3 ms·
"Children's privacy" isn't a thing. They are wards of their parents, whose basic fucking job requires they have some clue where the kid is and what they're g
by jstarfish 4y ago
"Children's privacy" isn't a thing. They are wards of their parents, whose basic fucking job requires they have some clue where the kid is and what they're getting up to.
Then you bring up porn, something illegal for children to be accessing anyway. You are aware of this, yes?
Shame on parents for daring to uphold the law in their own homes.
- thomastjeffery 4y agoLegality is not morality. It is a parent's responsibility to ensure their child is safe, and that does involve some level of intrusion. It doesn't mean reading their diary or listening in on every conversation they have with their friends. How else can a child learn healthy boundaries? Is it really a surprise to you that many humans under the age of 18 are watching porn? A vague legal threat never stopped me, and it's not going to stop most teenagers. No matter what the law says, that is the reality we live in. As I see it, changing the legal age for porn consumption would be a political nightmare, not because it's hard to argue that teenagers should be allowed, but because it is hard to argue that teenagers should be marketed to as direct consumers. Personally, I find this entire situation counterproductive, but the tacit allowal of teenagers to watch porn (and not necessarily pay for it) without prosecution has been a workable compromise.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]