10 ms·
But is pornography dangerous for minors? Has it been researched? What "dangers" are there? Do these apply to all age groups of "minors"?
by berkes 4y ago
But is pornography dangerous for minors? Has it been researched? What "dangers" are there? Do these apply to all age groups of "minors"?
- BurnGpuBurn 4y ago[flagged]
- tnel77 4y agoThis is definitely the thought provoking commentary I look for on Hacker News. Either make an intelligent argument or hush.
- hhjinks 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
- berkes 4y agoThe same book that has clothing rules like "don't wear clothing of mixed material" or food safety guidelines like "it is forbidden to eat animals from the water which don't have fins"? A book that was written way before internet porn existed? Before science existed? Such a book would help? Thanks, but I'll pass.
- bumby 4y agoI know HN tends toward the libertarian slant, but this same perspective can be applied to all kinds of ills that are regulated, from smoking to driving. This falls into the common refrain about "what do we do with kids who don't have responsible parents?" I'm not sure just letting the chips fall where they may when it comes to kids who got a shit roll of the dice when it comes to parents is a great societal solution.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- least 4y agoI'd say that I don't think children should be limited in opportunity due to the circumstances of their upbringing, but with those considerations in mind, protecting them from finding a way to access pornography is pretty low on that list of priorities, especially given that legislation like this will be wholly ineffective at accomplishing its purported goal and will needlessly burden the people who are legally trying to access pornography. It's just not possible to address this issue without there being an intersection of how adults also access these adult things. A lot of other access controls in society are more reasonable than any proposal that people have come up with in this thread to restrict online pornography access to minors. This is why we place the burden on parents.
- bumby 4y agoI think it's perfectly reasonable to say the risk isn't sufficient to justify this kind of action. But how exactly are you measuring the risk in terms of the higher priority risks you mention? I think the danger is people revert to their intuition about what is risky, rather than defining it by an objective measure.
- least 4y agoHigher priority risks are things that are easily measurable. A child that does not have food to eat or cannot access healthcare they need because their parents cannot afford it is very obviously bad for the child. Educational opportunities are another thing that's pretty easy to measure. Measuring the negative effects, if any, viewing pornography has on children isn't particularly easy to measure. I would say it's not ethically possible. So ultimately, policy judgments with regards to increasing access controls are going to be dependent on intuition, one way or another, and individuals' political philosophies. I personally don't think there's any case where I think legislation like this is appropriate, though. If it were, it would be overwhelmingly obvious that it is. Clearly Utahan legislators think differently.
- ndriscoll 4y agoI'm not really a fan of the solution (something more along the lines of the v-chip where commercial sites in the US are required to identify their content categories in a standard way so browsers could be configured to block it seems like a better solution), and sites like pornhub are straightforward enough to include in blocking software, but currently sites like Reddit present a problem. Looking at recent dumps[0], it looks like ~40% of posts on Reddit are marked nsfw, but those posts are on the same domain as things like /r/teenagers and /r/roblox. Without a MITM proxy, parents can't really block the porn half of the site unless they block the whole thing. [0] https://files.pushshift.io/reddit/submissions/ https://files.pushshift.io/reddit/submissions/
- mind-blight 4y agoThere's also the problem that lots is highly viewed NSFW content on Reddit isn't porn. Check out r/AskReddit. There are questions about how people feel about death that are marked NSFW for reasons I can't understand.
- ZekeSulastin 4y agoReddit has an account setting to hide NSFW-marked content from your feed and search results, so people will mark “distressing” content NSFW as a crude opt-in.
- theclansman 4y agoI feel like in our society we're always beta testing everything before researching its effects, shouldn't we research the effects of internet pornography in kids before allowing them unlimited access to it? I think the same thing should be done with social media. There's obviously a thin line where you have to use common sense (where do we start and where do we stop?) but the consensus has always been that this is adult content just like violent movies and alcohol so it should be enforced in at least some way.
- Eisenstein 4y ago> shouldn't we research the effects of internet pornography in kids before How do you propose we do that ethically?
- berkes 4y agoI'm no sociological, or psychological scholar, but I can imagine that simply by asking kids in high school questions, you'll learn plenty. There are many researches done and still being done on how addictive drugs are, or on the negative (or positive) effects of drugs. Eventhough they are both illegal and often rather dangerous. You don't need to feed a healthy 15 year/old a daily near overdose of cocaïne to learn about the effects of cocaïne on a young persons' brains.
- AlecSchueler 4y agoYou can interview people about their past experiences.
- Eisenstein 4y agoYou can't interview someone about something before that something exists though, which is what the parent comment is proposing.
- AlecSchueler 4y agoYes, apologies, I realised that as soon as I said it.
- droopyEyelids 4y agoThese are the type of questions that certain French postmodernist philosophers were asking around 1945.
- afavour 4y agoI suspect any academic study proposing to show pornography to minors is going to get shut down pretty quickly. In my own anecdotal experience I’d say it definitely can be dangerous and depends on a variety of factors, a key one IMO being what kind of pornography we’re even talking about. In my youth we discovered a friends dad nudie mag stash. Lots of glamour photography of topless women, some full nudity too but always pretty tame all things considered. I don’t think it had a negative effect on me. But the kind of porn available (and popular) on the internet is not that. From talking to a friends much younger brother I know they all have access to it and it’s led to some weird perceptions about what sex is, should be, etc. It’s rough, it’s often degrading, it’s almost exclusively focused on male satisfaction. It’s much more about one person’s power over another then snore any kind of intimacy. The solution to all of this is, as always, parental and school sex education to ensure kids are learning the right things. But as a society we’re kind of terrified of that.
- berkes 4y ago> I suspect any academic study proposing to show pornography to minors is going to get shut down pretty quickly. I highly doubt this, because it's both important and relevant. 16y/o will consume pornography. I know I did, and I was 16 way before internet. Young adults will have had exposure before engaging in actual sex. This is important because it might be problematic. Because it changes behavior. But also because the right nudges, education and context probably make the difference between this growing into problematic behavior or healthy, normal, human behavior. I know this is a difference between Europe and the US. Where the US (or any society under pressure of religious extremists, really) tries to simply forbid such research or knowledge. And hope (and pray) that by not knowing how this is shaping generations, it might simply go away. I'm pretty sure it won't just go away by praying hard and forbidding research. I'm pretty sure academics in this area know this very well too.
- nathan_compton 4y agoAny research which involved actually showing pornography to minors would almost certainly be shut down for ethical reasons. Studies would almost certainly have to be observational and post-facto, studying people who admit to having been exposed as minors. Medical ethics practices in the U.S. are actually very advanced and restrictive. I cannot imagine an IRB ever approving showing minors pornography especially given that there is a reasonable expectation of harm and essentially no expectation of benefit.
- mc32 4y agoUsually what happens in this environment is immature/ underage people are exploited. You don’t have to look far. The local track in your nearest city or megalopolises in India where adults sell off children, among other places in the world. In Mexico the local business guys go into the town plaza in the evenings and chat up young girls, in Japan you get “compensated dating”. These are all places where they let those of modest means take advantage of the underprivileged and underdeveloped and treat them as objects.
- berkes 4y agoYou describe pornography depicting underage people. I'm sure there's consensus on why that is bad. I was, however, questioning whether minors consuming pornography is (always, and/or provably) bad.
- mc32 4y agoDo you think there is or isn't deleterious effects when children watch misogyny at a young age, what about watching programming that would show the beating of animals, even if animated and just for "fun", or programming that shows being "fat" is undesirable and indulging in bulimia is desirable (what could be wrong with over-eating and then just vomiting excess, right?) No, I think there are things young minds should be shielded from some things to avoid future mental developmental consequences. You know how movie directors make a movie and in their mind a given movie is supposed to be propaganda against something, but for people lacking this cultivated framework it's a celebration of doing the wrong thing? Take a movie about how being a gangster is bad --but for many moviegoers it's an invitation to the "glamorous" life or power, respect and success...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 0zemp2c 4y ago> What "dangers" are there? turning in to a pathetic, obese lech who sits at home alone blowing another paycheck on Onlyfans, clinging to the misguided notion that women want anal on the first date? and even worse, when real life doesn't line up with six-minute videos, the even worse outcome of woman-hating manifests
- berkes 4y agoIsn't that all the more reason to educate, research and invest in this? Rather than forbidding it?
- mensetmanusman 4y agoIs is the wrong word. ‘Can be under a % of circumstances where the % may be too high for societies risk tolerance’ may be more applicable.
- intrasight 4y agoPornography is that which harms the soul. That's true of all people not just minors. The question then becomes what should be classified as pornography. Justice Stewart famously said "I know it when I see it". My definition is close: "pornography is that which harms my soul". That means that what is porn will differ for different people and probably by age as well.
- the_doctah 4y ago>Pornography is that which harms the soul. I believe they were asking for research or something measurable, not platitudes.
- intrasight 4y agoMy point being that it's not measurable, which is another reason for governments to not be involved.
- saberience 4y agoPorngraphy harms the soul? What exactly is the soul you're referring to? Something metaphysical? Do you have any science or data behind this assertion?
- DonHopkins 4y agoI think what he's trying to say without actually saying it is that pornography is something that makes your eternal soul go to hell if you view it.
- wkat4242 4y agoThen don't watch it. Let us have ours.
- intrasight 4y agoWhich, in case it wasn't clear, is exactly what I'm saying. What harms my soul differs from what harms your soul. The government should not be in the business of preventing the harm to one soul.
- AlecSchueler 4y agoIt's addictive for one. There are increasing number of support groups for men who are struggling with pornography use and for their spouses in dealing with having a dependant partner. It creates a space for people to explore and normalise their distressing sexual interests without questioning the root causes. Producers will often intentionally seek out vulnerable young women and groom them with promises of fame and riches, only for them to become reliant on painkillers and other drugs to cope with the reality of it. It creates a market for the abuse of trafficking victims. Most sites don't require verification of consent and most users don't care. It teaches men to objectify their partners and to see them as something to be shared. There is a huge market now for non consensual revenge pornography. Reddit has seen multiple subreddiys dedicated to non-consensual intimate media. It provides a safe space for people to express racist, misogynistic and otherwise antisocial viewpoints. PornHub in its front page today has videos of stimulated assaults and incest. For young viewers it gives them the idea that it's normal to be sexually interested in these things. I'm not religious. I'm sex positive and believe in being open with children about the realities of life. Pornography stole years of my life, warped my views of relationships and prevented me from reflecting seriously on my own traumas.
- hvis 4y agoSugar is addictive. And it might have more effect on your lifespan than the consumption of pornography. Quality of life, too.
- AlecSchueler 4y agoYes it is, and that's why we teach our children about nutritional health and, in some places, regulate things like school dinners and products aimed at children. What point are you making in relation to the topic at hand?
- loeg 4y agoI can't read GP's mind, but sugar doesn't require ID verification to buy in the state of Utah, for example.
- eldritch_4ier 4y agoIt’s probably about as dangerous to minors as sitting the minor in a room while 2 consenting adults have sex, or taking that minor to a strip club. Does the screen itself prevent trauma? Would you be ok with having your child exposed to either of these? What about a gentle and loving uncle molesting a child in a way not much different from playful wrestling? Wrestling is fine, but we all recognize the molestation is incredibly harmful, even in this situation (because the harm isn’t the violence of it, it’s the actual sex itself). This is just common sense. Of course sexualizing (sexually activating) children (which porn does) at a young age is harmful. It’s probably very harmful to adults too in large doses like porn addiction.
- newswasboring 4y ago> It’s probably about as dangerous to minors as sitting the minor in a room while 2 consenting adults have sex, or taking that minor to a strip club. I think you have not seen the average porn online these days. Its way, way more extreme than this.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- vxNsr 4y agoMore likely they have not had sex or been to a strip club. Whenever I see people argue that porn is just like sex they always turn out to be minors or young adults who have only ever experienced porn and not intimate relationships.
- newswasboring 4y agoThat feels like a cruel assumption to make. But I think that says more about me than them.
- vxNsr 4y agoI don’t think it’s cruel. There’s nothing wrong with not having certain life experiences. I think it’s wrong to make assertions without knowing all the facts which is what these types of people do all the time. (See /r/relationships for many examples).
- mind-blight 4y agoIt does appear to be a bit more dangerous for minors than for adults. The main issue is that your brain is much more plastic around your teenage years and is more susceptible to building long-term habits. That manifested in unexpected ways for men recovering from porn-induced ED. The older men - those who hadn't grown up with high-speed internet porn - recovered significantly faster than the younger men.
- jliptzin 4y agoI don’t know how one would go about doing that research. Anecdotally I figured out the parental lock code on a cable box when I was 12, watched one of the porn channels, I was more excited that I was able to guess the code than anything else. The porn itself didn’t really have any impact on me. My school also showed us Holocaust documentary footage around the same age. People getting shot in the head, piles and piles of dead bodies, etc. That plus gory movies like Hostel and scenes where people are chopped up and stuffed into a suitcase fucked me up WAY more than any of the porn I happened to come across at that age.
- megous 4y agoNot all porn is just people sticking their penis into someone else's vagina. It can get pretty disturbing. And disturbing porn is not that harder to find as the non-disturbing one. Now it's the age of anyone being able to upload almost anything for anyone to easily see. And people do. (Anyway, I'm not for the internet wide parental lock. Just noting that things are different than in the past, with ease and breadth of access.)
- berkes 4y agoBut isn't the lack of destination a part of the problem, or maybe the whole problem? It has been proven, scientifically, that making a distinction between soft- and harddrugs help in fighting drug abuse, death and misery. It's, for example, what the Dutch policy is based on. By making a clear distinction, and decriminalizing it, you can educate people on it. You can say "this is very bad, that is dangerous and that there is merely unhealthy". I'm sure a lesson can be drawn tlfor porn there too. By criminalizing, or forbidding it all, blanket, you loose all opportunity to teach about what is normal and what isn't. You just get one big pile, where disturbing and terrible stuff is just as (in) accessible as the stuff that's fun, pleasant or even educational.
- ufmace 4y agoIt seems likely to be, particularly in the forms available today. There seems to be increasing consciousness on this both on the left and the right. The Left has been increasingly concerned about the abusive acts becoming common in pornography and the seemingly pervasive use of underage or barely-of-age women with consent extremely sketchy or not present at all. The Right has been increasingly concerned about how the pervasive presence of pornography encourages people to focus on that for their needs rather than pursuing real-life relationships and obsess over extreme acts that very few real partners are actually willing to do. This is all exacerbated by internet startup tendencies, where maximizing "engagement" at all costs is the priority. It's in their incentives to maximize most of the bad effects that everyone is concerned about. It's not clear exactly how bad everything is or that this particular thing is the right way to address it. But clearly enough people are concerned about it and aren't willing to accept endless delaying tactics around insisting that you can't do any particular thing about it because it can't be proved to be perfect.
- mustacheemperor 4y agoIt’s noteworthy to me that in your replies not one single comment links to any research. Multiple comments state point after point as fact with no sources, one comment directly ascribes its entire opinion to an anecdote. In short…I’m not getting the kind of perspective expanding value I often find on HN from this discussion. Just a lot of back and forth from people exchanging the opinions they already had before opening the parent article. I would instinctively agree that it's unhealthy for minors to have unchecked access to pornography but on the other hand I don't see how we could effectively address that problem societally without any kind of objective understanding of it. Has the exchange of unqualified personal opinions ever resulted in effective political policy, especially policy meant to manage a vice? That didn't work well for Prohibition or the War on Drugs.
- dopamean 4y agoPeople rarely link to research on this site or any other. It's a social network. People want to share their opinion and so they do. I cant remember the last reply to a comment I saw on here that actually linked to research.
- mustacheemperor 4y agoThat's generally true, but one common practice that originally drew me to HN was the frequent use of [#] citations by commenters to support their remarks with external sources. So in replies to a user specifically asking about research and evidence for these risks, it's disappointing for me to not see any research or evidence.
- Aerbil313 4y agoAll online pornography is scientifically demonstrated to be harmful to people of all ages. See the research: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/ https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/