"Pornography Offends the Holy Ghost"

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you are trying to suggest that children have a sexuality, I agree. I would add to your "attacking" point that any sexual behavior can be a red flag but any sexual behavior that is spontaneous, takes place within a emotional and psychological peer group, is not predatory and is not coerced is age appropriate.

We are not discussing that behavior. We are discussing exposing porn, which is not part of or designed for children's sexuality to children who in our society, are not equipped, and possibly not physiologically able to be equipped, with the tools to process porn.

You seemed to have replied to the wrong person. Tell the poster I was replying to that. I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop misrepresenting what I'm saying. I've been clear enough.

 

[Curious George]

You seemed to have replied to the wrong person. Tell the poster I was replying to that. I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop misrepresenting what I'm saying. I've been clear enough.

I am uncertain how I have misrepresented anything you have said.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am uncertain how I have misrepresented anything you have said.

You continue to imply that people are supporting showing kids porn when no one is. I myself said that kids aren't likely to understand porn and don't want them to get a misrepresentation of sex from it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, but it does indicate the popular belief in most areas. This was the reason for citing the law in the first place: to show that others are convinced. You may not think that exposing children to pornography is harmful, most people disagree.

It all depends upon what and how and who. Please note how some posters need to make false generalizations. The main damage appears to be in how parents teach their children about sexuality.

Laziness is a reality. It is not worth my effort yet. But let us get a couple more claiming that exposing children to pornography does not corelated with harm given our society, maybe I will fetch some docs for you then.
And a child sitting in the same room as a people having sex is an example of informed consent that a child can engage? Please. We are talking about kids being exposed to porn here. Each of the statutes can theoretically be used to show that we believe exposing children to pornography is not ok.

Wrong, the second two have an intent attached to the exposure. It is why they are illegal acts. The first statue is so poorly written and broad that I doubt if you can find it being prosecuted and that is the porn that is being discussed here.

If you have moved from your position that seeing sex is not inherently harmful, to the position that exposing young children to pornography does not correlate with harm, let me know.

If someone can show actual harm I will change my mind.

You see, I think that it is you who should admit to making outlandish challenges for no good reason.

I am not the one that first made the claims. It does not matter what one's claims are , when a claim is made one takes on a burden of proof. For the most part I have only demanded evidence for the calims of others. That does not put a burden on me.

Well I am not sure why you think I am advocating for teaching children that sex is evil and "dirty."

Then what is wrong with pron if you are not?

I will acknowledge that my claim is that exposure to pornography correlates to harm and is not causal. I may have in other posts suggested it is causal, that was not my intention. My original post to sayak used correlation.

Well we might be getting somewhere.

 

[Curious George]

You continue to imply that people are supporting showing kids porn when no one is. I myself said that kids aren't likely to understand porn and don't want them to get a misrepresentation of sex from it.

That sounds like you do not want them to be harmed from it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The APA is an authority on the topic. You only offer your wishful thinking and opinions.

And the article did not support your claims. And once again you threaten by irony meters. I am not the one guilty of wishful thinking here.

You can deny all day, but here is evidence. Below you brought up the relationship topic. I never said that you said porn had those duties. But you did bring the topic of relationships up first.

Sorry, the report itself said that it was incomplete. That is a disclaimer. I quoted where it said that there was not enough evidence yet. You are ignoring your own source.

The APA is an authority on the topic. If you wish to challenge their authority then that's on you. I'm sorry if the majority of society and our legal system, disagree with your opinion. Write them a letter and complain.

The APA did not support your claims.

You only consider it weak because it opposed your position. Perhaps you are in the wrong, ever consider that? I doubt it.

No, it is weak because they themselves admitted that it was.

Some is not all nor even most. You are grasping at the faintest of straws.

I don't have to abide by your bullcrap rules. If you don't like it leave.

These aren't my rules. I am not the one that is continually failing here.

People who don't think porn is harmful to children is the only failure in this thread. But feel free to flail and thrash around in denial, like usual.

One would think that if it was actually harmful one could prove it. So far you can only find ambiguous studies. Why when you are the one that is failing and thrashing do you accuse others of doing that?

If it was harmful there should be clear studies from unbiased sources that support you.

 

[Curious George]

.



Then what is wrong with pron if you are not?

It is not age appropriate.

Well we might be getting somewhere.

Yeah back to where we started, lol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That sounds like you do not want them to be harmed from it.

Kids can misunderstand all sorts of things. The main harm that comes from porn is more due to parents failures in education than anything else.

Parents teach their kids about make believe from an early age. Porn is mostly "make believe" and yet parents are ashamed to teach that to children. That is where the harm could come from. If a child is never taught that tying a cape around his neck will not enable him to fly the child could come to harm as a result. Don't parents have the same sort of duty when it comes to sexuality?

 

[Curious George]

And the article did not support your claims. And once again you threaten by irony meters. I am not the one guilty of wishful thinking here.



Sorry, the report itself said that it was incomplete. That is a disclaimer. I quoted where it said that there was not enough evidence yet. You are ignoring your own source.



The APA did not support your claims.


No, it is weak because they themselves admitted that it was.

Some is not all nor even most. You are grasping at the faintest of straws.



These aren't my rules. I am not the one that is continually failing here.




One would think that if it was actually harmful one could prove it. So far you can only find ambiguous studies. Why when you are the one that is failing and thrashing do you accuse others of doing that?

If it was harmful there should be clear studies from unbiased sources that support you.

Should young children be exposed to porn?

 

[Curious George]

Kids can misunderstand all sorts of things. The main harm that comes from porn is more due to parents failures in education than anything else.

Parents teach their kids about make believe from an early age. Porn is mostly "make believe" and yet parents are ashamed to teach that to children. That is where the harm could come from. If a child is never taught that tying a cape around his neck will not enable him to fly the child could come to harm as a result. Don't parents have the same sort of duty when it comes to sexuality?

Absolutely they do. That is not the question we are working with here. Should children be exposed to porn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Should young children be exposed to porn?

It is not a question of "should" it is a matter of "when". And it has almost always been that way. Erotica has existed for much of man's existence. Once again, teaching them that "porn is bad" is not the answer. That is more harmful than being honest.

 

[Curious George]

It is not a question of "should" it is a matter of "when". And it has almost always been that way. Erotica has existed for much of man's existence. Once again, teaching them that "pron is bad" is not the answer. That is more harmful than being honest.

It is a simple question. Should young children in your opinion be exposed to porn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a simple question. Should young children in your opinion be exposed to porn?

It is an improper question.

"Have you quit beating your wife yet?"

I answered it, a yes or no answer is not correct for a leading question.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That sounds like you do not want them to be harmed from it.

In that case, a lot of adults are "harmed" by it, too.

 

[Curious George]

It is an improper question.

"Have you quit beating your wife yet?"

I answered it, a yes or no answer is not correct for a leading question.

If you ask if I have quit beating my wife, I am free to say "I have never beat my wife"

I am asking whether young children should be exposed to porn. Answer it how you may but actually speak to the question. Do not deflect.

 

[Curious George]

In that case, a lot of adults are "harmed" by it, too.

Yes, but those adults are distinct from young children are they not?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, but those adults are distinct from young children are they not?

My point is that you're stretching the meaning of "harm" in my opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you ask if I have quit beating my wife, I am free to say "I have never beat my wife"

I am asking whether young children should be exposed to porn. Answer it how you may but actually speak to the question. Do not deflect.

And I gave an answer on that order. It is the only answer that you will get. Just as you would not answer the question about your wife with a yes or a no I will not answer your question with a yes or a no.

 

[Curious George]

And I gave an answer on that order. It is the only answer that you will get. Just as you would not answer the question about your wife with a yes or a no I will not answer your question with a yes or a no.

Lol, that was a very different answer. You said that it was a question of "when children should be exposed to porn" not whether children should be exposed to porn. You are complaining about the question for no reason. OK, let us try this.

When should young children be exposed to porn?

 

[Curious George]

My point is that you're stretching the meaning of "harm" in my opinion.

Well I really don't think you meant that it was going to positively impact the children. So I am not so sure that I see the impact you were worried about as a stretch of the definition of harm.