Okay this is going to sound weird but why can’t an 11 year old look at porn? I mean obviously my gut reaction is that 11 year old + explicit pornography = negative but why exactly? What changes between 11 and 18? I’m just genuinely curious. What happens to a child of any age that is allowed to just go ahead and watch something like porn or extreme graphic violence. The first time I saw these things I was younger than legal and hid it just like everyone else in the world. What would have happened if I hadn’t have had to hide it. I still would have seen the same porn right?
Early exposure to porn has been shown to be linked to attitudes in adulthood that are supportive of sexual violence towards women. Young boys are more likely to become sex offenders, and young girls are more likely to accept being sexually offended.
Okay I buy that. How does it become different at age 18? Are you just more aware its fictionalized?
In all honestly in my opinion over protective parents (such as yourself IMHO) almost urge their children to rebel. Children naturally wanna say no to authority even if it is for there benefit. Its almost like reverse psychology. Dom’t you remember when you were a kid? anythings your parents could do to enforce there rules you could find a way around. What happens when he goes to a friends house and watches porn. Or buys a porn DVD at school? Are you going to put a GPS on him and shock him every time he walks pass a porn shop? In all honestly my humble opinion is that giving children more freedom will not make them rebel as much.
Let me know how that works out for ya, slick! 
It isn’t clear in this country (the United States) whether ADULTS have a legal right to privacy. While nearly 40 years ago Roe vs. Wade used a right to privacy to make its case, since that point more than one person has made the case that the right of privacy is not spelled out in our constitution and is, if anything, only implied.
I think that the very definition of parent is one who would be concerned about the world their offspring is exposed to, whether online or off. You are well within your rights to block or ban this.
But not as a top down, My Word is Law kind of thing. I told my kids that the internet was like two things: a carnival and a downtown bus station at 4 am. Lots of cool things to look at and do, but lots of uncomfortable, creepy and danger, too.
Between the years of 11 and 18, many things happen. The brain physically grows, but also the higher levels of thinking mature (this can take longer than to just 18), the ability to think abstractly develops along with the ability to think critically (we hope). Would I be happy if my 18 year old was into porn online? No-but that’s unrealistic on my part. That’s his/her choice at 18. At 11? No. And it is not a choice for him/her.
Thanks all for your input. The comment about being overprotectiveness leading to rebellion is an interesting, if not well informed one. I believe that children need to be given freedoms, because giving them limited freedoms gives them the opportunity to prove that they are trustworthy and teaches them responsibility. It’s also about knowing how an eleven year old’s mind works. Two weeks ago he was home alone in the afternoon and I was on my way home when he rang to tell me that he’d set off a firecracker and had burnt his hand.
I wasn’t angry with him - I was angry with his father who had left him alone with a firecracker and a promise not to light it. WTF? Of course he’s going to light the frigging thing - a boy, alone, firecracker. Hmmmmm. How much impulse control does an 11 year old have - none. That’s why we have boundaries, rules and supervision. We now have a new rule - if it requires a naked flame, you probably shouldn’t be playing with it. Oh, and I found out how fast my car can go.
Relay to whomever said that to you a simple message: eat shit and die.
You are exactly correct. Children living at home have no rights. Period. They can earn privileges, which can be revoked at any time, but they have no rights.
Because at 18 you are legal an adult!
I think what your doing is perfectly fine. You seem to be open with your kid about what your doing. I cant see a child rebelling against a parent who is open with them.
Meh, personally I don’t make it easy for my kid (14) to access porn. But if he’s going to do it; I’m not going to get all worked up over it.
There are some things a determined kid can do that parents have no control over. I mean really, think back when you were 11.
Just make sure they have at least one foot grounded in reality and that they treat women with respect and all that other stuff that goes with it.
I wouldn’t go this far. Children do have rights, or should have. The right to be safe, warm, dry and fed. The right to be loved. The right to be treated with respect. The right to be heard. And the right to make decisions and choices within their scope.
but I would ixnay the porn. The firecracker? I’d like to shove one up the dad’s ass and light it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
You are not breaching his right to privacy if he does not have the expectation of privacy. I am an adult and own my own laptop. I fully expect that the other adult in this house will not snoop at my doings, and I respect his computer privacy the same way. A child needs to be monitored, but also needs to be told right up front that they will be monitored. I hate the snooping aspect of some people’s parenting with the “My house, my rules” stuff, but I think a responsible person would tell a child in the home that all activity on that computer is subject to frequent monitoring to avoid viruses, malware, etc. That way if you find something objectionable, they can’t cry “Oh, my privacy!” The computer should be no more private than the refrigerator. Open access to all if it’s a kid’s own or a family shared computer.
“Linked”? Perhaps. The problem, though, is that a link is not the same as a cause. In fact, one scholarly study (pdf) i found, from 2005, makes quite clear that the causal connection between the viewing of pornography and other aberrant behavior among children and adolescents might even travel in precisely the opposite direction.
I’m not arguing that kids should be allowed to look at porn, or even that looking at porn has no detrimental effects. But the causative link posited by so many porn scaremongers seems curiously absent in the medical and scholarly literature. At best, there seems to be a correlation, but saying that a high percentage of sexual offenders look at porn is not the same as saying that a high percentage of people who look at porn are sexual offenders.
There also seems to be some rather fast and loose interpretation of scholarly articles on some websites making claims about the links between childhood exposure to pornography and later incidences of violence. For example, this site claims:
Well, the second and third sentences in this paragraph are unrelated to the first, despite the site’s attempt to place them all together. The fact that some adult offenders might be incited to commit crimes by pornography, or might deliberately use porn as a stimulus, does not mean that their tendency to offend was caused by early exposure to pornography.
Also, note in the first sentence the use of the term “related.” This is another one of those “connecting” terms that implies causation to many people without ever actually demonstrating causation. Someone reading that section of the website casually could be forgiven for thinking that the link between childhood viewing of pornography and adult sexual violence is causal, but the study in question doesn’t make that claim. Sure, the website also notes that “every child who views pornography will not necessarily be affected and, at worst, traumatized in the same way,” but the main emphasis is on the dangers of pornography, and the simple summary of the scholarly source misses some important issues.
The study cited in that quote, above, is W. L. Marshall, “The Use of Sexually Explicit Stimuli by Rapists, Child Molesters, and Nonoffenders,” The Journal of Sex Research 25, no.2 (May 1988): 267-88. I downloaded a copy of the study (no link; it’s an academic subscription database) and had a look at what Marshall has to say. He (?) is quite careful throughout not to make simplistic causal arguments related to childhood exposure to pornography. For example, he is sympathetic to
He cites some earlier studies which
He does note, however, that some of these studies made no real distinction between fairly tame erotic material (Playboy, Penthouse, etc.) and more hardcore stuff. He then goes on to note that
He, apparently unlike the website that quotes his study, is well aware that there’s pornography, and then there’s pornography. There’s porn depicting nude women or consensual sex, and then there’s porn depicting rape or child molestation. These things are not the same, and to simply lump them all together as “pornography” and imply that they are likely to have the same effects is rather disingenuous.
Citing another study, Marshall notes:
My emphasis.
His own study, upon which this article is based, uses
and in his conclusion he notes:
He also makes an interesting observation at the end of the article about the nature of such studies, particularly the limitations of data that is self-reported by the offenders themselves:
As i said earlier, i don’t want to argue that kids should be allowed to look at porn. Nor am i arguing that there is no connection at all between the viewing of pornography and aberrant criminal sexual behavior. But when we note “links” and “relations” and “connections” between these things, we need to be careful to also note that these are not necessarily the same as causation.
Oh, and to the OP: there’s nothing wrong with what you did. Also, like some other folks here, i like the fact that you’re upfront with him about your monitoring of his internet activities. That’s much better than doing it behind his back.
But this doesn’t support your premise that “viewing of porn and other aberrant behavior among children and adolescents might even travel in precisely the opposite direction” at all.
I don’t know what they are mean by “global challenge”. Nor am I taking up the gauntlet and defending/supporting the case for early exposure to porn=automaticlaly bad thing. I just don’t see how you can say that viewing of porn connection might travel in the opposite direction (toward what, exactly-respect for all humankind and acts of selflessness?). The quote you use does not support that.
I had never heard about this early exposure leads to deviance premise. That sounds shaky to me, but I do think that exposure to porn before one is sexually aware can be disturbing. That’s my opinion as a mom. I completely agree with the poster upthread re adults and privacy and computers etc.
Upon rereading, I think you mean that those who are already deviant (or delinquent) may search out porn, not the other way around. But I was framing my response in terms of the OP’s son. But there is also a chicken and egg thing here-we may never know which comes first (and porn is seen as an adult thing, much like smoking. Rebellious kids/teens may take to it to “prove” their independence/“maturity”). But that is not quite the same as what you posted, IMO.
That’s precisely what i meant, and the possibility of this line of causation is encapsulated perfectly by the last sentence in the section that you quoted.
And you’re right that we might never know which comes first for any particular person, but given that millions of people manage to view porn without ever committing sex crimes, i think the burden is on those who imply a causal chain leading from porn to violence.
I have never quite understood why in America one can drive at 16, go to war and die for America at 18, but not drink alcohol until age 21. Likewise, why is it ok for young people to watch video of mass killings, and even engage in simulated murder in graphic video games, yet it is not ok to see a pair of breasts? Nudity/Sex is natural… Rambo-like killing is not.
They didn’t have the Internet when I was a kid. So, having sort of figured out I was Gay by the time I was five, but not being able to put it in words, I can remember I was about 10 years old the day I went to my local downtown book store and happened upon a thin little book with psychological definitions. One definition was of “homosexuality” - the first “real” description I had ever read about people like myself.
I stuck the book in my shirt and walked out.
I ran home, locked my bedroom door and read that chapter. I read, and re-read that chapter several times over the years whenever I thought I was alone in the world.
My point of this journey down memory lane is that kids, even at that age, have a right to find information. Yes, I agree that overt porn is NOT appropriate at that age, but I hope your internet blocking does not exclude sites that might cover information your son might want to find out about, but not necessarily talk to you about.
I wish I had had access to that information at that age - it would have made my teen years a hell of a lot easier to get through.
Of course, I think you should be twenty-five before you are even allowed to drive a car and thirty before you can buy your first pack of cigarettes, but I’m getting old.
I think it’s okay to see a pair of breasts on a grown woman in a movie or a photograph if she’s bathing or nursing or getting dressed or something similar – and you are a pre-adolescent. That’s not pornography. But if she is being objectified and her breasts shown only for the purpose of (ahem) titiliation and arousal, then it’s not appropriate for a pre-adolescent. Some would consider it pornography.
The parent is exercising appropriate supervision for an eleven year old. By the time he is fifteen, talking about what’s real and what’s not would be more valuable. (Also, talking about what’s valuable…)
Don’t shield them too much or make a big production of it. You don’t want lots of John Ashcrofts running around covering up statues.