn in front of children. But I disagree with the method: trying to ban it. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/725020/age-of-first-alcohol-use-among-young-people-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/725020/age-of-first-alco...
        4y ago
- DrThunder 4y ago
  A leg up in what? In having more mental health problems? The majority of kids now have pretty much unlimited internet access and mental health issues have risen exponentially. Statistics don't seem to support your stance here.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    There's growing evidence that it's social media in its entirety which is the problem for kids - as a vehicle for unrealistic expectations, distorted self-image, and bullying. But the social media platforms mostly ban porn.
    - DrThunder 4y ago
      It's the constant easily obtained dopamine hits that are the problem. Porn and social media are exactly the same in that regard. I would also disagree that social media does a good job of banning porn. There's also sorts of nasty stuff that gets shown to kids on social media, not just porn but violence as well.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        > There's also sorts of nasty stuff that gets shown to kids on social media, not just porn but violence as well. I remember writing much the same in a letter to the editor back in the late 90s, while I was still at school[0]. Only difference is, I was pointing out how weird it was that 16-year-old-me was banned by law from seeing acts that I was allowed to perform[0] while at the same time outright homicide was a thing that sometimes got included in cartoons specifically deemed suitable for young children. [0] the UK age of consent is 16 but the age to go into adult shops or see adult films is 18… or at least it was when I was 16 myself, I've had no reason to check if it still is or not.
edent 4y ago
How did your parents keep you safe from one of your friends bringing an illicit copy of Playboy to your sleepovers?
- zirgs 4y ago
  Playboy is way tamer than current porn sites where anything 18+ goes.
- jamal-kumar 4y ago
  When I was a kid I used to walk my dog around this nearby area that wasn't developed at all and every year some coomer would leave a giant pile of porn mag subscriptions from like a long time back, he'd be cycling out stuff from like 10 years ago and just leaving it on top of these rocks. I guess he was thinking someone might find them and take them away like some kind of treasure or something when really they'd just blow all over the place and cover the area in porn until it rained and sunbleached away while us kids would just laugh at it and try to keep the dog from sniffing it.
Loughla 4y ago
You can't keep your kids "safe" in the traditional Leave it to Beaver avoid at all costs and block it out sort of way. You can keep your kids safe by educating them about what is out there, and by troubleshooting what they can do when confronted with it, as well as having on-going discussions about whatever the topic is and providing safe, non-judgmental escape chutes for when they need it. And even then, you just have to hope for the best. My two cents, for what that's worth. I have no research to back this up, just my own experience with my kids.
cjfd 4y ago
Is children occasionally seeing a bit of porn unsafe?
- 9999px 4y ago
  WTF is wrong with the people on this site?
renewiltord 4y ago
I saw porn when I was 13 and not only do I have lots of fulfilling friendships and relationships, but I'm also high income. I'm getting the impression that perhaps this is just another in the list of dangerous things that aren't dangerous.
pjc50 4y ago
It's interesting that there's broad consensus for this but if the related question of misogynist-but-not-actually-pornographic influences from, say, recently arrested rapist Andrew Tate had come up, the question "how do we keep misogynist influencers away from children" or "how do we ensure kids are 18 before they first hear a racial or homophobic slur, let alone repeat them" would have met incredibly strong pushback. The belief seems to be that ideological content is necessarily always entirely harmless, whereas nudity is magically harmful? Not to mention widespread book-banning on the mere mention of LGBT people, which are deemed "not suitable for children" despite not actually having sexual content? How do we actually determine harm here, and avoid being buffeted by propaganda? There's a long history of banning all sorts of things on think-of-the-children grounds. Things like "access to information about contraception" have previously been considered obscene. How do we avoid going round this discourse treadmill forever?
- nerdponx 4y ago
  [dead]

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> cannot imagine how a parent can keep their children safe today Is there evidence such prohibition keeps kids safe? It’s the environment I grew up in. But the kids who had healthy home environments where such topics weren’t taboo seemed to have a leg up.

zirgs 4y ago
When I was a kid - it was not possible to access hardcore porn with one click. Even adults could not do it back then.
- latchkey 4y ago
  Kind of a weird statement since we are anon here. It is entirely possible that when you were a kid, computers didn't even display graphics.
  - zirgs 4y ago
    My whole childhood - the 90s - was computer-free. Pornhub didn't exist back then.
notinfuriated 4y ago
It's a bit of a leap to assume that not wanting or allowing your 11-year-old to watch pornography means that such topics (presumably, sex) are completely "taboo" in the home.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  It's quite a leap to assume that the parent had in mind exactly two scenarios and wasn't mentioning specifics from their life experience.
  - notinfuriated 4y ago
    The difference is that my comment didn't suggest anyone had an unhealthy home environment based on their opinion on this topic. The parent comment did.
bhouston 4y ago
My daughter has a girlfriend who was watching hardcore porn at age 7 or 8 and telling my daughter all about it. That is not healthy for that kid. They are going to get the wrong impression of how to interact with boys and it is pretty clear something is off with that kid now. We limit alcohol, driving, tobacco, voting for minors because we judge them not smart enough to make good decisions. Why do you feel we should not exclude hardcore porn?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Why do you feel we should not exclude hardcore porn? I don’t think kids should watch porn. I do think banning it will be as successful as we’ve been with alcohol, with the same blowback that comes from surrounding something in mystery and black markets.
  - bhouston 4y ago
    Raising barriers to access works. Kids generally do not drink alcohol, drive, vote or smoke. There are exceptions but it makes it a lot harder and does reduce access. And when they do drink and smoke it is generally when they are close in age to the end of the ban. To say that some will get around it doesn’t mean we should not do what is best for that group as a whole. Unlimited and early extensive use of social media and hardcore porn is not healthy for kids. It will screw up their worldview. We should ban and limit them smartly if we want to support healthy kids.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      Porn, a digital good, is easier to circumvent access controls to than alcohol. And we’re crap at keeping our kids from drinking before they’re even fifteen [1]. So I agree with the goal: less porn in front of children. But I disagree with the method: trying to ban it. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/725020/age-of-first-alcohol-use-among-young-people-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/725020/age-of-first-alco...
      - 4y ago
DrThunder 4y ago
A leg up in what? In having more mental health problems? The majority of kids now have pretty much unlimited internet access and mental health issues have risen exponentially. Statistics don't seem to support your stance here.
- pjc50 4y ago
  There's growing evidence that it's social media in its entirety which is the problem for kids - as a vehicle for unrealistic expectations, distorted self-image, and bullying. But the social media platforms mostly ban porn.
  - DrThunder 4y ago
    It's the constant easily obtained dopamine hits that are the problem. Porn and social media are exactly the same in that regard. I would also disagree that social media does a good job of banning porn. There's also sorts of nasty stuff that gets shown to kids on social media, not just porn but violence as well.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      > There's also sorts of nasty stuff that gets shown to kids on social media, not just porn but violence as well. I remember writing much the same in a letter to the editor back in the late 90s, while I was still at school[0]. Only difference is, I was pointing out how weird it was that 16-year-old-me was banned by law from seeing acts that I was allowed to perform[0] while at the same time outright homicide was a thing that sometimes got included in cartoons specifically deemed suitable for young children. [0] the UK age of consent is 16 but the age to go into adult shops or see adult films is 18… or at least it was when I was 16 myself, I've had no reason to check if it still is or not.

edent 4y ago

How did your parents keep you safe from one of your friends bringing an illicit copy of Playboy to your sleepovers?

zirgs 4y ago
Playboy is way tamer than current porn sites where anything 18+ goes.
jamal-kumar 4y ago
When I was a kid I used to walk my dog around this nearby area that wasn't developed at all and every year some coomer would leave a giant pile of porn mag subscriptions from like a long time back, he'd be cycling out stuff from like 10 years ago and just leaving it on top of these rocks. I guess he was thinking someone might find them and take them away like some kind of treasure or something when really they'd just blow all over the place and cover the area in porn until it rained and sunbleached away while us kids would just laugh at it and try to keep the dog from sniffing it.

Loughla 4y ago

You can't keep your kids "safe" in the traditional Leave it to Beaver avoid at all costs and block it out sort of way. You can keep your kids safe by educating them about what is out there, and by troubleshooting what they can do when confronted with it, as well as having on-going discussions about whatever the topic is and providing safe, non-judgmental escape chutes for when they need it. And even then, you just have to hope for the best. My two cents, for what that's worth. I have no research to back this up, just my own experience with my kids.

cjfd 4y ago

Is children occasionally seeing a bit of porn unsafe?

9999px 4y ago
WTF is wrong with the people on this site?

renewiltord 4y ago

I saw porn when I was 13 and not only do I have lots of fulfilling friendships and relationships, but I'm also high income. I'm getting the impression that perhaps this is just another in the list of dangerous things that aren't dangerous.

pjc50 4y ago

It's interesting that there's broad consensus for this but if the related question of misogynist-but-not-actually-pornographic influences from, say, recently arrested rapist Andrew Tate had come up, the question "how do we keep misogynist influencers away from children" or "how do we ensure kids are 18 before they first hear a racial or homophobic slur, let alone repeat them" would have met incredibly strong pushback. The belief seems to be that ideological content is necessarily always entirely harmless, whereas nudity is magically harmful? Not to mention widespread book-banning on the mere mention of LGBT people, which are deemed "not suitable for children" despite not actually having sexual content? How do we actually determine harm here, and avoid being buffeted by propaganda? There's a long history of banning all sorts of things on think-of-the-children grounds. Things like "access to information about contraception" have previously been considered obscene. How do we avoid going round this discourse treadmill forever?

nerdponx 4y ago
[dead]