4 ms·
whilst I strongly disagree with the filtering, it's utter bs, it's also untrue that porn isn't having an affect on younger generations. The real thing that nee
by nemof 13y ago
whilst I strongly disagree with the filtering, it's utter bs, it's also untrue that porn isn't having an affect on younger generations.
The real thing that needs to be happening is an honest and frank discussion about sex and sexuality, which is a pretty tall ask in the UK as we're quite prudish in some respects. We'd rather legislate against smut then talk about it.
As to the affect that I alluded to. When children get their sex education from porn, you get teenage boys thinking that anal's the norm. This isn't just a theoretical, this is something I know teacher friends have had to deal with in school, getting approached for help by teenage girls having to cope with this kind of thing.
Also, I've no idea where you get the idea that children aren't interested in porn. Perhaps not when they're 7, but when they're 12 or 14 they definitely are.
- jeswin 13y agoMost 14 year old boys would have watched porn. Some of them might regularly watch porn. Amongst my friends I can't think of anyone negatively influenced or affected by this. No big deal.
- untog 13y agoHow old are you? I'm 29, and also recall that when I was in my teenage years we all saw various bits of pornography- magazines, a few extremely slow loading web pages, but nothing like what is available today. As nemof described, a lot of porn today is much more extreme than that, and could give teenagers a very skewed sense of "normal" sex. I'm not advocating filtering internet content, but I think it's at least worth discussing what effect this might be having on teenagers today, and not just dismissing it with "my [entirely different] situation was fine".
- MisterWebz 13y agoAnd movies give a skewed sense of how the real world works. And advertisements tell you you're ugly and need to buy products to become prettier. These things affect children too, probably way more than porn. Should we ban those too or at least be able to opt out of those?
- untog 13y agoShould we ban those too or at least be able to opt out of those? Sigh. Stop being hyperbolic. I said in my post that I am not advocating blocking them, but having a conversation about the effects they have. So, to answer you, yes- I think we should talk to our teenagers about advertising and movies too. Thing is, we already often do that, but sexual stuff tends to be discussed a lot less.
- Dylan16807 13y agoHyperbole? I would love the ability to opt out of advertising. Or maybe bans on advertising in public.
- king_jester 13y ago> Should we ban those too or at least be able to opt out of those? No, but that doesn't mean all discussion and criticism goes out the window. When jeswin talks about porn not having any affect, that invites a discussion about porn.
- jeswin 13y agoI'm 32.
- likeclockwork 13y agoI'm 30 and I don't know about your internet connectivity in your teenage years.. but even before broadband I had access to racks of porn. IRC, Usenet, private FTP sites.. forget about the web, porn was everywhere if you knew where to look for it. Pictures, videos, and then there was only ever more of it as the web took off and broadband proliferated. I emerged unscathed though. I think the people most at-risk will either A. Not watch porn. or B. Get messed up by the rest of the media anyway.
- michaelt 13y agoThe Radio 4 series Analysis [1] had an interesting episode on this - still available as a podcast, title "Pornography: what do we know?" I encourage you to give it a listen as it's an interesting program. To vastly simplify and summarise, the reporter's conclusion is the evidence to show it causes serious and direct harm is weak. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/analysis http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/analysis