18+ porn limit

[Nezhul]

Instead of making my children hide from me their fantasies and thoughts and intentions to sleep with someone, I'd rather make them trust me on giving a good advice. Thus I don't plan to forbid porn or sexual relationship before 18 (thus I do intend to make them understand all dangers and consequences). If my 16yo kid is going to find a partner to have sex with - he\she will, no matter how strongly I disapprove or forbid it. Instead I say let them have sex, but I'll make it so my child understands that
1) what precautions should be taken
2) that relationships in this age hardly ever lead to happy marriage
3) it's OK for fun, if a partner is your age
4) It's not OK if age difference is >2 years
5) there's a chance there won't be that much fun after all, but that's ok too.

instead of keeping informational isolation I'd rather prefer my kid to have a few unpleasent moments, but so he\she knows what's the dangers beforehand.


In general on topic - I think those things should be up to parents to decide. Government shouldn't make laws about it. It's not their damn busyness how I teach my child as long as I don't harm him physically or mentally. And believe me, nor porn not violent games, not horror films would not harm a child. It may harm only an already cracked person. Strangely in Russia where everything is at full acess (and you can actually buy erotic (not exactly porn) from small shops whos owners dont give a damn, and where you can buy any game at any age and watch any movie you like - here we statistically have much less phobias and depressions, let alone suicides and homocides, than in US. We have criminals and maniacs and murderers of course, but we never have some office worker or a high school kid go insane and shoot his co-workers or classmates. Gives some food to think of if censure is a good thing and actually prevents it all. My opinion - censure stimulates unsocial behaviour. While the child is small he can take any stress and live on. He can watch horror movie and will sleep with lights on for one night at max. He can play violent game and just take it as a game. But when it's censored and he gains access to all of it being grown up - it can seriously harm, because his mind isn't used for this kind of stress, he lived with pink glasses on for his entire life and SUDDENLY all the horrors and hardships and violence is dropped on him and that's when mental instability developes. IMHO, I'm not a psychologist.

[Alliteration]

4) It's not OK if age difference is >2 years

[Nezhul]

I'm talking about a minor ages, like before 16. Now I know some engage in sex as early as 12, and I believe it's fine actually. BUT I don't think it's a good idea for 12 yo to have sex with someone as old as 15+. That's what I wanted to say.

p.s. post above is extended.

[les]

I have been thinking.

Do we allow under 18 to watch pornography
OF over 18s having sex

Does then mean that under 18s should also be allowed to perform sexual actions.

If so do we there fore allow pornography to show under 18s having sex.

Or does it mean that under 18s must have sex with over 18s. .. ... ....

red intentional

[Nezhul]

kill yourself with those colours!

on topic - you talk nonsence.

[Alliteration]

I have been thinking.

Do we allow under 18 to watch pornography
OF over 18s having sex

Does then mean that under 18s should also be allowed to perform sexual actions.

If so do we there fore allow pornography to show under 18s having sex.

Or does it mean that under 18s must have sex with over 18s. .. ... ....

red intentional

I disagree here; allowing someone to view pornography doesn't necessarily mean that we also think it's ok to let them engage in the activities they see. We let minors watch shows like Man vs. Wild, but we ask if it's alright for them to stroll around in a swamp and drink contaminated water. The same thing would apply here; and, masturbation is of course very different than sex.

kill yourself with those colours!

on topic - you talk nonsence.

Can't say anything more constructive than that?

[les]

colours are me.

I am also a parent are you ?

As I said earlier the thoughts of parents and non parents are at odds.

But explain why I speak nonsense rather than dismiss out of hand.

Which part of the logic is flawed?/missing?

[denton]

Well, does it even really matter if porn is 18+ or not? Kids will get to see it earlier than that anyways.

What actually matters is communication and education. If kids see porn, they need to have a certain context, know what is real and/or "normal" and what is not. If kids are properly educated and their parents communicate with them, then getting to see porn at an age below 18 will do no harm at all.

In my opinion, btw, "sexual deviance" or whatever you wanna call it isn't neccessarily the biggest danger (although it's sadly true that most or at least a lot of porn is somewhat degrading towards women and that should be adressed as well), but a distorted view of what a normal (naked) body looks like. If you watch porn (or look at non-adult magazines which are no better), then you'll get the impression that the guy needs a 7 inch penis and the woman needs big breasts, a perfect figure and what is considered a good looking vagina (there are women that have their inner labia surgically altered so that they look smaller because they think they are ugly.. seriously, wtf is wrong with us?)

[Nezhul]

Can't say anything more constructive than that?

But explain why I speak nonsense rather than dismiss out of hand.

Nonsense is nonsense, I didn't see a point in going into details. Alliteration did, and that's pretty much the same thing I think. With your logic you can develop anythyng into a mass massacre justification, simply going step by step from "is it okay to fight back for self defence" to "Is it okay to kick ones who are weaker than you" and all the way up to "It's okay to shoot people on sight if you don't like their looks". Your logic is flawed from the very core. If I take a few steps ahead in your example I'll come to "Is it okay to buy sex of a middle school girls for candy". Your logic is ridiculous.

Well, does it even really matter if porn is 18+ or not? Kids will get to see it earlier than that anyways.

Yes, of course. But if it's forbidden it developes the feeling of guilt and sin. It makes children close their heart and see the society as "enemies" of a kind. It makes them hide things from parents, it makes the feeling of trust non existent. That's why I think that as far as such censure is actually useless because if you want you WILL access porn, it is also quite destructive itself. If you look at it closely you may actually doubt what couse more harm - free access to porn or it's censure.

but a distorted view of what a normal (naked) body looks like. If you watch porn (or look at non-adult magazines which are no better), then you'll get the impression that the guy needs a 7 inch penis and the woman needs big breasts, a perfect figure and what is considered a good looking vagina

So? In hollywood movie most actors are good looking too and bad looks are often equalized to bad character, personality flaws or simply used for satire. So what? Children should understand that it's just a movie. It's a show.
Actually those good looks make you want to be like it, be fit and slim, get some muscle. As for penis/breast size and vagina looks (I hear first time about it) - it's also a responsibility of parents to make their boy understand what's the average size and that women don't even NEED 10 inch cock to be happy. And girls should understand that they are pretty no matter how big of a breasts they have, as long as they really watch after their looks (being accurate and all). There of course ARE really ugly people, or boys with 2 inch cock, or whatever, but porn won't do more harm to them than their own classmates will. They'll get the uneasiness for their flaws no matter porn or not.

[bookworm]

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.

You might like to take a look at

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the- ... e/series-2

to see the false sexual values implanted in teenagers from watching porn.

[Bandit224]

And girls should understand that they are pretty no matter how big of a breasts they have, as long as they really watch after their looks (being accurate and all). There of course ARE really ugly people, or boys with 2 inch cock, or whatever, but porn won't do more harm to them than their own classmates will. They'll get the uneasiness for their flaws no matter porn or not.

Mostly agreeing with what you said, porn actually helps. My hot girlfriend felt she was ugly, because she has small tits, is a redhead, and has freckles; yet, you never see anyone of that description being liked in Hollywood or in the television industry, and she also had an abusive ex-boyfriend that would put a pic of her on hotornot.com and constantly vote it at 0.
I showed her a picture of Faye Reagan, and told her that Faye probably makes over 1 million dollars a year from guys that want to pay to see her naked. Most porn sites that have a rating rate her at 4.7 out of 5. Porn taught her the exact opposite of what public television taught her; porn taught her that you don't need to have blonde hair, blue eyes, and big breasts to be loved by men. She thought it was the most wonderful thing anyone has ever said to her.

Now she wants to fuck while watching every single Faye Reagan porn in existence, and I'm a very happy man

I could also go endlessly on research that has proven porn to be helpful to society.

[Alliteration]

With your logic you can develop anythyng into a mass massacre justification, simply going step by step from "is it okay to fight back for self defence" to "Is it okay to kick ones who are weaker than you" and all the way up to "It's okay to shoot people on sight if you don't like their looks". Your logic is flawed from the very core. If I take a few steps ahead in your example I'll come to "Is it okay to buy sex of a middle school girls for candy". Your logic is ridiculous.

This does not mean he is incorrect, you're just appealing to consequences. If you want to show that he's wrong, you have to do better than that. In fact, I don't think you even can, as from the wording of his post, he wasn't making a case for anything; he was just asking what other people thought.

[Bandit224]

to see the false sexual values implanted in teenagers from watching porn.

Most false sexual values are implanted in teenagers through the music industry and Hollywood teen films, and not through porn. Watch any rap video on MTV, and you'll see big breasted, big assed women sitting in a car with some rap artist. Watch any television show, and they always have the star be some blond-hair blue eyed bimbo (Baywatch anyone, Britney Spears (which the media modeled as the perfect girl), etc.).
Watch any porn, and you'll see mostly brunettes with small tits being the most popular porn stars.

So I ask you, which is the false sex value: the blonde hair, blue eyed, big breased, big assed women, or brunettes with small tits. Porn is wonderful for society, besides that Channel 4 is worthless bullshit.

[Alliteration]

What does it mean for a value to be "false"?

[janmb]

I have been thinking.

There is substantial evidence to the contrary

(sorry, couldn't resist the temptation)

Do we allow under 18 to watch pornography
OF over 18s having sex

Does then mean that under 18s should also be allowed to perform sexual actions.

Those two aspects don't necessarily have to be related at all, but yes, I think the answer should be yes to both.

If so do we therefore allow pornography to show under 18s having sex.

Again not related, but yes, people above the sexual lower age limit should be allowed to perform in porn. In my own country that would mean anyone above 16

Or does it mean that under 18s must have sex with over 18s. .. ... ....

Why would that be a problem? As long as both are over the age limit for sex, what does it matter if one is over 18 and the other isn't, or if both are between 16 and 18 for that matter.

Technically, it would be perfectly ok for a 16 year old to have sex with someone aged 90 - regardless of it being in private or in porn.

PS: Lose the colors, or at least the ridiculous font size - it's the equivalent of yelling and it's not polite at all.

PPS: Stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you don't have kids themselves. While I don't actively encourage my kids to watch porn, I certainly don't do the opposite either. I teach them about sex and porn and try to point out the pitfalls and what is good practice and what isn't. As long as they have those values in place they can watch porn until they go blue in the face (or elsewhere) without taking any real harm from it.