Why aren't kids "allowed" to watch porn?

I think we’ve gone as far as we can with the factual question of what the rationale is. The rest will be a debate on whether the rationale is justified. Off to Great Debates then.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

Because children aren’t capable of putting it in the proper context. Porno is hardly a great place for children to learn about sex.

Marc

Agreed. I think the real reason that porn is kept from children is so that it’s easier for women to deprogram the sexual “techniques” a guy might pick up from them later on. I mean, seriously, I haven’t met a whole ton of women that get off on having the guy hold their head while they give a BJ or that “make the tongue hard then push it in and out of the vagina while ignoring the clit” method of cunnilingus.

I would argue that porn has had some positive aspects in our culture, important ones. It has repeatedly showed healthy people having deep enjoyment of sex, with both partners interested and having a good time. In a certain sense, I think porn is more bullshit free than a lot of the stuff that the mainstream puts out about actual physical sex. Most mainstream movies and TV shows give the impression that really fun, physically enjoyable sex is generally the lead-in for murder, armed robbery, kidnapping and littering.

I’m still for parents being able to control access to adult content … kids should have to seek the stuff out on their own, like I did as a kid.

Did you by any chance follow this link?

I think not.

What about simple nakedness? True, it would be bad if children grew up with the idea that the only acceptable form of nudity is when posed and oiled on a bearskin rug, but that’s why it should be made acceptable across the board. In fact, most kids will find a copy of Playboy no matter what, so they should be shown that nudity is not necessarily sexual. Hardcore porn is another matter entirely.

There are plenty of things that aren’t wrong or evil but that I still wouldn’t want my (hypothetical) little children looking at. “The sight of an erect cock plunging into a wet pussy” could be upsetting to a young child, not because his or her parents were horrible puritans who filled the poor child’s mind with negative ideas about sex but because the kid is just too young to understand that sort of sexual image. Children who stumble across porn often seem to think that they are seeing a man hurting a woman in a very strange way – he’s poking her in her private parts, and she’s moaning and screaming.

Even an attempt to give a sex-positive explanation like “No, grown ups do that sometimes, and they like it. He’s not hurting her. They’re both happy!” could confuse a child. These sweaty, strained and pained looking people sure don’t look happy in a way that many kids would recognize. I would want to bring up my (again, hypothetical) kids to never think of sex as something bad or frightening, and I think protecting them from sexual images they are not yet capable of interpreting correctly is a part of that.

First off, I want to compliment a lot of the people who have posted to this thread. I come from a fairly conservative community, so a lot of discussion about sex is frowned upon and viewed from a puritanical perspective. And here’s my two cents regarding the issue at hand (pun somewhat intended):

I wholeheartedly agree that pre-pubescent children should not be exposed to porn.  What use have they for it?  That having been said, why would they want to see porn?  I remember in my cheery elementary days all the guys would shield their eyes and go "Yuck!  Eww!" whenever there was a kissy scene in a movie.  I really don't see why they would be attracted to porn.  As for post-pubsecent and those in the process of pubescing (lol), I don't see why they should be prohibited from seeing porn.  It seems that many people against relativlely young people viewing porn believe that it will encourage sexual activity in these young-adults.  I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but I will point out that some of the...hornier (for lack of a better term at hand [it's 0225L, my vocabulary is not what it should be])...might find release in using/viewing porn...and thusly giving them an alternative to seeking a sexual relationship with a peer.  As for the argument that it's ok to see violence in movies and TV because it's fake and it's NOT ok to see porn because it's real:  the violence in movies and TV is not presented as fake, in fact, it seems like the entire goal of the FX department is to make it seem as real as possible.  So just because it's not real doesn't make it legit, a person being shot is the same as the CONCEPT of a person being shot, and that's what a TV/Movie conveys.  Now, I'm not against violence in TV or Movies (I'm not against violins in TV or movies either) because I think most people understand when violence is warranted and when it isn't.  A similar understanding can be applied to porn.  If the child's parents have done a good job raising their kid, they should have a firm grasp of reality.  So no matter how outlandish the porn, they should be able to distinguish that from reality.

Some practical experience:  I'm recently graduated from highschool, so I know quite a few of these post-pubescent people.  And some of them admittedly view porn.  They are not psychopaths, they are not perverts, nor are they murderers.  This is because they can see the difference between reality and fiction.  And it's the parent's responsibility to teach their children to see the difference between reality and fiction.  You can watch porn and not turn into a sexual predator.

Most of what I've said pertains to males watching porn, as for women...again, I stress the role of the parent in educating them about reality vs. fiction.  Young girls don't need to watch porn to see what some would deem an "unrealistic status of beauty or sexiness".  Look at TV stars and music stars.  A lot of these people have had cosmetic surgery to unnaturally make themselves more attractive.  If a girl can understand that beauty is not being, or looking like, a big-breasted and thin-waisted super model, singer, or actress, then they can understand that beauty isn't a big-breasted, thin-waisted porn star.

So to conclude my sleepy ramblings (my thanks to all those who took the time to read the entirety of my post) I say this:  Once you're past puberty, age should not play so much of a role in making you eligible to view porn as should upbrining.  If your parents raised you well and you can clearly recognize the line between reality and fiction, then porn should do you know harm.  I also want to make clear my stance that I think an educated and fully-grounded individual can watch porn without ill-effects, however, I do not think pre-pubescent children should be exposed to porn.

That should be “no harm” in my last paragraph. My apologies to the grammatically sensitive!

I agree, that’s one of the things I really don’t like about porn. And the “jamming fingers into the vagina while ignoring the clitoris” method is even more disturbing.

I was thinking about this some more last night, and it occurred to me that the purpose of porn is not generally to be artistic or entertaining, or to present a realistic view of love and sex, but simply to help the viewer become sexually aroused. And why on earth would little kids need to become sexually aroused? Can they really become sexually aroused before puberty? I mean, I’ve read that even infants can and do masturbate to orgasm, but is that just a simple physical reaction to the pleasurable sensations they get from stimulation of the genitals, or is it actually associated with sexual arousal brought on by thoughts about members of the opposite sex (or the same sex, I guess, depending on the individual)?

I hope what I’m asking makes sense … it’s past midnight here, and as I discussed in another thread, I haven’t gotten much sleep lately, so it may not be comprehensible. For myself, I remember that when I was a little kid (from age 7, when I learned about sex, until the start of puberty at 11) I had some form of sexual feelings – I was interested in girls and curious about what sex would be like – but it was all much more abstract and nonemotional than it was once puberty started. And they were totally distinct from anything physical or having to do with genitals – as far as I knew, an erection was just an inconvenient thing that sometimes happened for no reason.

So, was my experience unusual – or are most kids not really sexualized until puberty?

I did. And since this incident merited publication, all it highlights is the exceptionality of this kid. Notice that this story is from Asia, where sex is in many places a taboo subject, let alone an uncomfortable one. Kids like to rebel. What better way than something taboo.

I agree with you here. You don’t seem to think. And your grasp of grammar is weak as well.

BTW, did YOU follow MY link in this earlier post?

Like many others here, I tend to agree with Internetl.egend.

A problem with this discussion is rather semantic … what is porn?

I don’t believe that a picture of a naked body is necessarily porn nor do I believe that movies or tv shows that show simulations of sexual activity are porn. Showing pictures/digrams of the body and parts as part of sex ed makes sense. Even within the category of porn, there is a spectrum … rather innocuous pictures in Playboy to porn movies specializing in S&M. (There is probably even some ‘intent’ involved … ie if I look at National Geographic pictures lascivously versus looking at National Geographic to learn about other cultures. Heck, some pubescent boys have used the Sears Catalogue lingerie section with pornographic intent.

The naked human form is a good thing; it is not shameful. When my young stepdaughter has come into the bathroom while I was bathing, I didn’t jump to cover myself up like it was evil (nor did I flaunt my nakedness either). I answered her question directly as to why I had hair on my vagina but also at a level which she could understand. She is too young to know the details of puberty but I could tell her that all grown up girls have it.

Similarly with pornography, it gets down to the level of understanding that a child has. A young child is too young to understand what they are seeing when they see adults in pornographic sexual explicit acts and in some cases it may scare them (see previous anecdotes in other postings). I do think it is okay for them to understand the parts of the body with correct names (ie penis and vagina). As the child approaches puberty etc, I think they have to come to terms/get comfortable with their own sexuality before they should have too much exposure to (explicit) sexual content; I also think it is healthy for them to see their adult role models in loving situation … ie hugs and cuddles. My husband and I keep anything ‘adult’ in a drawer in our bedroom so that the kids don’t get exposed to stuff that might be disturbing to them.

I think as they start growing into their sexuality, there is curiousity not only about human nudity but sexuality. I think many adolescents start looking for material to sate their curiousity. For some teenage (boys), this might involved hiding playboy under their mattresses. Should parents find such material in a teenager’s room, I think it could from a good focus of discussion around respecting your sexuality and respecting other people’s as well - rather than punishing them for their curiousity.

I found some interesting adult novels (eg Fanny Hill) and penthouse forum magazines when I was 14 at my older brother and sister’s houses and was rather intrigued by what I read and used it for my ‘amusement’. I don’t think this content hurt me; if anything I think it helped me grow quite comfortable with my own body and aware of myself sexually. I also don’t think I would have been ready to see some of the more explicit pornographic materials (eg pictures or movies of couples engaged in penetration, threesomes, alternate forms of sexuality) but the soft stuff was okay.

I can’t say when I think a person is ready for looking at the more explicit stuff … but I think it has a great deal to do with self awareness, comfort with / awareness of your own sexuality. On these grounds, one could argue that there are adults who can’t handle the material in a mature way.

I also think that how parents handle a child’s questions about sexuality or pornographic materials (like Tharkas’ anecdote) has as much impact or more than the material itself.

Which still won’t prevent pregnancy completely, nor does it provide much protection against various STDs. I think that’s a darned good argument against exposing children to explicit sexual acts.

<i>Which still won’t prevent pregnancy completely, nor does it provide much protection against various STDs. I think that’s a darned good argument against exposing children to explicit sexual acts.</i>

And for abstinence as well. Not that I endorse that view.

what markci said.

IMHO when kids see violence on tv they learn to rein the urge to copycat because violence causes physical pain. a kid duplicating punches on tv will quickly be taught not to do so etc, a kid duplicating shootouts on tv do not have access to real guns; on the other hand, sex and masturbation might be addictive for the child and hard for the parents to monitor.

Protecting children from exposure to the sight of explicit sexual acts won’t prevent pregnancy completely, nor does it provide much protection against various STDs. I think that’s a darned good argument against protecting children from exposure to the sight of explicit sexual acts.

That is a specious argument. Protecting children from exposure to porn might not absolutely prevent pregnancy or STDs, but the converse – exposing them to pornography – is not a viable alternative. That is, unless someone can show that exposure to pornography will somehow magically reduce the teen pregnancy rate or the incidence of STDs.

Besides, my comment was in direct response to Gyan9, who said “There is such a thing as a condom” when the issue of pregnancy came up. If you’re counting on a condom to keep these youngsters from getting pregnant (or from contracting STDs), then you’re not being cautious enough. It’s a piss-poor way to justify exposing prepubescent children to pornography.

You know, I always find it interesting that whenever someone brings up sex in the media, someone else instantly brings up the “why is sex bad but violence OK?” red herring, implying that all those awful repressed Puritans who hate sex also let their young children watch Terminator II every night before bed. An awful lot of people, myself included, are no more happy about the glamorizing of violence in the media than they are about the commercialization of sex. IMO this should be labeled a strawman and kept out of serious discussions of sex in the media–unless of course we’re already talking about violence as well.

The reasons that I do not want my children watching sexual media have already been covered above. I also do not allow them to watch violent programs or movies. (OK, my oldest daughter is 3. But she hasn’t seen most of the Disney movies yet–too scary.)

Moreover, I think that young children can understand violence more easily than they can understand sex. They can understand, for example, that it may be necessary to punch out a bad guy so that he won’t steal an old lady’s purse. They can also understand that it may sometimes be necessary to defend oneself, physically. In contrast, explaining sexual interaction to them would be many times more difficult.

Mind you, I’m not in favor of exposing children to dramatic violence. I also think that children should be taught to explore non-violent solutions to problems. I’m merely pointing out that they do have a some basis for comprehending violence, and valid reasons for doing so. There is no comparable need for them to explore explicit sexual acts.

Well, young children can’t distinguish facts from fantasies, a lot of the time. A young child in Hong Kong who watched his father’s porn, for example, started fondling strangers. Which leads me to wonder why children are taught religious beliefs that equate with hate material: Isn’t it equally impossible for them to distinguish between the accounts in the Bible and the accounts in a local newspaper? Unless it’s Fox News, or something, there’s a big difference.