18+ porn limit

[Nezhul]

First of all - this topic does not in any way promotes child pornography or minors acess to porn in general.

The discussion started here: http://www.milovana.com/forum/viewtopic ... 9&start=15

Actually on a side note.

Do you think porn and erotic should be rated 18+? I mean I know that probably 90% of teenagers have access to it, and I don't see it doing any harm to anyone. It's natural, so why 18+?

Yes, I think it should.
The harm that I see it brings is this. In the "old" days, boys got magazines in one form or another, looking at it alone, or in little groups. They saw these females spread out, in tempting poses. "Sally loves football and cooking wonderful meals," is what the caption said.

Those boys grew up to be men, who thought that their wives out to lay in those poses, stay very thin, and cook them meals that would make their mouths water and watch football for endless hours.
Divorce, obesity in women, and years of therapy, because the women could never live up to what the "boys" expected - a result of those harmless magazines.

Anything can be found online. As a mother of a 15 year old boy, who got mixed up with porn, because the site that hosted our parental controls had a malfunction, I can say I wish he hadn't seen some of the things that he had.

If a boy sees a picture of a threesome at age 15, he will crave it, want it, do just about anything to be in that threesome. He doesn't have the maturity to deal with the emotions of everything that is involved in that type of situation.

And honestly speaking, until a child matures to adulthood, sometimes not at 18, but older, there are many, many situations that they are not prepared to deal with.

I know that might not be anyone's opinion but mine......and that's okay. *Smile*

I agree with shell
As a single parent I had to bring up 2 girls and a boy through adolescence.
I was lucky that was a few years ago and the internet was not so available, nor was porn, but while I let them do most things, both girls were on the pill the moment I realised they had discovered sex and my boy given a box of condoms for the same reason.

I am pleased they learnt as they went, and able to discuss between themselves and me if more information was required.

They have admitted that today there is too much information with out guidance.
Children need to learn not just know.

I must be wrong because they are all in stable relationships and working or in full time education except one daughter who is on maternity leave.
Exactly the opposite of the preconceived expectation of the family of a single parent.


Myself I read every book I could find and cross checked to ensure I understood, got married at 18 and bought my first house before I was 21.

Actually on a side note.

Do you think porn and erotic should be rated 18+? I mean I know that probably 90% of teenagers have access to it, and I don't see it doing any harm to anyone. It's natural, so why 18+?

1. No, of course it should not. I would not hesitate to allow and encourage my own kids to access porn and have sex far earlier than that. It's far better to focus on what is ok and what is not (communication, respect and all that jazz I'm sure most sensible people agree on), than to alienate it all.

2. Yes, most teenagers access all the porn they like anyway

3. Because most of it comes from the states, which lets face it, is a pretty darn conservative country with a lot of double morale and issues in general with anything even remotely related to sex. Laws are created and maintained by people chosen from and for the general public - which means they are generally vanilla and with a lot to lose. It's not right, not one bit, but as long as religion and conservatism is allowed to so strongly affect the political system of a society, this is one of the many bad consequences.

A slightly different matter is when people should be allowed to work in porn/sex industry. I'm not sure 18 is a sensible limit even for that. Surely, as minors they would require their parents' consent, but beyond that, nothing should stop anyone above sexual lower age from taking part if they like.

[Nezhul]

I totally agree with janmb. What we should be doing is teaching and educating our kids properly, so they don't do foolish things. Restrictions and lack of information only provoke them to break those rules and provide too much interest, make them anxious. It's fine for a teenager to watch porn. What he always should understand is what he should not be doing. But I don't see a problem here - we manage to teach our children not to eat food that was dropped on a ground, I don't see a problem in teaching them to pick a partner carefully any make all needed arrangements not to get children.
And it doesn't matter which porn they view, soft vanilla or hard BDSM - it's their tastes. I don't think watching kinky porn while being properly taught would make them do something they'd regret or get harm of. But while that is discussable, I think erotic, softcore and vanilla should be allowed for free access. Maybe it'll be good idea in that case to place small erotic commercials in the beginning of a movie, teaching important things. If a kid is interested in porn already he'll definitely watch a hot scene while in the background he's taught how to use a condom. He won't watch it regularely but once for sure, and thats enough.

[SexualChoc]

Hmmmmmmm

tricky topic.

If I agree that some restrictions should be in place
this may actual affect our, and MY, access to THIS site
do to legislation many sites require credit card validation
for access to porn, but all that means is the kids 'steal' mom and dad's card to get access.
how many sites are left because that are truly no-cost (to us users) like this one?
<thanks to seraph and all who actually pay to keep this site running>
so in short I am aware that there are tons of restrictions already and
if I advocate for more, I realize I am in danger of losing my favorite site.

(2) how many people younger than 18 access porn sites?
I would say quite a few. I know we have had to bounce 2 individual here for being under age.
Used to be you had to be 21 to view porn, but you could star in it at age 18.

(3) do I approve of kids looking at porn sites knowing how many of them have No real representation of what a relationship is??
Actually how well do we, Milovana do on that?
Well at least most teases have Dom/submissive relationships anyway
However the reality is (and I may be wrong) many of the individual here
either (a) have no partner or (b) there partner does not know they are here. <real life partner>


So do I ask the government for more over-site of porn sites, well I worry there may be to much already,
how many lawyers did it take to keep THIS site going?
Now lot's of porn sites use "validation' by credit card to actually trick people into paying for the site
but at least there is some movement for restriction of access, done by the porn industry.
I hate to say it but I think it is up to Parents (including myself) to decided what restrictions my teen(s) have to internet and porn, there are plenty of programs that either monitor or block porn access.

because I work with juvenile offender we have NO internet access for ANY child/ teen/ young man.
These children are not your 'average' kids and have felonies, to drug addiction arrests.
Helping them understand what is 'good' is tough enough without the 'openness' of the internet.
Case in point, my wards had a laptop, with internet, for 24 hours, in that time they accessed a porn site
"bighotmama's" (made up name) AND got the laptop so full of viruses it had to be professionally scrubbed.

[dtspam]

I don't think, most porn will do teenagers that want to see it much harm.
I see the point of wrong role models and misleading ideas of sex/relationships. But if you want to avoid this, just teach the stuff about sex and relationships in school, so they have a different source of information. There is no sense in keeping the "wrong" information away, as that approach does not work, make the "right" information available. Teenagers know porn (and media in general, a lot of role models etc. are propagated over normal media and might be just as misleading) don't show the real world, they just need information that enables them to form a better picture and build their own opinion.

I don't think, all limits on porn should be dropped. It should still be illegal to sell or advertise porn to teenagers. A industry aggressively selling the stuff to teenagers would do harm.
But I would dispense of all those laws trying to restrict access, as they aren't effective anyway and never will be.
To protect young kids from accidentally finding porn on the internet, a good automated content filter should do. Especially if porn site owners have no good reason to try to get around them. (And as long as kids cant buy the stuff, they don't).

[les]

I have found that parents and non parents have great differences in the way children are brought up
Even when they are siblings,
In fact as a parent you views change, with time and experience.

As I said in my post


Children need to learn not just know.


And I think parents need to learn as they don't know everything instinctively.

[bookworm]

There is a world of difference between providing teenagers with sex education and exposing them to pornography.

[ClosetIdiot]

Call me crazy, but its not the job of the government to regulate social norms. At least, in my opinion. Its the job of the parents, and I think, should be the discretion of parents.

Firstly, 18 is an arbitrary number. Why 18? Societal norms, I guess. Some are mature at 18, some are not mature at 28. (As shell said). The flip side, is some are mature prior to 18.

Secondly, similarly to it not being the job of society, nor is it the job of schools to provide examples of healthy relationships/etc to kids. Its the job of the families or whatever child-rearing system society has in place.

Meh, more philosophically, I can't see porn as ever having done any particular harm to me. I mean, some of my private fantasies are still waay wilder than anything represented in porn. Exploration on line has just refined those fantasies. (Note, I'm almost 30, btw. But as a male, I was a consumer of porn since hm. I was 10ish? Granted, it wasn't internet pornography, it was, however, hustler and playboy.) Hmm, lets check, while I am single, that's probably due to grad school. (Graduate school + social life = largely incompatible.) I'm certainly not any kind of sexual predator.

Even more philosophically, I think the problem with porn might lie in gender. Women generally don't (for whatever reason, physiological or psychological) externalize sex the same way men do. And on some fundamental level, don't quite get it. Men, on the other hand, don't internalize nearly as much, and don't get that either. The dispute over porn probably arises from this fundamental divide. Average woman sees porn, thinks, 'ugh. that's so disrespectful' while when your average guy is thinking something more along the (very primal) line of 'Mm, me see female parts, me mate now!' and totally sidestepping the respect issue.

Eh, doesn't repression of appetites desires generally lead to violent outpourings? Seems like porn is a fairly harmless way for people that are single to release those desires.

I think the biggest misconception is this idea of...harm. Do you really think porn warps your desires? I think at best porn introduces you to new topics, I don't think it influences how you internalize those topics. (eg, some see gay porn and go UGH OMG NOOO, others go 'oh my...(blush)...uh...yeah, no! no!) =p. I think the same can be said of pretty much all porn, knee jerk reactions to 'thats hot' or 'thats not' Similarly, the people that are socially broken and want victims are already broken before they encounter porn. At least, in my opinion.

Not that I'm saying porn gives a realistic view of what sex is like, it doesn't, remotely. And really, everyone has a point when they say that's where education comes in. That should probably be part of the birds/bee's/sex ed/whatever talk, IMO. (but this isn't really the job of the state or government...)

[Bandit224]

There is a world of difference between providing teenagers with sex education and exposing them to pornography.

Really? Ever heard of sex guides and the long list of other actually useful "pornography" that is really more in the way of sex education than the garbage taught in sex education classes? Frankly, I believe the school systems should drop the god-awful sex education classes, since they are harmful to children.

They can always watch porn instead. It's all the education they need.

[janmb]

Children need to learn not just know.

Define "now"

They need to be taught BEFORE they choose to venture into an arena where they need that knowledge - not after.

For us parents it is a damn tempting and easy way out to tell ourselves that our kids are too young to need to even know what sex is - far less need to be taught the finer details and what they should and shouldn't be doing. Most parents do so far too long. That is egocentric and cowardly.

What is a simple fact but often seem to be totally lost on many parents is the simple truth that we do in very little degree control when our kids enter certain stages in their lives. What we CAN control is what knowledge and values they bring with them when they step into a new arena, in this case being sexuality.

I am bright enough to realize that I cannot control when my kids access porn or choose to get intimate with kids their own age. I bet many readers may even detest me using the word "kids" and sex in the same sentence at all. Well, since I cannot control their sexuality without keeping them in permanent house arrest, I may as well be a team player and try to guide them on the right path instead.

As a concrete example - instead of telling my 11 year old not to watch porn because its the devil, I'd rather tell them what porn is, how it should be regarded, and how it relates (and doesn't) to sex in real life. Tell your kids that properly and watching porn won't harm them at all - contrary to what might very well be the case with children whose parents unsuccessfully tried to keep them away from porn all together.

[Buster Channel]

I'm 18, and Ive grown up looking at porn. When I was 13 was the first time I had access to real hardcore porn. All I can say is that porn has changed the way I view women, and IF I was a little bit less social, I would rather sit at my desk on Saturday nights and look at porn than go out with my friends. I think porn can do alot to the young developing mind of an individual

[lightinthedark]

From a totally different forum (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/19/ ... By-Default) but a relevant viewpoint not mentioned so far:

I was raised in a small village with several farms around. By the age of ten I had seen all sorts of animals having sex, cattle, horses, dogs, birds, snakes, the rule is: if it moves it fucks.

Why should children be "protected" from seeing sex?

That's not me, but it's a good point. Sex (and knowledge of it) isn't inherently bad; it's what you do with it that counts. Much as others have said, I agree that education and guidance from the parents / guardians makes more sense than censorship. Kids are resourceful and will find porn whatever precautions are taken to "protect" them from the harsh reality that mammals have sex, humans included.

The other thing to consider with any legislation trying to protect us from ourselves is that it at best inconveniences and at worst criminalises a lot of responsible people who would rather look out for themselves and make their own decisions about what they look at and do.

[Nezhul]

Some of us realize what the entertainment value is, some get so immersed in it that they lose their focus on reality.

I'm 18, and Ive grown up looking at porn. When I was 13 was the first time I had access to real hardcore porn. All I can say is that porn has changed the way I view women, and IF I was a little bit less social, I would rather sit at my desk on Saturday nights and look at porn than go out with my friends. I think porn can do alot to the young developing mind of an individual

That's again just says that parents should be teaching children what is right or wrong and what the porn actually is. The harm may form if a kid have to hide his interest (and access) to porn and deal it all by himself, making (wrong) judgements on his own, without a view and knowlenge of a real life. THEN it may lead to false ideals and views. But if a parent would teach him, an underage will just enjoy sexual relief that a teenager often needs.

[les]

Reading through it appears that in the main parents agree some sought of limit should be applied.

I would expect all youths would suggest free to view and participate as early as possible.

Unfortunately too many parents are for various reasons leaving the baby sitting to TV and computers and so early knowledge is now far more common.

When my youngsters discovered sex they almost could not believe that, we their parents knew about it!

Let alone

"Did It"

[cumhardy]

Yes, I think it should.
The harm that I see it brings is this. In the "old" days, boys got magazines in one form or another, looking at it alone, or in little groups. They saw these females spread out, in tempting poses. "Sally loves football and cooking wonderful meals," is what the caption said.

Those boys grew up to be men, who thought that their wives out to lay in those poses, stay very thin, and cook them meals that would make their mouths water and watch football for endless hours.
Divorce, obesity in women, and years of therapy, because the women could never live up to what the "boys" expected - a result of those harmless magazines.

This is exactly the kind of attitude I hate, the assumption that people cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Its the same reason why the BBFC in the UK will censor perfectly good films because they think the unwashed masses will be corrupted by scenes they deem unsuitable. It assumes a stupidity on the part of the viewer that I find patronizing.

Im not sure whether your 'boys with magazines' story is a purely imaginary (and sexist) situation, but assuming you actually were witness to such an event, then you too would have seen these magazines (as you remember it well enough to quote the caption beneath the images). So obviously you also grew up thinking women should lay in those poses, stay very thin, and cook men meals etc etc...
Its a shame those men (which you seem to have kept a detailed record of their progress since leaving school, including their thoughts and attitudes towards women) were not intelligent enough to see a picture and realise that it wasnt real.
I think the problems faced by women you mentioned (divorce, obesity, therapy) have their roots in lots of other places too. To say it was all caused by men looking at jazz mags is a bit simplistic.


As for whether there should be an 18+ limit on porn, its a tricky subject. I find it funny that the age of consent in the UK is 16 but you cant view porn until you are 18. So its okay to have sex, including all the risks and responsibilities associated with it at 16, but its not okay to view images of other people having sex for 2 more years. If anything, it should be the other way round.

[Alliteration]

In an ideal world: Age restrictions (for everything) would be on an individual basis; and wouldn't really be age restrictions at all, but maturity/responsibility restrictions.

Actual world: This can never work in a society with a sizable population. The age restrictions are so we're not completely ineffective in restricting things, and should be based on the ages *most* people are mature/responsible enough to handle them.

On a side note, I find it odd that we let people cruise around in two-ton hunks of metal filled with extremely flammable chemicals, at speeds high enough to completely crush the occupants if even the tiniest mistake is made, at the tender age of 16.