Children grow up addicted to online porn sites: Third of 10-year-olds have seen explicit images

A 'guinea pig’ generation of children is growing up addicted to hardcore internet pornography, MPs were warned last night.

Four out of five 16-year-old boys and girls regularly access porn online while one in three ten-year-olds has seen explicit material, a disturbing cross-party report reveals.

It also cites figures showing that more than a quarter of young patients being treated at a leading private clinic are receiving help for addiction to online pornography.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2131799/Children-grow-addicted-online-porn-sites-Third-10-year-olds-seen-explicit-images.html

It's the Daily Mail so take with a huge pinch of salt and a good dose of 'the sky is falling'. I suspect there is a kernel of truth to this however; we all know how easily accessible porn is on the internet and sad as it seems, some parents just do not take responsibility for their kids, whether it's their upbringing or their manners or their behaviour. It doesn't surprise me that some parents would allow their kids to surf the net either unsupervised or without effective parental controls.

The flipside to this is that the current generation of kids probably are much more tech-savvy than their parents and know how to circumvent web blockers and such too

'News' from the Daily Mail? Wait, I see your American flag so I will excuse you.

The daily mail is the UK's Fox news... Except slightly more based in reality because we have laws on just how much stuff can be made up in reporting

I also say that people are far too quick to call pretty much everything addiction. I like chocolate and probably eat more than I should, but I'm not addicted to it...

Also, my phone has decided to add a 'u' to the end of my post and I can't get rid of it

Anyway, I'm off to buy some chocolate and look at porn... u

I would need to know what the numbers where from 20, 30, or 40 years ago to get a sense of things really. I have no doubt that the internet has made it more common, but at the same time kids used to pass around dirty magazines and the like so I imagine numbers may not have gone up as radically as one might imagine as far as young people coming across sexual images. Now the volume of the images seen on the other hand I would think has gone up dramatically.

FYI

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/02/120402fa_fact_collins

Language warnings ahoy BTW.



The Liz Jones story on page 2 is jaw dropping enough really, then you get to the stuff on page 3 "the daily meetings are known as the Vagina Monologues."

It's worth remembering that we live in a time that people are obsessed with naming people as having addictions or illnesses.

One of my colleagues wives took their kid to a psychologist for misbehaviour the other day. Her husband said the kids fine, she just doesn't discipline him.

I don't think the media helps this mind set at all, people are just out to scare monger all the time; scare sells!

Yes the internet has made porn more readily available, though I don't think these kids are addicted - that's ridiculous - that sounds more to me like either the papers scare mongering again, or parents trying to put across how much of a hard job they have of managing their kids internet activities, and by that I mean that they're happy to make noise about it and complain to everyone in the hope that someone else 'fixes it' for them.

We're in a lazy ass world where the majority of people doing nothing for themselves.

My vision is skewed here a little, and I'm not saying this is true of everyone, but definitely of a good majority, and definitely in Britain.

"Addiction" shouldn't be used as a synonym for "really likes it a lot".

azazel the cat wrote:"Addiction" shouldn't be used as a synonym for "really likes it a lot".

This.

Although it's probably just because it's the Daily Mail....

As filbert says, a rather large pinch of salt should be taken before believing anything from that pile of

There are two questions here.

Is porn actually harmful to 'children'? I doesn't seem likely to me (depending on the type of porn obviously).

Have 'children' been able to access porn before the internet? Definitely, I found my dads stash just before the onset of puberty and my school was awash with cheap 70's 'tache porn anyway. It is much more accessible now of course but it has been freely accessible for decades.

The Daily Mail loves to print sensationalist and poorly researched/understood stories. In fairness at least this one isn't about immigrants or yet another cancer scare/cure.

Haven't you heard? They're watching illegal immigrant porn, the theme is that they've come over for free cancer treatment on the NHS.

kitch102 wrote:Haven't you heard? They're watching illegal immigrant porn, the theme is that they've come over for free cancer treatment on the NHS. They're dressed in hoodies and worship Islam and do it in taxpayer funded council houses...

Finished that off for you.

LOL this is hilarious. i first saw porn at school were we would access it via Yahoo! Search - Web Searchwww.alltheweb.com/ in one of the classrooms during break. we sealed off the windows of course. th en there was the stuff on peoples phones. personaly i would watch porn but i dont have a computer at home but soon i will be getting one hopefuly.

Since there are peados on every corner, childern don't bother going to school and parents are out binge drinking themselves to death, what else do kids have to do all day but look at porn anyway?

Alright, this is whole topic is crap, why? Because porn is a normal thing of life, every guy (and possibly chick) has watched porn, its normal. Who cares? Hell I've watched enough porn to last a life time. Is that weird? Hell no, and if people do consider it weird... get a life, because it aint. I mean once you have a girlfriend, most people stop watching it...most.

Is this thread just another "Rick Sandpornum, isn't so bad"?

The Daily Mail have probably asked two ten year old's who've been caught looking at porn and it's a national problem. Sounds about right.

What grates at me about this 'possible' story is that parents are allowing ten year old's to use a computer with un-censored settings in private to watch such material. WHY? Common sense says have the family computer in a open place so internet usage by children of such an ages can be monitored. Not just to prevent them having access to such material, but to prevent social network bullying and paedophilia grooming.

This is the responsibility of the parents, but as was said before half of the UK are too lazy to help themselves and need to make a news story out of such things in the hope someone else will fix the problem for them.

I like porn, and I think everyone should, in moderation. I mean, the wife doesnt want sex as often as I do, so what am I to do? Paint miniatures? Sorry, that just doesnt.....do it, for me

KingCracker wrote:I like porn, and I think everyone should, in moderation. I mean, the wife doesnt want sex as often as I do, so what am I to do? Paint miniatures? Sorry, that just doesnt.....do it, for me

Well there is a strong argument t be made about desentization aspects of it. I'd go into more detail but I have to review all the relevant items in detail.

Frazzled wrote:Well there is a strong argument t be made about desentization aspects of it. I'd go into more detail but I have to review all the relevant items in detail.

That's true. Once you've painted a unit of 60 goblin spearmen, you need something to take your mind off of things.

Porn is a good, although not the only, distraction.

KingCracker wrote:I like porn, and I think everyone should, in moderation. I mean, the wife doesnt want sex as often as I do, so what am I to do? Paint miniatures? Sorry, that just doesnt.....do it, for me

Oh how I love dry puns, thanks for making my night KC

For the record, one cannot become addicted to pornography itself as it is merely sexually explicit media, however it can lead to the release of natural endorphines which themselves can, after a while, become addictive.
Mind you these same endorphines are released when you cut yourself or graze your knee so, take it fwiw.

Frazzled wrote:
Well there is a strong argument t be made about desentization aspects of it.

I believe the trick here is to not sit/lay on your arm for quite so long first.

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Well there is a strong argument t be made about desentization aspects of it.

I believe the trick here is to not sit/lay on your arm for quite so long first.

S8n, enough talk about strangering!

You'll resensitize my arm and desensitize the kids!

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Well there is a strong argument t be made about desentization aspects of it.

I believe the trick here is to not sit/lay on your arm for quite so long first.

Boom tish, he's here all week ladies and gentlemen.

This is like the whole video games argument. Your kids play Grand theft auto and they learn that killing gangsters and hookers is a good thing. Your kids watch porn they will become sex crazed perverts. No.

Kids aren't stupid, they know the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then look at other things to blame such as your addiction problems, lack of attention to them or your own poor attitudes and behaviour. Lousy parents lead to lousy kids, not porn.

I know kids under 18 should definately not be accessing porn but is it realistic? How else are they going to release sexual tension, having sex with another minor, possibly getting them pregnant? Resorting to rape to get what they want?

So how do we counter the problem? Don't give your ten year old a laptop or a phone so he can freely access sites without being monitored. No matter what you do they are going to witness some sexual act, what you can control is the volume of it.

Its just nudity, people need to get over their sex phobias.

You can watch people dying all sorts of horrid ways every night in any of the various cop shows. You can even see 1000 ways to die where they show all sorts of different ways people have died. no one cares about desensitizing violence.

OMG A NIPPLE!!!!!! a nipple flashed on the screen for a second, think of the children, AAAAAAAAAAAAa.

If you have kids, and a computer, you'll want some sort of net nanny. It won't stop them, just slow them down a bit. I thought you brits just passed some sort of law recently so thegovernment would do that for you.

For fun though, google "NUNS" without the safe filter on

sirlynchmob wrote:If you have kids, and a computer, you'll want some sort of net nanny. It won't stop them, just slow them down a bit. I thought you brits just passed some sort of law recently so thegovernment would do that for you.

Who needs a net nanny? I have a cache on my router that tracks what websites are accessed and gives me a timestamp.

Kids can get around a net nanny program. But try having a conversation with your dad when he has a printout of all the porn sites you've visited.

Private_Joker wrote:Kids aren't stupid, they know the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then look at other things to blame such as your addiction problems, lack of attention to them or your own poor attitudes and behaviour. Lousy parents lead to lousy kids, not porn.

Kids know the difference between right and wrong? Is this something they're born with, passed down from the parents? Or is it an inherent human trait?

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Well there is a strong argument t be made about desentization aspects of it.

I believe the trick here is to not sit/lay on your arm for quite so long first.

Isn't that what they call "the Stranger"?

azazel the cat wrote:"Addiction" shouldn't be used as a synonym for "really likes it a lot".

True, feth me.. 99% of gak they say people are addicted to these days is nonsense!

How the hell can you be addicted to sex?! Your just a fanny rat with no sense of self control because your a douchebag. Just take it like a man and stop giving gak excuses.

Case in point, Matty is not addicted to booze.

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:If you have kids, and a computer, you'll want some sort of net nanny. It won't stop them, just slow them down a bit. I thought you brits just passed some sort of law recently so thegovernment would do that for you.

Who needs a net nanny? I have a cache on my router that tracks what websites are accessed and gives me a timestamp.

Kids can get around a net nanny program. But try having a conversation with your dad when he has a printout of all the porn sites you've visited.

Private_Joker wrote:Kids aren't stupid, they know the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then look at other things to blame such as your addiction problems, lack of attention to them or your own poor attitudes and behaviour. Lousy parents lead to lousy kids, not porn.

Kids know the difference between right and wrong? Is this something they're born with, passed down from the parents? Or is it an inherent human trait?

Its a learned trait. All kids hit that "nudist" phase around the time they start potty training. Its how the parents handle that phase that influences the kids attitude towards nudity.

My 2 cents, Its to early to look for research on it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

If you have kids, and a computer, you'll want some sort of net nanny

I'm not going to bother with anything so crude. My son can look at what he likes on the internet.

Kids aren't stupid, they know the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then look at other things to blame such as your addiction problems, lack of attention to them or your own poor attitudes and behaviour. Lousy parents lead to lousy kids, not porn.

Kids only know "right and wrong" if you teach them.

EDIT: see the above post. this is an example of not teaching them.

How can kids access online porn? All those sites have things saying "click here if you're under 18" that redirect you away from the site. Are kids not clicking those things?

Also, how is it that only 1 in 3 10-year-olds have seen porn? That's a 5th grader. Back in my day, before the internet, every young boy had found his parent's, or his friend's parent's, porn stash well before 5th grade. I'd say 1 in 3 is actually lower than it ever has been before.

Grakmar wrote:How can kids access online porn? All those sites have things saying "click here if you're under 18" that redirect you away from the site. Are kids not clicking those things?

Also, how is it that only 1 in 3 10-year-olds have seen porn? That's a 5th grader. Back in my day, before the internet, every young boy had found his parent's, or his friend's parent's, porn stash well before 5th grade. I'd say 1 in 3 is actually lower than it ever has been before.

turn off the google safe search, then google any disney character and look at the images. I tried to find a picture of the monkies from madagascar 2, having their union meeting with the penguins. you'd be amazed that first I couldn't find it, then what I did find.

Frazzled wrote:

Kids aren't stupid, they know the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then look at other things to blame such as your addiction problems, lack of attention to them or your own poor attitudes and behaviour. Lousy parents lead to lousy kids, not porn.

Kids only know "right and wrong" if you teach them.

EDIT: see the above post. this is an example of not teaching them.

Teaching him what? That porn, and by extension sex, is bad? That would be hypocritical if nothing else. I would much rather concentrate on teaching him things that actually matter and allowing him to find out things for himself.

They realy need to calm down. I don't get this whole thing of "the computor should be where everyone can see".

On the porn front treat it like booze. Just because I have kids dose it mean I can't have a bottle of Scotch in the house? No. If I catch the kids swigging from my expensive 25 yo single malt (or even the bottle of not so expensive gin) will I think its the end of the world? No, but my good god they will be in trouble. If they are never given the trust not to do these things they will never grow up as rounded adults. As long as you know how to check what they are doign online from time to time then leave them to it I say. Let them know the boundrys and the consiquences of brakeing them and let them learn.

As for the arguments about cyber bullying and grooming, I see that as being the same as grooming and bullying anywhere. Its the same thing that is stopping people letting there kids go outside. As long as they know what is right and wrong and that they can come to you if they think anythign is wrong then no problem.

I'm more worried about the amount of time the spend on the internet rather than doing something else, but that is what wahammer is for!

Palindrome wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kids aren't stupid, they know the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then look at other things to blame such as your addiction problems, lack of attention to them or your own poor attitudes and behaviour. Lousy parents lead to lousy kids, not porn.

Kids only know "right and wrong" if you teach them.

EDIT: see the above post. this is an example of not teaching them.

Teaching him what? That porn, and by extension sex, is bad? That would be hypocritical if nothing else. I would much rather concentrate on teaching him things that actually matter and allowing him to find out things for himself.

Letting him do what he wants. Thats not teaching. Thats abrogation of duty.

Frazzled wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kids aren't stupid, they know the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then look at other things to blame such as your addiction problems, lack of attention to them or your own poor attitudes and behaviour. Lousy parents lead to lousy kids, not porn.

Kids only know "right and wrong" if you teach them.

EDIT: see the above post. this is an example of not teaching them.

Teaching him what? That porn, and by extension sex, is bad? That would be hypocritical if nothing else. I would much rather concentrate on teaching him things that actually matter and allowing him to find out things for himself.

Letting him do what he wants. Thats not teaching. Thats abrogation of duty.

In a word, gak.

If I were a parent, I'd be less worried about my kids looking at porn than I would be about them making porn of themselves via vidchats and sexting.

Manchu wrote:If I were a parent, I'd be less worried about my kids looking at porn than I would be about them making porn of themselves via vidchats and sexting.

ya that's a whole can of worms in itself. It made the news when an underage girl sent nude pics of herself to her boyfriend. she gets arrested for distributing child pornography.

All is going according to plan.

Wait, you guys didn't watch porn when you were young? What the hell is wrong with you?

sirlynchmob wrote:

Manchu wrote:If I were a parent, I'd be less worried about my kids looking at porn than I would be about them making porn of themselves via vidchats and sexting.

ya that's a whole can of worms in itself. It made the news when an underage girl sent nude pics of herself to her boyfriend. she gets arrested for distributing child pornography.

Agreed but thats a separate topic.

Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Manchu wrote:If I were a parent, I'd be less worried about my kids looking at porn than I would be about them making porn of themselves via vidchats and sexting.

ya that's a whole can of worms in itself. It made the news when an underage girl sent nude pics of herself to her boyfriend. she gets arrested for distributing child pornography.

Agreed but thats a separate topic.

Is it? I mean, we're talking about teaching kids "the difference between right and wrong" regarding internet use. It seems to me that they would go together.

Manchu wrote:If I were a parent, I'd be less worried about my kids looking at porn than I would be about them making porn of themselves via vidchats and sexting.

Your kids then learn that porn is acceptable and legitimate expression of sexuality...and now you're going to tell them that making porn is wrong?

I'm not sure you understand the right-wrong dichotomy.

biccat wrote:

Manchu wrote:If I were a parent, I'd be less worried about my kids looking at porn than I would be about them making porn of themselves via vidchats and sexting.

Your kids then learn that porn is acceptable and legitimate expression of sexuality...and now you're going to tell them that making porn is wrong?

I'm not sure you understand the right-wrong dichotomy.

Oh SNAP! sorry couldn't help myself.

biccat wrote:

Manchu wrote:If I were a parent, I'd be less worried about my kids looking at porn than I would be about them making porn of themselves via vidchats and sexting.

Your kids then learn that porn is acceptable and legitimate expression of sexuality...and now you're going to tell them that making porn is wrong?

I'm not sure you understand the right-wrong dichotomy.

No...children making porn is wrong.
Please read posts correctly before replying, it'd save everyone a lot of time.

@biccat: Nice try at insulting me but I clearly was not talking about the right-wrong dichotomy as implied by my response to Frazzled directly above your post. Don't feel bad. Frazzled obviously didn't read it either:

Frazzled wrote:Oh SNAP! sorry couldn't help myself.

Manchu wrote:@biccat: Nice try at insulting me but I clearly was not talking about the right-wrong dichotomy as implied by my response to Frazzled directly above your post. Don't feel bad. Frazzled obviously didn't read it either:

Frazzled wrote:Oh SNAP! sorry couldn't help myself.

Oh SNAP! fair point.

biccat wrote:

Manchu wrote:If I were a parent, I'd be less worried about my kids looking at porn than I would be about them making porn of themselves via vidchats and sexting.

Your kids then learn that porn is acceptable and legitimate expression of sexuality...and now you're going to tell them that making porn is wrong?

I'm not sure you understand the right-wrong dichotomy.

But what is right and what is wrong when it comes to sexuality?

To many generation have grown up with the church view, but is that really the right view? If we could all sit down honestly we could probably reach some happy middle ground, but there will still be a large part of people that don't want to hear it, and they sure won't tell their kids about it.

Just ponder back on your own sex life, when did you first start taking care of things, when did you find someone to take care of it for you? If you had a camera back then would you have taken pictures? Is that really a reason to destroy someones life by labeling children child molesters? I don't want to see answer here, just think about it. Our laws on these issues have been hodge podged over the years, like GW FAQ rulings, at some point it would be nice if our politicians could sit down with all these different laws spreading across different states and find a healthy balance.

Hell, I found the magazines when I was 12 and graduated to images online when I was 14. I still enjoy it, it's perfectly normal, and I'd say I started late. Of course, my dad had the talk about it all being faked in porn (except the moneyshot-couldn't fake that then, like you can now). Hell, half the body parts in porn are now fake. Teaching kids about sex is necessary, but the talk should also include why it is bad to show off at too young an age. I'm not a parent yet, so I don't envy those who have/had to address the situation.

I think mindless violence is far worse than porn. Up art!

Woah, four out of five? Holy cow. This is deeply disturbing, even to me. I always thought I was one of those few guys that watched it every day, but four out of five is way too much....

That includes girls too? I've never had and in-depth conversation with a girl about it, but I was under the impression it wasn't the same sort of addiction for women...

timetowaste85 wrote:Hell, I found the magazines when I was 12 and graduated to images online when I was 14. I still enjoy it, it's perfectly normal, and I'd say I started late. Of course, my dad had the talk about it all being faked in porn (except the moneyshot-couldn't fake that then, like you can now). Hell, half the body parts in porn are now fake. Teaching kids about sex is necessary, but the talk should also include why it is bad to show off at too young an age. I'm not a parent yet, so I don't envy those who have/had to address the situation.

You and your sensible reasoned approach have no place on the intranetz. Begone Demon!

Is anybody else kind of elated that girls are watching as much porn as guys?

Samus_aran115 wrote:Woah, four out of five? Holy cow. This is deeply disturbing, even to me. I always thought I was one of those few guys that watched it every day, but four out of five is way too much....

That includes girls too? I've never had and in-depth conversation with a girl about it, but I was under the impression it wasn't the same sort of addiction for women...

I've talked to quite a few different women on the subject, and they enjoy porn as much as the guys do. They're not as much into the movies, but read some of the books they're reading. trashy romance is a nice way of saying smut for women Its really all just a case by case basis though for men or women.

Manchu wrote:Is anybody else kind of elated that girls are watching as much porn as guys?

I know way more girls who watch porn than guys who do.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Woah, four out of five? Holy cow. This is deeply disturbing, even to me. I always thought I was one of those few guys that watched it every day, but four out of five is way too much....

That includes girls too? I've never had and in-depth conversation with a girl about it, but I was under the impression it wasn't the same sort of addiction for women...

4 out of 5 access it "regularly", but I didn't see anything defining what that meant.

And, yes, women access porn too. Perhaps not as often as men, and they usually aren't as open about it, but they do.

Grakmar wrote:How can kids access online porn? All those sites have things saying "click here if you're under 18" that redirect you away from the site. Are kids not clicking those things?

Haha, yeah right. Kids aren't stupid. They know how to lie, and they see no consequence in lying on the internet.

Also, how is it that only 1 in 3 10-year-olds have seen porn? That's a 5th grader. Back in my day, before the internet, every young boy had found his parent's, or his friend's parent's, porn stash well before 5th grade. I'd say 1 in 3 is actually lower than it ever has been before.

Really? I got into porn in middle school, after lots of pressure from other kids(middle school is a gak hole). I don't recall every hearing about porn before the 5th grade.

Frazzled wrote:

Kids aren't stupid, they know the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then look at other things to blame such as your addiction problems, lack of attention to them or your own poor attitudes and behaviour. Lousy parents lead to lousy kids, not porn.

Kids only know "right and wrong" if you teach them.

Kids only know socialially constructed definitions of right and wrong if you teach them.

Fixed that for you.

azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kids aren't stupid, they know the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then look at other things to blame such as your addiction problems, lack of attention to them or your own poor attitudes and behaviour. Lousy parents lead to lousy kids, not porn.

Kids only know "right and wrong" if you teach them.

Kids only know socialially constructed definitions of right and wrong if you teach them, or if they pick them up from their peers, who have just as much, if not more, influence than parents.

Fixed that for you.

Fixed that for you.

azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kids aren't stupid, they know the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then look at other things to blame such as your addiction problems, lack of attention to them or your own poor attitudes and behaviour. Lousy parents lead to lousy kids, not porn.

Kids only know "right and wrong" if you teach them.

Kids only know socialially constructed definitions of right and wrong if you teach them.

Fixed that for you.

If you had a point, you lost it.

Frazzled wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kids aren't stupid, they know the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then look at other things to blame such as your addiction problems, lack of attention to them or your own poor attitudes and behaviour. Lousy parents lead to lousy kids, not porn.

Kids only know "right and wrong" if you teach them.

Kids only know socialially constructed definitions of right and wrong if you teach them.

Fixed that for you.

If you had a point, you lost it.

His point is still perfectly valid.

Palindrome wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kids aren't stupid, they know the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then look at other things to blame such as your addiction problems, lack of attention to them or your own poor attitudes and behaviour. Lousy parents lead to lousy kids, not porn.

Kids only know "right and wrong" if you teach them.

Kids only know socialially constructed definitions of right and wrong if you teach them.

Fixed that for you.

If you had a point, you lost it.

His point is still perfectly invalid.

Corrected your typo.

Palindrome wrote:His point is still perfectly valid.

No it's not. He pointed out that Frazzled did not specify that values are socially constructed. Frazzled point did not comment on whether or not social values are constructed, which is quite natural as that had nothing to do with Frazzled's point.

Manchu wrote:

Palindrome wrote:His point is still perfectly valid.

No it's not. He pointed out that Frazzled did not specify that values are socially constructed. Frazzled point did not comment on whether or not social values are constructed, which is quite natural as that had nothing to do with Frazzled's point.

Exactamundo!

Most people have already actually had sex by the time they're 16. This is has been true for pretty much the entirety of human history. If sticking body parts in orifices hasn't caused humanity to collapse any time in the past 10,000 years we've been "Civilized". Regularly seeing porn isn't going to hurt teenagers now. I'm really more worried about that 1/5 that doesn't go after the porn, since that's a fair bit larger than the asexual portion of the population.

I guess not everyone has access to a computer and/or internet?

Manchu wrote:I guess not everyone has access to a computer and/or internet?

That's probably a pretty fair explanation.

Chongara wrote:Most people have already actually had sex by the time they're 16. This is has been true for pretty much the entirety of human history. If sticking body parts in orifices hasn't caused humanity to collapse any time in the past 10,000 years we've been "Civilized".

Tell that to the people of Sodom and Gamorra! [insert crazed laughter of a street preacher here]

Chongara wrote:

Manchu wrote:I guess not everyone has access to a computer and/or internet?

That's probably a pretty fair explanation.

I used to get my porn the old fashioned way, I went dumpster diving through the paper recycling the day before the truck came. Wives were great for throwing out their husbands or sons stashes but that was before bbs and da net. for todays kids without a computer, the answer is photography magazines and photo art books its not porn, its classy naked ladies

I am one of the 80%'rs

Manchu wrote:

Palindrome wrote:His point is still perfectly valid.

No it's not. He pointed out that Frazzled did not specify that values are socially constructed. Frazzled point did not comment on whether or not social values are constructed, which is quite natural as that had nothing to do with Frazzled's point.

Frazzled made the assertion that right and wrong must be taught. The cat of azazel and myself disagree.

So are morals socially constructed or not? Or are some morals, which need not be taught, not socially constructed?

In any case, the "fixed that for you" meme was obviously not a good way to talk about your views.

Palindrome wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Palindrome wrote:His point is still perfectly valid.

No it's not. He pointed out that Frazzled did not specify that values are socially constructed. Frazzled point did not comment on whether or not social values are constructed, which is quite natural as that had nothing to do with Frazzled's point.

Frazzled made the assertion that right and wrong must be taught. The cat of azazel and myself disagree.

So you're saying they are naturally imbued? Really? Despite all evidence to the contrary you still believe.... How...religious of you.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Chongara wrote:

Manchu wrote:I guess not everyone has access to a computer and/or internet?

That's probably a pretty fair explanation.

I used to get my porn the old fashioned way, I went dumpster diving through the paper recycling the day before the truck came. Wives were great for throwing out their husbands or sons stashes but that was before bbs and da net. for todays kids without a computer, the answer is photography magazines and photo art books its not porn, its classy naked ladies

I am one of the 80%'rs

OH wow, never thought of that. I just got my porn the old fashioned way stealing mags from the corner store. You sir win +10,000,000 internetz

Frazzled wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Palindrome wrote:His point is still perfectly valid.

No it's not. He pointed out that Frazzled did not specify that values are socially constructed. Frazzled point did not comment on whether or not social values are constructed, which is quite natural as that had nothing to do with Frazzled's point.

Frazzled made the assertion that right and wrong must be taught. The cat of azazel and myself disagree.

So you're saying they are naturally imbued? Really? Despite all evidence to the contrary you still believe.... How...religious of you.

Is this the new internet trump card?

It'll be fun to auto-win arguments by calling someone Religious. Much better than the old auto-win terms "Nazi" or "Troll".

Grakmar wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Palindrome wrote:His point is still perfectly valid.

No it's not. He pointed out that Frazzled did not specify that values are socially constructed. Frazzled point did not comment on whether or not social values are constructed, which is quite natural as that had nothing to do with Frazzled's point.

Frazzled made the assertion that right and wrong must be taught. The cat of azazel and myself disagree.

So you're saying they are naturally imbued? Really? Despite all evidence to the contrary you still believe.... How...religious of you.

Is this the new internet trump card?

It'll be fun to auto-win arguments by calling someone Religious. Much better than the old auto-win terms "Nazi" or "Troll".

priest's collars, its the new black.

Manchu wrote:So are morals socially constructed or not? Or are some morals, which need not be taught, not socially constructed?

My point was that children will only know socially constructed views of right and wrong if they are taught. As opposed to biologically imperative right & wrong actions, which will occur naturally as they are based upon instinct. I'm not making any statements aobut which is what; I'm merely pointing out that Frazzled's statement that "children will only kow right from wrong if they are taught" is incorrect by virtue of how wide a generalization it is. Frazzled's statement assumes that there is no innate morality to people. While there may not necessarily be an innate socially constructed morality, there most certainly is an innate hedonistic morality, sometimes a utilitarian morality, and always a morality of the biological imperative that lays outside of any objective framework.

That was my point. I feel that my original point of correcting Frazzled's statement was quite concise.



EDIT: I don't really believe in an objective morality, myself. I'm more of a social contractarian.

Frazzled correctly assumes there is no innate morality in people, unless you consider unrestrained narcissm to be a form of morality. Everything else is taught.

azazel:

I can assure you it was not. I had no idea, from what you posted before, that you were talking about biological imperatives regarding categories of right and wrong.

Manchu wrote:azazel:

I can assure you it was not. I had no idea, from what you posted before, that you were talking about biological imperatives regarding categories of right and wrong.

Frazzled wrote:Frazzled correctly assumes there is no innate morality in people, unless you consider unrestrained narcissm to be a form of morality. Everything else is taught.

Two people are locked in a box with one piece of meat.

One person kills the other and eats the piece of meat. That person acted correctly according to innate biological morality.

Socially constructed morality, in general, would say that they should have shared the meat and worked together.

Frazzled assumed things based on a myopic worldview.

"Innate biological morality" huh?

So you're actually agreeing with me that the only morality is the narcissist. Excellent.

And thats why he has all the guns your honor.

Not sure who you're referring to. I think there are a few variations of morality. The big three are:

Kantian Ethics
Utilitarianism
Virtue Ethics

Utilitarianism is innate insofar as its hedonism goes; however its calculus changes based upon increased knowledge and worldview.
Virtue Ethics is 100% socially constructed, and Kantian Ethics are also 100% socially constructed, however they claim not to be.

Manchu wrote:"Innate biological morality" huh?

well morality is a horribly complex issue. This guy really address them well. But morals vary greatly between different people and different groups.

http://blog.ted.com/2010/03/22/science_can_ans/

I actually watched that. And my opinion of TED dropped.

Manchu wrote:I actually watched that. And my opinion of TED dropped.

But thats the problem when it comes to talking about morals. How do you define what is moral, or if a topic even falls under morality?

sirlynchmob wrote:

Manchu wrote:I actually watched that. And my opinion of TED dropped.

But thats the problem when it comes to talking about morals. How do you define what is moral, or if a topic even falls under morality?

You establish a framework. Typically, that means either Utilitarianism, Kantian, or Virtue Ethics. (almost all other kinds of morality will fit into one of those three categories)

Not to intrude too much into the ethics debate but I wonder if the kids growing up with unlimited free net porn will have a long term impact on sexual predators?

If most predators back in the day could just sit home and fap to hentai, would they be so eager to go out and commit crimes?

Or does the sick gene still need to manifest it self in a real world situation?

azazel the cat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Manchu wrote:I actually watched that. And my opinion of TED dropped.

But thats the problem when it comes to talking about morals. How do you define what is moral, or if a topic even falls under morality?

You establish a framework. Typically, that means either Utilitarianism, Kantian, or Virtue Ethics. (almost all other kinds of morality will fit into one of those three categories)

I'd also contend that most issues would fall into the "none of the above" catagory. a lot of things just do not have a moral/ethical position, but when people artificially assign them one it creates lots of suffering, that action would be immoral.

I think this net nanny idea is hawt. you hire some attractive young au pair, dressed in some maids costume hopefully to make sure you don't look at the really nasty sites, with tittilating punishment if you do.
Watching porn does not in anyway alter your perceptions

and btw i can grow the start of several million human beings in my body so i can also do whatever i want. I always knew there was a reason for free will, now i realised it's related to how many new people you can grow.

Ok....

So how many of them have ever visited 4chan?

Edit: Because if they have, that right there explains how they saw those pics/gifs/vids....

Seems like we've gone way off topic...but okay, since we're just having a conversation. Instead of thinking about what defines morality or redundantly trying to correct other peoples statements when you should have and could have easily assumed that the person you were correcting had already known but left out what you wrote. Lets go with facts instead of ideals. What are morals in the reality of society? It is a set of written or unwritten but always assumed set of rules/values that holds a place of worth in a community. But then again, that is just a vague definition. More often then not, morals of any standard are set by people in place of power. Values are often forced on the conquered and low classes of society because it is the ones on top who get to choose the worth of pretty much everything. Based on facts, on the actions written in history, that is what morals are. But of course, we still have the right to argue what defines morality.

Edit: And btw, data suggests that pornography has been around since the ancient egyptians. But thats only because we have evidence due to the egyptians knowing the importance of keeping records. Knowledge is power. Of course it isn't really called pornography nor did the egyptians percieve it the same way we do so today due to them having different "morals". But I personally assume that "pornography" goes back longer than the egyptians. It would be foolish to assume something isn't there just because you don't see it.

Pornography is not bad at all as far as I can tell but excessive masturbation can lead to health problems so you know just have some moderation...

jgehunter wrote:Pornography is not bad at all as far as I can tell but excessive masturbation can lead to health problems so you know just have some moderation...

I've heard this, but what problems is it supposed to lead to?

Sex can lead to a snapped penis so perhaps masturbations associated health problems are safer

Palindrome wrote:There are two questions here.

Is porn actually harmful to 'children'? I doesn't seem likely to me (depending on the type of porn obviously).

I don't know

going through puberty I really only had a few choices

Sailormoon on Toonami, Trish Stratus images posters or magazines or underwear ads from the sears catalog (least favorable).

Going through puberty was a painful lonely time.

Piston Honda wrote:

Palindrome wrote:There are two questions here.

Is porn actually harmful to 'children'? I doesn't seem likely to me (depending on the type of porn obviously).

I don't know

going through puberty I really only had a few choices

Sailormoon on Toonami, Trish Stratus images posters or magazines or underwear ads from the sears catalog (least favorable).

Going through puberty was a painful lonely time.

I never quite sank as low as Sailor Moon (thank goodness for small blessings), but underwear ads and I were quite well-acquainted in my teenage years. After all, who had time to wait for dial-up to get to the good stuff?

grayshadow87 wrote:[

I never quite sank as low as Sailor Moon (thank goodness for small blessings), but underwear ads and I were quite well-acquainted in my teenage years. After all, who had time to wait for dial-up to get to the good stuff?

Only computer we had was in the den so no privacy for fap time.

High school was worse. No dating life. Being the only virgin on the football team and not talking about sex in the locker room and having pictures of pro wrestlers in my locker kind spread rumors around.

I take comfort in seeing all those bastards miserable working at Wal Mart, McDonalds, all fat, pregnant or having a bunch of bratty kids.

Goddamn kids today are so spoiled it kills me. 4 out 5 teenagers are addicted to internet porn? When I was a kid, there was no internet, let alone internet porn.

When I was a kid, the best spank material we could summon was National Geographics from the library. And we had to walk there 20 miles in the snow, uphill both ways, with no shoes. That's how life was in the dark days of the early 90's.

Deathshead420 wrote:Not to intrude too much into the ethics debate but I wonder if the kids growing up with unlimited free net porn will have a long term impact on sexual predators?

If most predators back in the day could just sit home and fap to hentai, would they be so eager to go out and commit crimes?

Or does the sick gene still need to manifest it self in a real world situation?

Access to outlets has been shown to decrease some instances, while exacerbating others. Ultimately, it makes no difference to the overall numbers.



@SirLynchMob: There is no morality that you cannot place into one of those three categories: Utilitarian, Kantian or Virtue Ethics. Everything else winds up being somewhat derivative of one or more of these options.

Utilitarian Ethics = right and wrong are determined by the principle of maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain. (changes to worldview can alter the calculation)
Kantian Ethics = God determines what is right and wrong. (or some other significantly superior entity)
Virtue Ethics = The pursuit of "arete", amongst a subscription to a predetermined set of desirable traits. (the most flawed of the theories, it makes no distinction of how those traits are determined or ranked)

azazel the cat wrote:

Deathshead420 wrote:Not to intrude too much into the ethics debate but I wonder if the kids growing up with unlimited free net porn will have a long term impact on sexual predators?

If most predators back in the day could just sit home and fap to hentai, would they be so eager to go out and commit crimes?

Or does the sick gene still need to manifest it self in a real world situation?

Access to outlets has been shown to decrease some instances, while exacerbating others. Ultimately, it makes no difference to the overall numbers.



@SirLynchMob: There is no morality that you cannot place into one of those three categories: Utilitarian, Kantian or Virtue Ethics. Everything else winds up being somewhat derivative of one or more of these options.

Utilitarian Ethics = right and wrong are determined by the principle of maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain. (changes to worldview can alter the calculation)
Kantian Ethics = God determines what is right and wrong. (or some other significantly superior entity)
Virtue Ethics = The pursuit of "arete", amongst a subscription to a predetermined set of desirable traits. (the most flawed of the theories, it makes no distinction of how those traits are determined or ranked)

I know that. But what happens is, people take a label with no moral qualities, like republican, and assign it a moral quality, immoral. so if I get enough people to agree with me that republicans are immoral, then everyone starts seeing republican as a moral issue. When in reality its just not a moral position, its just a position.

Bullockist wrote:Sex can lead to a snapped penis so perhaps masturbations associated health problems are safer

Such as RSI or, depending on your technique, whiplash!

Ouze wrote:Goddamn kids today are so spoiled it kills me. 4 out 5 teenagers are addicted to internet porn? When I was a kid, there was no internet, let alone internet porn.

When I was a kid, the best spank material we could summon was National Geographics from the library. And we had to walk there 20 miles in the snow, uphill both ways, with no shoes. That's how life was in the dark days of the early 90's.

Hey there was internet, but only the rich kids had it. And they always stopped inviting you over once you whipped it out in their living room...............rich A-holes and their fancy computers

Is it just me, or is it odd that you can have sex at 16, but can't watch porn until 18?

Squigsquasher wrote:Is it just me, or is it odd that you can have sex at 16, but can't watch porn until 18?

It is so you don't get any ideas... and/or can properly appreciate the porn when you get to 18

It is odd that in NY state 17 yr olds can have sex, but if one of them sends a naked pic to the other, they can be arrested. Apparently, the picture is more damaging, shared between a couple, than sex is. Somebody didn't think this out well...pictures don't cause pregnancy or STDs (usually). Age of legal sex and age of nude pictures should be the same.

That's something that's always confused me, and I've yet to hear a decent explaination for it... maybe there isn't one?

How is it hard to understand that creating illegal pornography is different than having sex?

Not creating necessarily, but viewing... although, put like that... ^
My thoughts were that If you're old enough to do It, surely you're old enough to watch it done?

But then, as a teenage guy I'm biased all the way to hell on this one

Manchu wrote:How is it hard to understand that creating illegal pornography is different than having sex?

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's bad.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Manchu wrote:How is it hard to understand that creating illegal pornography is different than having sex?

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's bad.

Although rulers, dictators, and all forms of governmental bodies would give alot to have you think that

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Manchu wrote:How is it hard to understand that creating illegal pornography is different than having sex?

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's bad.

The converse of this statement is equally true.

Both are so vague as to be pretty much pointless to even say.

Things like the current discussion is just proof in how ill equipped the law is in our modern world. Im sure when the laws were made that allowed 16/17 y/o to have consensual sex, we didnt have house phones that fit in our pockets, and take anywhere, that has instant access to the internet with video capturing tech in it.



But our law makers would rather argue over stupid things, like why are certain musical artists "bad" and why video games cause people to rape and murder one another

KingCracker wrote:Things like the current discussion is just proof in how ill equipped the law is in our modern world. Im sure when the laws were made that allowed 16/17 y/o to have consensual sex, we didnt have house phones that fit in our pockets, and take anywhere, that has instant access to the internet with video capturing tech in it.

But our law makers would rather argue over stupid things, like why are certain musical artists "bad" and why video games cause people to rape and murder one another

Yeah, we never thought that we'd have that type of technology nor that it would be used for such purposes by teenagers or criminals to make under-aged pornography. But then again, 100 years back, marrying at the age of 16 or 17 was pretty normal. You or your family would have been looking for a suitable mate for you by the time you were 14...sometimes earlier. So, bearing with the fact that it was viewed as pretty ordinary for two people to wed at that age back then, the law is pretty accurate based on historic facts. We can't foresee the future though, so the laws on current standards would always be behind by one step.

Case in point, Gay marriage and Gay rights. When my dad was a kid, homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder.

Monster Rain wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Manchu wrote:How is it hard to understand that creating illegal pornography is different than having sex?

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's bad.

The converse of this statement is equally true.

Both are so vague as to be pretty much pointless to even say.

As a counterpoint given context it isn't very vague really. Thanks for nitpicking though

And the majority of people I knew in my younger life still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. Ones I meet now, not so much.

I don't think sex becoming more normal is going to cause some Eldar-esque psychic explosion. Teenagers swapping pics then learning what shame is early so they avoid mistakes later in life might just be normal now. If anything we should be teaching them to make sure and leave their faces out of them, or how to get pics without having to send any. Or that they can send random pics they find on the internet instead of theirs so they're not actually at risk. I should teach health class.

kitch102 wrote:

Bullockist wrote:Sex can lead to a snapped penis so perhaps masturbations associated health problems are safer

Such as RSI or, depending on your technique, whiplash!

I know someone whos Granddad bent his penis during sex...... at 90 degrees....

^thats... Nice to know.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: I don't think sex becoming more normal is going to cause some Eldar-esque psychic explosion.

Damn, there goes my master plan.

I see this sort of stuff in my school. I do think it's unhealthy, for many complicated reasons. Unfettered access to hardcore pornography distorts kid's expectations and attitudes.

The whole sending naked pictures thing is also distressing- teenage boys are absolute scumbags about this sort of thing, any girl who puts an even remotely revealing picture out there is sure to be on everyone's smart phone within a couple of days. Even if they leave their face out of it, it is quickly uploaded to a social network and tagged, so everyone knows who it is. Gossip and scandal moves at lightning speed through the school and kids viciously pile on to the despised in their peer group via twitter etc.
I'm sure it will balance out, with time, but I have no illusions that it's not harmful.

Da Boss wrote:I see this sort of stuff in my school. I do think it's unhealthy, for many complicated reasons. Unfettered access to hardcore pornography distorts kid's expectations and attitudes.

The whole sending naked pictures thing is also distressing- teenage boys are absolute scumbags about this sort of thing, any girl who puts an even remotely revealing picture out there is sure to be on everyone's smart phone within a couple of days. Even if they leave their face out of it, it is quickly uploaded to a social network and tagged, so everyone knows who it is. Gossip and scandal moves at lightning speed through the school and kids viciously pile on to the despised in their peer group via twitter etc.
I'm sure it will balance out, with time, but I have no illusions that it's not harmful.

Ide like to be the exeption to the scumbag list. If someone disrespects a girl near me they feel the hard end of my steel toe capped boots IF there lucky.....

well, in the interest of equal rights for the sexes i think you mean if someone disrespected a PERSON near you...