19 ms·
Just the fact that pornography is being taken seriously as something that's dangerous for minors is a good thing really.
by theclansman 3y ago
Just the fact that pornography is being taken seriously as something that's dangerous for minors is a good thing really.
- welshwelsh 3y agoWhy do you think that? I think it's a good thing for minors to have unrestricted access to porn
- e40 3y agoMy 22 year old son vehemently disagrees. And from what I've read from young men, many agree with him. When I (we?) were kids porn was Playboy or Penthouse or Hustler. Tame by comparison to today. As my son stressed with me, you can find _anything_ via the internet. Anything. ANYTHING. A developing brain can't unsee stuff and it does warp people's perceptions of what is normal. Having said that, I am deeply suspicious of any move to "protect the children" because it's always used as a cover for a move toward authoritarianism.
- Aachen 3y agoI'm not that much older than your son and had a different experience. (My youth was definitely not magazines, if that's what playboy and penthouse are supposed to refer to.) I think we'll need more than n=2 before being able to come to an informed conclusion here.
- 0zemp2c 3y ago[flagged]
- mensetmanusman 3y ago“Children, after we watch Daniel Tiger, we will watch what happens to this school teacher by all these men” There is actually a long dark history of adults abusing children by exposing/exploiting them in regards to such topics. It was rife in Germany post WW2 in certain communities, currently a huge issue in Pakistan. Child trafficking on an absolute basis is higher now than it has been. That’s just to say, people like who you are asking to seek help are numerous and unchecked behavior in this area has a dark history in humanity.
- sbaiddn 3y agoCall me a prude. Call me old fashioned. Call me small minded. But watching a woman getting chocked while DPed in her anus while a half dozen men ejaculate on her is not the type of extra-curricular activity [1] I want my soon to be teenaged daughters' boyfriends interested in. Im just... overprotective I guess. [1] If anyone calls me out for knowing what's on the front page of all of these smut sites, guess what? We all know what's on those sites!
- jnwatson 3y agoI’m sympathetic to your argument, but consider the case where you remove the sex from the above picture. It is normal and not specially restricted to have violent torture-like scenes in modern media. The problem isn’t the sex. The problem is the violence.
- the_doctah 3y agoGetting choked is a common fetish though.
- drdeca 3y ago[flagged]
- Timon3 3y agoDo you have any evidence? Seems like a whole lot of people were deeply hurt by feet.
- 3np 3y agoWould it be as prevalent if minors weren't exposed to hardcore porn?
- wkat4242 3y agoDoes it matter? Why is it bad when people like getting choked and it's happening consensually?
- berkes 3y agoBut is pornography dangerous for minors? Has it been researched? What "dangers" are there? Do these apply to all age groups of "minors"?
- BurnGpuBurn 3y ago[flagged]
- tnel77 3y agoThis is definitely the thought provoking commentary I look for on Hacker News. Either make an intelligent argument or hush.
- hhjinks 3y agoI think it's perfectly fine to assume that pornography might warp a child's view of sex and intimacy. The solution shouldn't be to force people to identify themselves, though. Parents have all the tools they need to shield their children from pornhub, if they so wish.
- berkes 3y agoI agree that -without more knowledge- it's probably best to presume pornography might warp young peoples view of sex and intimacy. But isn't that all the more reason to research this and educate people in this? So that adults can provide context and background? And to learn which kind of pornography is more dangerous than others in this? So that, with knowledge kids can be shielded from the stuff that's bad from them, and help understand the stuff that isn't?
- degentracker12 3y agoSome of the world's oldest institutions have already researched this topic significantly and have worked together to compile and provide a common piece of literature that is widely available should you wish to embrace it.
- afavour 3y agoYou’ll get some angry responses to this but I think it’s very worthwhile to say. Yes, ID verification in order to watch pornography is deeply Orwellian and terrifying (which is the aspect places like HN tend to focus on) but the bulk of the public support for these measures isn’t because people want government surveillance, it’s because they want to look out for children. Are they misguided? Perhaps. But you can’t win them over without addressing it. Shouting “it’s government overreach!” at those people will achieve nothing.
- ericmay 3y agoJust to be clear that: > but the bulk of the public support for these measures isn’t because people want government surveillance Does not mean the majority of the public supports those measures, though perhaps those who do support those measures do so because of reasons other than explicitly wanting the government to surveil them. I don't think you are implying that the majority of the public supports those measures but I did want to make it clear that this was still an open question.
- xdennis 3y ago> it’s because they want to look out for children The issue is that it's _their_ job to look out for their children. We don't force all beds to have "walls", and give adults the keys to lower them if they show proof of age. Parents are supposed to buy _cribs_ for their children.
- nathan_compton 3y agoBut if a parent neglects those responsibilities society is understood to have the right to intervene. In other words, the state has the responsibility to intervene on behalf of society for the well being of children. Given that responsibility, its pretty easy to suggest that the state has the power to make laws which may protect children over and above what individual parents might do.
- rootusrootus 3y agoI think most of us understand the line for gov't involvement to be much closer to the abuse end of the scale than the ate-too-much-candy end. We know empirically that gov't intervention itself has significant consequences that may completely outweigh the damage being done by whatever bad behavior they were trying to solve.
- scarface74 3y agoYes “think about the children”. If anything, there should be a law that forces all ISPs and even device manufacturers of “internet enabled devices” to have clear instructions on how to use parental controls. This would be far less onerous since it’s already a feature they have and it protects privacy.
- ActorNightly 3y agoExcept despite the vast amounts of counter-evidence, people still are somehow dumb enough to think that hiding stuff from kids works (drugs, guns, porn, e.t.c). Porn is absolutely fine for kids to watch as long as the parents properly contextualize it. The issue is that somehow societally accepted that its taboo to talk to your kid about sex at an early age, and plenty of otherwise normal parents are embarrassed to do it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Myrmornis 3y agoWhat age would you suggest having these conversations so that the kids' porn-viewing sessions can commence?
- Eisenstein 3y agoPuberty age sounds logical.
- ActorNightly 3y agoAs early as 4. Not jumping straight to porn, but starting sex ed. It works very well in Netherlands, where teens end up having much healthier relationships, fewer sexual partners, and less unwanted pregnancies.
- sh4rks 3y agoIn what world is sex-Ed comparable to hardcore pornography?
- ActorNightly 3y agoWho said anything about hardcore pornography? 2 people having consensual romantic sex is still porn. Nothing wrong with educating a kid how sex works by showing him/her a video of that. At some point later in the years, the kid will probably stumble onto some hardcore porn, but if you contextualize it properly, he/she will understand that its not how real relationships work. In the same way, its ok (and probably good) if your teen tries weed/alcohol under your supervision, with the proper education around it, but you aren't going to give your kid like a heroin injection just because he/she is curious. But the fact that you establish trust and educate your kid about drugs that he/she will certainly come across is the more important bit about them staying away from harder drugs. Instead of outright ban, and then kid discovering how good weed makes them feel, and then going out and trying harder drugs. Like I shouldn't have to explain this basic concepts to people. Really makes me worry about all the parents raising their kids these days.
- tomjen3 3y agoPorn is not dangerous, it is just parents that don't want to talk about sex with their kids. What is dangerous is social media, which should be banned < 21.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoPornography is dangerous. It's extremely addictive and users become increasingly tolerant to what their viewing, often leading to the development of distressing fetishes or real life intimacy issues. I'm sex positive and I believe in being open with children about the realities of life but the dangers of pornography are real.
- juve1996 3y ago> It's extremely addictive and users become increasingly tolerant to what their viewing, often leading to the development of distressing fetishes or real life intimacy issues. This is a strong claim - please provide a source. I think it may be true, but is it?
- AlecSchueler 3y agoThe Wikipedia page for pornography addiction lists several good sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction And YourBrainOnPorn gathered together some of the literature about escalation: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nl/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/studies-find-escalation-and-habituation-in-porn-users-tolerance/ https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nl/relevant-research-and-art...
- laserlight 3y agoHere's the first sentence of the Wikipedia article: > Pornography addiction is the popular but unscientific[5] application of an addiction model to the use of pornography. [5] Science Stopped Believing in Porn Addiction. You Should, Too. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201808/science-stopped-believing-in-porn-addiction-you-should-too https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/2018...
- rchaud 3y agoThat is something that your parents or community elders could have told you. Why does the state need to intervene? Phub is also a legitimate business that has commercial advertising interests in the US, so they're incentivized to play nice. There are about a million other websites that aren't based in North America, contain only pirated material, and don't care about what laws are applicable where.
- mind-blight 3y agoPornHub refused to take down child porn and rape videos (not actors, actual assaults) on their platform for years. They only took them down when the victims in the videos took them to court and the NYT published an exposé. They're in the middle of being sued right now, and the evidence that's coming to light in that case is pretty damning. Given how poorly they've behaved so far, I don't agree that they're incentivized to play nice.
- rchaud 3y agoYou're just making my point. This is the new and improved PH that's trying to go legit and abides by local laws and regulations. All the other sites? Not so much.
- armatav 3y agoHalf the kids in this nation don’t have the parental guidance to avoid addictions in general. The point of the US is to let the states self-regulate things like this.
- Longlius 3y agoI think it's good, but I really wish the solution was, "We need parents to take a more active role in their children's lives and supervise their internet usage" and not, "Lockdown and de-anonymize the web."
- QuarterReptile 3y agoOn the other hand, if you as a legislator perceive a social evil, and your options are to pass a law or to get all the parents to take away their kids' phones and switch back to desktop computers (used only in a common area), which do you pick?
- dragonwriter 3y agoI dunno, is the law unlikely to work at its nominal goal and likely to, in practice, substantially burden adults in activities that they are and ought to be free to do, and also largely being advocated by people who fairly openly want to curtail adults practical access, but have been frustrated by Constitutional protections in their efforts in that direction?
- QuarterReptile 3y agoI don't find your line of thinking to be consistent with a legislator.
- GoofballJones 3y agoIs it? Is this a States thing? That in the United States that nudity and pornography is "dangerous", yet in other cultures throughout Europe, it's not taken as seriously, nor does it have this overall "dangerous" tag to it (generally speaking that is. Prudish people trying to impose their will on others can be a world-wide phenomenon). And does this put a curb on explicit R rated movies that has nudity and acts of sex? Is it just the penetration shots that are "dangerous"? Also, it doesn't even touch on if ultra violent content strewn around, well, EVERYWHERE isn't "dangerous"? Where is the state bans on violence in movies and TV (they've already tried with video games)? But OMFG, if you dare to show a woman's breast, it's "dangerous". Give me a break.
- throwaway743 3y agoIt's embedded by the puritanical roots of the US. It's nonsense really.
- tivert 3y ago> It's embedded by the puritanical roots of the US. It's nonsense really. It's worth noting that the reactionary response to that (e.g. porn is good and totally healthy and everything bad said about it is fake news) is also nonsense.
- throwaway743 3y agoYou're absolutely right, but the issue is more nuanced than simply "porn is good" or "porn is bad.". The root of the problem lies in the fact that the discussion around sex and sex health in the US is often clouded by puritanical beliefs and an aversion to discussing these topics in an open and honest manner. This typically leads to a lack of comprehensive sex education and the stigmatization of porn, which has never done anyone any good. As a country, we need to be more open and honest about sex, and recognize that censorship and puritanical attitudes have no place in shaping our laws or social norms.
- freedomben 3y agoI agree generally that there is some serious puritanical roots in the US that are still at heavy play today. But there must be more to what's happening than just that. in other threads it's bewing shown that many European countries and Canada are passing similar laws. Puritanical roots of Europe?
- marcod 3y agoForgot who said it, but every 12 year old with their unrestricted iPhone has 24/7 access to Bukakke.
- evilspammer 3y ago[dead]