Resolved: Children should be allowed to see anal sex, S&M, cum shots, etc. on the Web

Great Debates
61

Actually, I think I just lucked out on that one. I stole a used nudie magazine from a used book store, and when I got it home I found pages from a bestiality magazine in it. Woohoo! Creepy, yet fascinating. And what did my parents do so wrong in that instance? Permit me to go in a used bookshop? hardly…that was a product of my parents instilling in me a deep love of books and knowing a cheap way to get my hands on some! (And they did teach me not to steal. But I knew they wouldn’t SELL it to me…)

I agree. But there are a lot of things in this world that should and should not be, and we try to make them so, but we fail. We’re imperfect. There ya have it. Given that this is so, don’t you think it’s a good move for parents to be open with their children so that when their kids stumble across intense things, they can talk about it with their parents?

How did we get from “it happened” to “allowing” and “Letting”? Do you think my parents were providing it to me? They didn’t have a clue! And guess what: no parent does…if their kids want to hide something from their parents, they will. A parent’s best plan to create an atmosphere where that is not so necessary.

Okay, I misread you. Sorry.

Again…my parents did not provide me with porno. I was able to get it without any help or hindrence from them. And the only thing that would have prevented my seeing it would have been a level of supervision that would have been incredibly stifling. Particularly in 1968-69, probably not so much so today. When I was a kid, kids were a lot more free than they are today in many ways. For good reason, probably.
stoid

62

I specifically addressed the pedophile issue. Both that and rape are crimes against other people. I’m talking about fetishes. But as far as it is true that some people get off on fantasizing about pedophilia or rape, I’m all for producing fictional materials to assist them in this fantasizing. It is false to say that viewing such materials prompts people to act on the ideas. We all view movies filled with murders…do we all murder? But that’s another debate…

My point, radical as it was, is that our sexuality is formed pretty early. I’m not advocating that children be introduced to bizarre fetish material, but if a 16 year old kid realizes that he gets his biggest, most pressing erections when he sees women dressed up in leather and whipping other women…well, it’s probably nice for him to know that he’s not weird. There’s lots of people like him. And the net helps them to find each other, which I think is only a good thing. It’s very much the same issue as homosexuality, which is, at the core, kind of a fetish. And gay kids are happier and healthier knowing that they are not alone and that being gay is not weird. So just extend the analogy to kids who are nascent slaves or dominants or transvestites or foot fetishists or what have you.

Human sexuality has infinite variety, and it is pretty much completely outside our ability to control. I think it is a better, healthier society that recognizes and accepts this, than one that condemns and judges and hides.

Stoid

63

There seems to be an underlying “chicken-vs.-egg” argument here.

Stoid appears to me to be saying if you find out as a relative youngster you get turned on by feet and transvestites and S&M, you’re not alone; here’s a lot of stuff for you to see.

I would say it would be extremely unusual for a child or teen to find this out without being exposed to it. And that viewing this stuff repeatedly as your sexuality is developing would tend to influence you toward one of these “alternative sexual proclivities” (or “perversions,” whatever term you happen to like).

FWIW, I do see this as different from a young person having feelings and impulses of a homosexual or heterosexual nature. That’s probably a little more innate than the stuff I’m talking about above.

64

I continue to amaze myself be remaining in close agreement with Milo ( :wink: ). I don’t think exposure to fetish pictures leads youngsters to have those fetishes, but I do agree that repeated viewing of fetish photos by someone whose sexuality is developing would absolutely influence that development. As I said before, I think exposure to the concepts is healthy and positive, and can help a maturing youngster understand his/her own proclivities, but heavy exposure to visual images goes right to the psyche, without being filtered by the intellect.

Stoidela, I think your hypothetical 16 yr old can quite easily be reassured that he’s not weird without having to see a thousand leather lesbian dominatrix pictures on the 'net. And I really don’t think not having access to fetish photos will retard such a person’s sexual health (I didn’t see a “lesbian” photo until I was well into my twenties, but I can guarantee you I understood my own attraction to that idea from an early age).

65

Hey…not even Disney is okay by some people (eg, the bishop’s “erection” in the Little Mermaid, Jessica Rabbit’s vagina being clearly visible, the S-E-X in the Lion King…cf “Do Disney movies contain subliminal erotica?” http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdisneyperv.html) :slight_smile:
Well, of course I find myself agreeing with aynrandlover (even though now I find out that he’s a Clevelander :wink: ) but shockingly also agreeing with Stoidela (hey, there’s a first time for everything!) I certainly agree that sex seems to be trapped in Puritanism and now I am just barely beginning to get over my former Christian guilt and enjoy it for the beautiful act that it is. As for pornography…well, I can certainly sympathize with a frustrated 15 year old seeking it out, having been there myself ;). Personally, I’d much rather have a lonely pervert sitting at home and masturbating to pornography then being out raping women (before anyone brings up that the former leads to the latter, I’ve never seen a study that proves pornography to be a causal effect of violence against women…if you can find one, please feel free to cite it!!! Saying rapists watch porn therefore porn causes rape is like saying rapists breathe air therefore breathing causes rape.)

66

Rugby… EX-Clevelander :smiley: Ahh, I still love the town. Ain’t ashamed :slight_smile:

As far as the chicken and egg argument about fetishes, I’d say that isn’t as apt as it might be. I mean, this is sort of culturally biased to pronounce certian non-damaging sexual acts as deviant, wouldn’t you say? To say that a foot fetishist wouldn’t find out he was a foot fetishist unless he met other foot fetishists (sheesh, remind me never to say “fetishist” more than twice in a sentence!) is, I think, not true. After all, seeing a glorious foot is gonna set him off regardless of knowing someone else who is one. It doesn’t take a family restaraunt to know one is hungry, methinks.

I think sexual acts should be like religion, career, etc: make a great big buffet and say “See what you like, my friend.”

But again the core of this argument settles down on whether or not children are “equipped” to handle something as mind-blowing as sex. I don’t think sex is mind-blowing (unless performed correctly ;)) so I think kids should be able to see whatever.

[aside]You know, before I get involved in any serious relationship I think I’ll have to have my SO take a look at all these sex-related posts and say, “See, honey? If we ever have children we should start stocking up on porn now.” hahah[/aside]

67

I’m going to have to side with Stoidela on this one.

I can remember being twelve years old, and completely turned on by practices which I now recognize as being common fetishes (email me for details, if you dare…) and wondering what the hell was wrong with me. With a rural upbringing, I wasn’t exposed to any materials concerning my particular sexual interests until I was into college, and it’s taken a long time to exorcise that adolescent sense of freakishness that’s associated, for me, with my sexual tastes.

Now, I know that there are a lot of people who share my fantasies. I’d have given anything, as a scared, lonely, confused-as-all-hell teenager, to know I wasn’t alone.

68

STOIDELA –

Yeah, lucky little eleven-year-old you. :rolleyes:

This, of course, only underscores the point that adult-oriented materials should be kept in places where children cannot access them, be it to view them, buy them, or steal them.

So you stole it. Apparently what your absorbed from your parent’s prohibition was that stealing is wrong unless you judge it necessary to get what you want. Without attempting to argue that parents must supervise their children every minute of the day, which is not my position, I would think your parents might have determined whether you were likely to be exposed to pornographic materials in the places you went – like a friend’s house where the friend’s father leaves pornographic photographs where his very young daughter can access them. They might also have taught you that curiousity is no excuse for theft, as well as teaching you that some materials are not appropriate for children to see, and that they expected you (as a matter of trust) to not expose yourself to materials you knew they would not want you exposed to.

What do you mean “be open with their children”? My position is that “intense images” should not be located in places where it is possible for children to “stumble over them” without intentionally hunting them up. I do not want to be available to answer my hypothetical pre-teen son’s questions about golden showers because he found a picture of a man pissing on a woman; I don’t want him to find that picture in the first place. I want to raise my children with a healthy attitude about their bodies and sexuality, and I do not think exposing children to fetishism, dominance, bestiality, etc., helps further that goal. Some subjects and images are rightly for adults only.

No, a parent’s best plan is to create an atmosphere where the child respects that the parent, in the course of parenting, must make decisions about what the child will be allowed to view and/or experience. That’s what being a parent is all about. To me, that would include having a relationship where the child would feel free to speak to the parent about what he or she has seen, but that doesn’t mean the parent must condone it. So when the eight-year-old child says “Jenny showed me some pictures of her dad’s, and there was a man lying on a woman, and they were both naked,” I as a parent can think BOTH “Time for a little age-appropriate talk about sex” AND “No more unsupervised trips to Jenny’s house.” Or that bookstore.

In other words, regardless of whether your parents intentionally exposed you to pornography, they by your admission raised you in an atmosphere where you were able to access it repeatedly, and in it’s most graphic forms. That, to me, indicates a lack of parental control. Once seeing your best friend’s dad’s Penthouse is one thing; seeing domination pictures at the age of eight, books on bestiality at ten, and pictures of bestiality at eleven is another. There’s a pattern there.

I take leave to doubt it. Many children are raised in atmospheres were they are not allowed repeated access to hard-core pornography in multiple formats and from multiple outlets. Those children are not by definition “stifled.” I accept your implicit assertion that you suffered no lasting harm from your upbringing, but that does not mean I think it sounds like a great way to raise children. There ought to be some “hinderance” from parents regarding hard-core porn; there ought to be a lot of hinderance, in that they should not allow their young children to access it at all.

69

You know, my post was pure speculation based on what looked to me to be common sense. It’s always nice to know I’m right. :slight_smile:

stoid

70

Here’s what it boils down to:

I agree that reasonable steps should be taken to keep children from seeing pornography, particularly bizarre fetish pornography. I don’t think it’s a “good” thing. (I don’t think it’s a terrible thing, either, but it is certainly not preferred. Children are children, and there is much in the world of adults that is beyond their understanding and could be upsetting to them.)

I disagree that it is an easy thing to accomplish. Especially today, but ever, and that was the point of my story. My parents were NOT terrible, inattentive parents that let me run wild. The were actually the prototype for the parent of today: they both worked because they had to. We lived in a fairly safe and mellow neighborhood, and I had sisters that were considerably older than me. But I was permitted to go into shops around my neighborhood, and I was permitted to have friends. My parents had no way of knowing that my friend’s parents had porn…my friend’s parents didn’t know their daughter knew about their porn!

My point is that kids LIE, kids HIDE and you can try very hard to prevent them from seeing things you don’t want them to and * they will anyway *. That is FACT. Given that it IS a fact, particularly in this day and age, with the internet, I think it behooves parents to be open with their children, as well as taking responsibility, as Jess does, for supervising their Internet use.

Another thing…I was also a prototype of sorts. In 1968, my worldliness was unusual. It isn’t today. We aren’t crazy about it, but the fact is that an 11 year old in 2000 is the equivalent of a 16 year old in 1965, in terms of what they are exposed to. In fact, the modern 11 year old is probably considerably more sophisticated and worldly than the 1965 teenager. And that’s too bad, but it is what it is.

Of course, we could all commit to raising our kids the way Bill Pullman and his wife are raising theirs: No TV, no internet, go play in the backyard. Of course, their backyard is acres and includes horses and swimming pools…<shrug>

I’m so glad I’m not a parent.

stoid

71

STOIDELA says:

I never said it was easy, only that it must be done.

I never said they were terrible parents. But you must admit that if you to cheerfully post about your repeated early exposure to hard-core pornography, you cannot then be offended if people assume that very exposure indicates your parents did not do an exemplary job of protecting your from porn.

The point, which you continue to miss, is that parents – all adults – should not keep hardcore porn in places where it is easily accessible to children, not because they know for sure the kids will find it, but because they ought to know they might. The place for pictures of bestiality, if that’s what turns your crank, is not under your shorts in your bureau drawer but in a box with a lock on it.

It is not FACT that children automatically will be exposed to hardcore pornography and fetishism at a young age. That they often are indicates a lack of parental safeguards. Again, I will not resign myself to my children seeing such things and only be prepared to explain it; I will do all I can to prevent them from seeing it in the first place. That includes keeping it out of their reach if I own it, and restricting their access to it in every way I can.

If I, as a parent, have some degree of control over what my children are exposed to – and I will – I fail to take it as a foregone conclusion that my eleven-year-old daughter will be just as “worldly” as the older teenager of old. Again, this smacks to me of resigning yourself to the results of a problem that you don’t have to be resigned about. You don’t have to let your kids see all this stuff; you can work to ensure they don’t.

That, for me, is the bottom line.

72

Jodi, looks like we might tango yet again, but this time I actually disagree with what you are saying not just the way you are saying it :wink:

We have here a comment about parents teaching their kids about stealing being wrong and another about parents safeguarding their kids from pornography.

My question, as you might be able to guess, is why prevent them from grasping pornography in the first place? If it is because a child is sensative in this stage and cannot necessarily handle all the societal baggage that comes with sex, then why would you expect a child to also understand the very adult concept of “rights” and theft and their detriment to “our” way of life? That is, on one hand you actively try to protect them from a complicated issue by virtue of their unpreparedness (I’m assuming because you haven’t explicitely stated your reasons, so correct if necessary) and on another are expecting them to understand and handle a complicated issue.

Can you see why I’m at a loss to reconcile this contradiction?

73

Jodi, looks like we might tango yet again, but this time I actually disagree with what you are saying not just the way you are saying it

AYNRADLOVER –

Are you serious? Because children are sexually immature beings who do not have the emotional or intellectual fortitude to grasp or digest the complexities of human sexuality. Because graphic sex tends to confuse and alarm small children, for whom there is no frame of reference or sexual feeling that might serve to explain why people would engage in something so (to them) undignified and gross. Because exposing children to pornography implicitly underscores the objectification of the human body and does not foster in them a sense of safety or respect, either for themselves or for others – especially women. Are you arguing that it is appropriate to expose pornography to children?

I see nothing “very adult” in teaching your child the difference between right and wrong, and it expecting them to understand that some things – like stealing – are wrong. This has nothing to do with any “detriment to ‘our’ way of life,” whatever that means; it has to do with teaching your children morality (as your conceive of it), which morality in our society almost always includes such axioms as “it is wrong to steal.” In dealing with small children, I do not have to underlie that premise with the theologic or socio-economic reasons why it is wrong to steal; I just have to teach them that it is wrong to steal. All of which has nothing to do with pornography, by the way; I have never argued that pornography is inherently or almost always “wrong,” as I think stealing is. I have only argued that it should not be disseminated to kids.

Sexuality is a complicated issue, leaving aside the moral baggage it might carry. Explaining to a child why a man might want to pee on a woman, and why a woman would let him, is a very difficult thing to do. There is nothing of comparative complexity in “we do not take things that do not belong to us, because it is wrong to steal.”

Actually, no.

74

I don’t know why, but there seems to be some current that children are ought more than little adults with less experience. They are not. As a parent, it is one’s job to understand what is developementally appropriate.

Sex, like it or not, is emotionally charged. I remember my dad telling me a story, when I was 10, about seeing two dogs mating. Afterwards, the male was unable to extract himself from the larger female and was dragged down the street. I remember feeling queesy and very disturbed. I still get a bad feeling when I think of it. I hate to think how hardcore porn would have affected me.

I think that porn is fine, great, and should be legal. But it is not for juveniles.

75

Oops, forgot to mention that most porn paints a horrrible picture of sex and the role and power of women. I don’t want my kids thinking that porn even remotely reflects real life.

76

Yes, it sure can be.

Really? Then why not simply teach them it is wrong to objectify women. Really, I don’t see the issue here.

I see no resolution of the contradiction here.

As is stealing. That is, how is tax, money taken by force, not theft while stealing from the store up the street is. Or perhaps explaining the philanthropy of Robin Heed. Ah, yes, I forgot, we don’t need to reason with our children, we can just declare things wrong and be done with it. Like objectifying sex.

Sure there is. “You do not treat women like toilets because they are people.”

I know how well repeating myself works, but I’ll give it one more try. :smiley:

77

aynrandlover, I’m curious to know, what do you think of Ayn Rand’s judgement of pornography as being “unspeakably disgusting”?

78

What I think of Ayn’s comment on pornography? I dunno. I’d like to see how she developed the idea, that is, why she found it disgusting. You know where she said it? Sounds like something that might come out of “Romantic Manifesto” but I never finished reading it. She and I have many opinions that mesh, but there were also many conclusions she came to that I don’t feel she supported well at all, especially her opinion on art.
But, hey, no one is asking her to rent porn and I wonder if she would agree with its banning (not that banning porn is the topic here, just a thought). I doubt she would ban speech about communism, for example.
Truly, in reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged the romances there were very objectifying…dual ownership was discussed, not just implied. I see her straying from porn as “Some things are better left not spoken about” and that’s not the way we should go about things, at least, by some of her earlier writings on personal interaction and what liberties should be automatically granted.
As well she never specifically addressed chilren in any of the writings I’ve found. An objectivist theory of kids has yet to come to my attention.

Anyway.

79

Philosophy, Who Needs It?. But I don’t recall that she elaborated on it.

Oh, no. She did go on to say that, out of respect for the principle of a free press, it should not be banned.