15 ms·

I've had the internet for twenty years (since I was 8) and computer access since I was 3. Most of my friends had access since they were 10 or 11. We turned out

I've had the internet for twenty years (since I was 8) and computer access since I was 3. Most of my friends had access since they were 10 or 11. We turned out fine. Some kids who have poor role models are going to ask for oral sex from boys or girls that like them. This was true 3000 years ago. It is true today. It will be true twenty years from now regardless of what silly idea the person who made the documentary has. "Part regulation, part cultural shift." Please. I'm not taking any more "think of the children" arguments for laws. Also, I'm sick and tired of "child porn" including 14-18 year olds. It isn't child porn. They arn't children. They are teenagers. Some of them have been having sex for years. It should be a different offence to posses and it should not be an offence to posses if you were in a loving relationship (and similar in age, a 14 year old and a 16 or 17 year old, not a 40 year old and a 14 year old). You know those dirty letters you got from your sweetheart when you were 17? Sexting is the same damn thing.

ttt_ 13y ago
>> Most of my friends had access since they were 10 or 11. We turned out fine. Much akin to "when we were kids we rode in the front seat without seat belts on, we turned out fine", and several other versions of that phrase. I don't think it's a valid argument at all.
- bennyg 13y ago
  I don't think your point's valid either. Driving is operating heavy machinery, plain and simple. Driving without a seatbelt is totally different than using Facebook, or eBay, or Craigslist, unrestricted. They really couldn't be more dissimilar.
  - themstheones 13y ago
    No one is going to get into trouble on craigslist. What's the worst that could happen, buying a couch with bedbugs?
    - mattdeboard 13y ago
      Oh dear, you really don't know much about Craigslist do you?
      - BWStearns 13y ago
        Wait.... so I shouldn't go to that "modeling shoot"? 0_O
        timje1 13y ago
        Also, don't respond to the job ad for that farm in Ohio.. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/04/justice/craiglist-killer-death-sentence/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/04/justice/craiglist-killer-d...
        themstheones 13y ago
        Wow... I had only ever used Craig's List for buying and selling goods. I had no idea there were people raping and murdering each other on there. You'd think that the admins would try to put a stop to that.
        bennyg 13y ago
        Just like being in the real world. Make smart decisions to the best of your ability and you'll be alright. There's nothing inherently wrong with the internet. Some people have things inherently wrong with them, and some of those people use the internet. Nothing to see here.
- barry-cotter 13y ago
  I fail to see why I should take your feeling driven anecdote backed position over your interlocutor's feeling driven anecdote backed position. I watched all the porn I could get my hands on and turned out fine is evidence. It's not conclusive or anything but you wouldn't see it in a world where porn was the devil. The below articles certainly don't support demonisation of porn. http://maggiemcneill.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/pornography-rape-and-the-internet.pdf http://maggiemcneill.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/pornography... http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-pornography-rape-sex-crimes-japan.html http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-p...
- chrisdone 13y ago
  I think someone was forced to sit in the back seat with seat belts on as a child.
- lotsofcows 13y ago
  Normally that's a valid complaint but it's pretty obvious in this case that by fine he means "not so addicted to his 'phone or porn that it has a negative effect on his life".
- Gormo 13y ago
  > I don't think it's a valid argument at all. Why not?
nissimk 13y ago
I'm very upset that this is the top comment on here. 14 year old teenagers are definitely children and they do need to be protected by law from predators. Just because they are old enough to have children of their own doesn't make them adults. Is not OK for sites or individuals to be collecting sexual images of children and distributing them. Also, to all you folks on here saying that this is all fear mongering to take away or rights, you're missing the larger point here which is that the recent cultural shift with the prevalence of handheld computing has a lot of negative side effects and we need to rethink the norms. It is very rude to sit at the dinner table with people and be interacting with your mobile device rather than your real life companions. It wouldn't have been OK for a parent to sit at the dinner table having a phone call with colleagues back then and just because mobile Internet makes it silent it's still not OK. That is just one example in a long list of things related to mobile computing that are considered OK but are actually rude or unhealthy.
- barrkel 13y ago
  I think part of the problem is this binary label of children | not-children, which then gives rise to infantilizing treatment. The post you're responding to was splitting the spectrum into at least three parts, children | teenagers | adults, while you're arguing for children | adults - or at least that's how it looks. But I think you're on the wrong track there. Something that is closer to modelling a spectrum is better than a binary distinction, and is less likely to give rise to asinine laws / enforcement, like prosecuting teenagers for self-production of child porn.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    But laws tend not to involve vague undefined gradients - and when they do people complain. Thus: You can drive when you're X, even if some people are perfectly capable of driving earlier and others need a few years to mature.
    - barrkel 13y ago
      There's a lot of room in the justice system for discretion at various levels. The law isn't absolute like that in practice. I'm more complaining about people - allegedly human - making black and white distinctions. Actually, what I'm more upset about is people working from this self-serving system of "logic": [general problem] -> [label]+ -> [general action] For example, saying that casual sharing of media is copyright violation, which is theft, theft is bad and should be punished harshly, thus casual sharing of media should be punished harshly. It bottle-necks the ambiguity of the real world through a single specific label - ideally one stuck at one end of the spectrum - and thereafter applying a consequence from that label. It's a corrupt mode of thought to my mind. http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...
hackula1 13y ago
14-15 is prepubescent for many individuals. Definitely children.
orf 13y ago
Free and unlimited access to hardcore pornography of any type when you are in your early teens is relatively new. No generation has been exposed to such a stream of heavily sexualized content before, both online and offline. I mean the porn of 50 years ago seems tame by todays standards. Exposing children to such adult themes before they have even fully developed can't be a good thing.
- Blahah 13y ago
  Saying it can't be a good thing without even providing a reason is not constructive. It could very easily be a good thing.
  - GrinningFool 13y ago
    My biggest concern is that it shows many things as normal and healthy that aren't. Warning - intimate details lie ahead. As an example - in recent years, this has become increasingly common: women fellating until they gag, almost vomit, drool mucousy streams of saliva all over their partner's genitals, and then slurp it all back up. Most of them look truly miserable while they're doing it. The guys look like they think it's awesome - never mind the discomfort they allow to be caused to their partner, regardless of how good it might feel. I can't rule out that it's possible there are women who do enjoy almost tossing their cookies during sex acts. But I am pretty comfortable in believing that most don't. You and I know that. Most people not raised on this variety of porn know that. Yet now we'll have a generation of kids being shown that women should do this, and they'll be seeing this before they even reach puberty. We're not talking fringe stuff that someone will find, make a decision about, and either look for more of it or not. This is in 'mainstream' porn. Showing young kids that it's normal and expected. And because most people don't do much talking about sex with their offspring, there won't be anybody who tells them differently. Besides, from ghastly^H^H^H^H^H^H^H sultry smiles on the faces of the women after the fact, it's clear that they really must have enjoyed it.
    - Blahah 13y ago
      Whether or not we should worry about it hinges on a lot of uncertainties, including: - Whether some women really do enjoy it. Granted, it's unlikely that most do. Given that some people really do enjoy extreme BDSM, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that some - even many - women enjoy deepthroating. People can consent to whatever sexual activity they want. - Whether children do really form an image of what people 'should' do from porn. Staged sex acts are fantasy fulfilment. Most people are capable, even as young teenagers, of keeping fantasy and reality separate. Just as most teenagers don't act out fantasy situations they find in other media, they don't expect to act out porn fantasies. Everyone has intrusive thoughts, and the vast majority don't act on them. It's arguable that those who do would do so without the media stimulation.
DanBC 13y ago
> They arn't children. They are teenagers. Have you ever met a teenager? They're fucking idiotic. That's why we don't let them drink alcohol or vote or get married or have sex or join the army or a bunch of other stuff. > You know those dirty letters you got from your sweetheart when you were 17? Sexting is the same damn thing. No it isn't. A dirty letter is a dirty letter. A photo sent via sms has lasting consequences. Youth don't understand consequences, that's why we need to keep reminding them that anything they put on the Internet will stay there forever.
- qb45 13y ago
  Have you ever met a teenager? They're fucking idiotic. Partially because being protected from consequences of their actions, they can afford being idiotic.
  - cafard 13y ago
    But also partly because they are unable to imagine the consequence of their actions. With cars and guns the protection goes only so far.
  - peterashford 13y ago
    You make this sound like a sociological issue but it's really biological. Teenagers are idiots because their brains / hormones are going through rapid and dramatic changes that retard their ability to make good judgements about what is safe and what is not.
- ta_1378992718 13y ago
  So, you are in favor of the current remediation against teenagers that sext, which is generally to bring the recipient up on charges of possession of child pornography and the sender on charges of making and distributing child pornography? Such felony convictions will have far more ramifications that the act itself ever could.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    That doesn't happen in my country. The US legal system is a cluster fuck of horrible practice, and it's not just weird application of sexting laws that's the problem.
gersonaya 13y ago
You made a good point stating that 14-18 years old are not children. They are teenagers. When you're at this age, your hormones and sexual desire are at a huge level. So, with or without porn, boys (and girls) tend to think about (and talk about) sex all day. Many young boys and girls masturbate, too. We have a hard time accepting that because teenage sexuality is still a great taboo in our society. Why? Because we like to think that sexual maturity goes along with intellectual maturity, however, that's just false. Learning to deal with the fact that teenagers want and have the right to have sex despite their childish behavior is way more wiser than just proibition. What they need is better education on how to deal with their own sexual life.
_mulder_ 13y ago
'Having the internet' is different to the ubiquitous internet access that kids growing up today are subject to. Twenty years ago you couldn't take out a smart phone and watch porn. You couldn't even readily download porn videos, images perhaps if you were lucky. Even so you were unlikely to have unrestricted access to your own computer with internet access, so watching porn was a special event when the parents were asleep or out. A kid today could pull up porn on their phone right now without a second thought. And it's that 'without a second thought' that is the (slightly) disturbing bit, because it happens before kids develop a proper sense of right and wrong. If I'm honest and I think back to the playground when I was younger, I am sure my understanding of what's right and wrong would be different (worse in my opinion) than they are today. On the other-hand I'm in favour of free-speech, but then I also think banning kids from disruptive influences (alcohol, smoking) is also an effective means of keeping kids safe until they can take full responsibility for their actions.
superuser2 13y ago
>Some kids who have poor role models are going to ask for oral sex from boys or girls that like them. In some cultures, healthy and loving relationships between teenagers are beautiful. The emotional drama that follows - which advocates for infantilization use to say teenagers cannot be trusted to handle relationships - is part of growing up and learning to be a person. The idea that this is wrong, idiotic, deserving of punishment, immoral, or indicative of bad role models reflects a specific view of religious morality that not everyone shares. Teaching people to be ashamed of who they are and what they wan't isn't necessarily the best approach. It's a fascinating cultural shift, and the religious right is fighting hard to stay in the 50s, but I think we're slowly moving forward. Then again, I was raised by atheist liberals, and we're not exactly popular.
- Gormo 13y ago
  > It's a fascinating cultural shift, and the religious right is fighting hard to stay in the 50s Which "50s" are you referring to?
- refurb 13y ago
  The religious right? That makes no sense. It's the religious right that often encourages marriage at a young age. I've never heard of members of the religious right "shaming" teenage dating.
  - superuser2 13y ago
    The religious right encourages abstinence-only education, discourages contraception, and absolutely does not want teenagers in dating relationships or having sex for pleasure. They want them to move from supervised, limited, nonsexual courtships to child-producing marriages as quickly as possible. Also the less extreme religious right that I see recognizes the need not to be pregnant in college, and wants the whole process moved into early 20s rather than teens.
    - refurb 13y ago
      We must have different experiences with the religious right.

ttt_ 13y ago

>> Most of my friends had access since they were 10 or 11. We turned out fine. Much akin to "when we were kids we rode in the front seat without seat belts on, we turned out fine", and several other versions of that phrase. I don't think it's a valid argument at all.

bennyg 13y ago
I don't think your point's valid either. Driving is operating heavy machinery, plain and simple. Driving without a seatbelt is totally different than using Facebook, or eBay, or Craigslist, unrestricted. They really couldn't be more dissimilar.
- themstheones 13y ago
  No one is going to get into trouble on craigslist. What's the worst that could happen, buying a couch with bedbugs?
  - mattdeboard 13y ago
    Oh dear, you really don't know much about Craigslist do you?
    - BWStearns 13y ago
      Wait.... so I shouldn't go to that "modeling shoot"? 0_O
      - timje1 13y ago
        Also, don't respond to the job ad for that farm in Ohio.. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/04/justice/craiglist-killer-death-sentence/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/04/justice/craiglist-killer-d...
        themstheones 13y ago
        Wow... I had only ever used Craig's List for buying and selling goods. I had no idea there were people raping and murdering each other on there. You'd think that the admins would try to put a stop to that.
      - bennyg 13y ago
        Just like being in the real world. Make smart decisions to the best of your ability and you'll be alright. There's nothing inherently wrong with the internet. Some people have things inherently wrong with them, and some of those people use the internet. Nothing to see here.
barry-cotter 13y ago
I fail to see why I should take your feeling driven anecdote backed position over your interlocutor's feeling driven anecdote backed position. I watched all the porn I could get my hands on and turned out fine is evidence. It's not conclusive or anything but you wouldn't see it in a world where porn was the devil. The below articles certainly don't support demonisation of porn. http://maggiemcneill.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/pornography-rape-and-the-internet.pdf http://maggiemcneill.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/pornography... http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-pornography-rape-sex-crimes-japan.html http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-p...
chrisdone 13y ago
I think someone was forced to sit in the back seat with seat belts on as a child.
lotsofcows 13y ago
Normally that's a valid complaint but it's pretty obvious in this case that by fine he means "not so addicted to his 'phone or porn that it has a negative effect on his life".
Gormo 13y ago
> I don't think it's a valid argument at all. Why not?

nissimk 13y ago

I'm very upset that this is the top comment on here. 14 year old teenagers are definitely children and they do need to be protected by law from predators. Just because they are old enough to have children of their own doesn't make them adults. Is not OK for sites or individuals to be collecting sexual images of children and distributing them. Also, to all you folks on here saying that this is all fear mongering to take away or rights, you're missing the larger point here which is that the recent cultural shift with the prevalence of handheld computing has a lot of negative side effects and we need to rethink the norms. It is very rude to sit at the dinner table with people and be interacting with your mobile device rather than your real life companions. It wouldn't have been OK for a parent to sit at the dinner table having a phone call with colleagues back then and just because mobile Internet makes it silent it's still not OK. That is just one example in a long list of things related to mobile computing that are considered OK but are actually rude or unhealthy.

barrkel 13y ago
I think part of the problem is this binary label of children | not-children, which then gives rise to infantilizing treatment. The post you're responding to was splitting the spectrum into at least three parts, children | teenagers | adults, while you're arguing for children | adults - or at least that's how it looks. But I think you're on the wrong track there. Something that is closer to modelling a spectrum is better than a binary distinction, and is less likely to give rise to asinine laws / enforcement, like prosecuting teenagers for self-production of child porn.
- DanBC 13y ago
  But laws tend not to involve vague undefined gradients - and when they do people complain. Thus: You can drive when you're X, even if some people are perfectly capable of driving earlier and others need a few years to mature.
  - barrkel 13y ago
    There's a lot of room in the justice system for discretion at various levels. The law isn't absolute like that in practice. I'm more complaining about people - allegedly human - making black and white distinctions. Actually, what I'm more upset about is people working from this self-serving system of "logic": [general problem] -> [label]+ -> [general action] For example, saying that casual sharing of media is copyright violation, which is theft, theft is bad and should be punished harshly, thus casual sharing of media should be punished harshly. It bottle-necks the ambiguity of the real world through a single specific label - ideally one stuck at one end of the spectrum - and thereafter applying a consequence from that label. It's a corrupt mode of thought to my mind. http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...

hackula1 13y ago

14-15 is prepubescent for many individuals. Definitely children.

orf 13y ago

Free and unlimited access to hardcore pornography of any type when you are in your early teens is relatively new. No generation has been exposed to such a stream of heavily sexualized content before, both online and offline. I mean the porn of 50 years ago seems tame by todays standards. Exposing children to such adult themes before they have even fully developed can't be a good thing.

Blahah 13y ago
Saying it can't be a good thing without even providing a reason is not constructive. It could very easily be a good thing.
- GrinningFool 13y ago
  My biggest concern is that it shows many things as normal and healthy that aren't. Warning - intimate details lie ahead. As an example - in recent years, this has become increasingly common: women fellating until they gag, almost vomit, drool mucousy streams of saliva all over their partner's genitals, and then slurp it all back up. Most of them look truly miserable while they're doing it. The guys look like they think it's awesome - never mind the discomfort they allow to be caused to their partner, regardless of how good it might feel. I can't rule out that it's possible there are women who do enjoy almost tossing their cookies during sex acts. But I am pretty comfortable in believing that most don't. You and I know that. Most people not raised on this variety of porn know that. Yet now we'll have a generation of kids being shown that women should do this, and they'll be seeing this before they even reach puberty. We're not talking fringe stuff that someone will find, make a decision about, and either look for more of it or not. This is in 'mainstream' porn. Showing young kids that it's normal and expected. And because most people don't do much talking about sex with their offspring, there won't be anybody who tells them differently. Besides, from ghastly^H^H^H^H^H^H^H sultry smiles on the faces of the women after the fact, it's clear that they really must have enjoyed it.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    Whether or not we should worry about it hinges on a lot of uncertainties, including: - Whether some women really do enjoy it. Granted, it's unlikely that most do. Given that some people really do enjoy extreme BDSM, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that some - even many - women enjoy deepthroating. People can consent to whatever sexual activity they want. - Whether children do really form an image of what people 'should' do from porn. Staged sex acts are fantasy fulfilment. Most people are capable, even as young teenagers, of keeping fantasy and reality separate. Just as most teenagers don't act out fantasy situations they find in other media, they don't expect to act out porn fantasies. Everyone has intrusive thoughts, and the vast majority don't act on them. It's arguable that those who do would do so without the media stimulation.

DanBC 13y ago

> They arn't children. They are teenagers. Have you ever met a teenager? They're fucking idiotic. That's why we don't let them drink alcohol or vote or get married or have sex or join the army or a bunch of other stuff. > You know those dirty letters you got from your sweetheart when you were 17? Sexting is the same damn thing. No it isn't. A dirty letter is a dirty letter. A photo sent via sms has lasting consequences. Youth don't understand consequences, that's why we need to keep reminding them that anything they put on the Internet will stay there forever.

qb45 13y ago
Have you ever met a teenager? They're fucking idiotic. Partially because being protected from consequences of their actions, they can afford being idiotic.
- cafard 13y ago
  But also partly because they are unable to imagine the consequence of their actions. With cars and guns the protection goes only so far.
- peterashford 13y ago
  You make this sound like a sociological issue but it's really biological. Teenagers are idiots because their brains / hormones are going through rapid and dramatic changes that retard their ability to make good judgements about what is safe and what is not.
ta_1378992718 13y ago
So, you are in favor of the current remediation against teenagers that sext, which is generally to bring the recipient up on charges of possession of child pornography and the sender on charges of making and distributing child pornography? Such felony convictions will have far more ramifications that the act itself ever could.
- DanBC 13y ago
  That doesn't happen in my country. The US legal system is a cluster fuck of horrible practice, and it's not just weird application of sexting laws that's the problem.

gersonaya 13y ago

You made a good point stating that 14-18 years old are not children. They are teenagers. When you're at this age, your hormones and sexual desire are at a huge level. So, with or without porn, boys (and girls) tend to think about (and talk about) sex all day. Many young boys and girls masturbate, too. We have a hard time accepting that because teenage sexuality is still a great taboo in our society. Why? Because we like to think that sexual maturity goes along with intellectual maturity, however, that's just false. Learning to deal with the fact that teenagers want and have the right to have sex despite their childish behavior is way more wiser than just proibition. What they need is better education on how to deal with their own sexual life.

_mulder_ 13y ago

'Having the internet' is different to the ubiquitous internet access that kids growing up today are subject to. Twenty years ago you couldn't take out a smart phone and watch porn. You couldn't even readily download porn videos, images perhaps if you were lucky. Even so you were unlikely to have unrestricted access to your own computer with internet access, so watching porn was a special event when the parents were asleep or out. A kid today could pull up porn on their phone right now without a second thought. And it's that 'without a second thought' that is the (slightly) disturbing bit, because it happens before kids develop a proper sense of right and wrong. If I'm honest and I think back to the playground when I was younger, I am sure my understanding of what's right and wrong would be different (worse in my opinion) than they are today. On the other-hand I'm in favour of free-speech, but then I also think banning kids from disruptive influences (alcohol, smoking) is also an effective means of keeping kids safe until they can take full responsibility for their actions.

superuser2 13y ago

>Some kids who have poor role models are going to ask for oral sex from boys or girls that like them. In some cultures, healthy and loving relationships between teenagers are beautiful. The emotional drama that follows - which advocates for infantilization use to say teenagers cannot be trusted to handle relationships - is part of growing up and learning to be a person. The idea that this is wrong, idiotic, deserving of punishment, immoral, or indicative of bad role models reflects a specific view of religious morality that not everyone shares. Teaching people to be ashamed of who they are and what they wan't isn't necessarily the best approach. It's a fascinating cultural shift, and the religious right is fighting hard to stay in the 50s, but I think we're slowly moving forward. Then again, I was raised by atheist liberals, and we're not exactly popular.

Gormo 13y ago
> It's a fascinating cultural shift, and the religious right is fighting hard to stay in the 50s Which "50s" are you referring to?
refurb 13y ago
The religious right? That makes no sense. It's the religious right that often encourages marriage at a young age. I've never heard of members of the religious right "shaming" teenage dating.
- superuser2 13y ago
  The religious right encourages abstinence-only education, discourages contraception, and absolutely does not want teenagers in dating relationships or having sex for pleasure. They want them to move from supervised, limited, nonsexual courtships to child-producing marriages as quickly as possible. Also the less extreme religious right that I see recognizes the need not to be pregnant in college, and wants the whole process moved into early 20s rather than teens.
  - refurb 13y ago
    We must have different experiences with the religious right.