"Pornography Offends the Holy Ghost"

[Curious George]

Actually I have pointed out that there has been no substantial harm and any harm there is is due a parent's improper dealing with porn.

Case by case, I agree that there is no way for us to determine whether harm has occurred or not unless we have the facts of the case. It is not just the parents improper dealing with porn. It is our society. It is lack of quality sex education, it is parents not talking, it is the type and accessibility of porn. It is even our culture. But given all of this, porn is not age appropriate for young children. As a parent, you really only have control over one factor in that equation. No matter how you change that one factor, Porn will still not be age appropriate. You may be able to mitigate some of the potential harm, but it is still not good for children. Blame the parent all you want, they are just another part of our society. And given our society, porn correlates to harm in young children.

Enoch does not seem to agree with you on this matter.

And we actually discussed this earlier in the thread.

Back to your unsubstantiated claim. Since my claim has just as much substantiation it appears we are on equal ground. In fact I could use the one source that you used to back up my claims. By the way, you really need to quit using strawman arguments. You did so again here. Do you see it? It is your third sentence.

It is not a strawman. Your claim, that it is the parents not the material that causes the harm, entails that parents could change their dialogue with the children and then it would be perfectly harmless to throw on a porn movie every now and again. It is simply not true.

Oh no doubt porn takes advantage of how your mind works to make a profit, but then so does Krispy Kreme Doughnuts. Mmm . . . donuts! If a parent explained that that would not be a bad thing. But that is not what the video advocated.

The video did advocate that.

Actually "bad touch" works at any age. Bad touch is inappropriate touching from anyone. Kids do not like to be abused. Adults don't like to be abused. But kids are serious about sex. Teaching them about sex is much better than simply calling it bad.

what?

So you do see some of the flaws in the video. And with the approach in the video they could not help but to shame the kid. Nor do they advocate actual education.

How do you figure they do not advocate actual education?

The kids used in that video were young but not too young to begin to be given answers to their questions about sex.

Which is why they encouraged talking to parents.

I see that this video does make it too easy to blame the child. That a child will feel guilty for something that it is natural to be curious about. Honest answers is always the best policy. False blame does no one any good.

So when they tell the child that they "are not a bad person for seeimg, being curious, or interested" you think that places the blame on the child?

When they say that porn uses their natural feelings you think the blame is shifted to the child? How do you figure that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Case by case, I agree that there is no way for us to determine whether harm has occurred or not unless we have the facts of the case. It is not just the parents improper dealing with porn. It is our society. It is lack of quality sex education, it is parents not talking, it is the type and accessibility of porn. It is even our culture. But given all of this, porn is not age appropriate for young children. As a parent, you really only have control over one factor in that equation. No matter how you change that one factor, Porn will still not be age appropriate. You may be able to mitigate some of the potential harm, but it is still not good for children. Blame the parent all you want, they are just another part of our society. And given our society, porn correlates to harm in young children.

I never claimed that it was age appropriate now did I, that was your strawman. And what is and what is not "porn" is not even properly defined in that video. It claims that porn is everywhere, including billboards. Now I have never seen porn in a billboard, but then I may live in a very protected area. Second it is their approach that I find reprehensible. The first definition of porn is of "bad pictures of people with little or no clothes on" ( I forced myself to watch it again). That is not a correct or healthy definition of porn. Then to make it worse they make the bogus claim : "These pictures give you a bad feeling because pornography offends the Holy Ghost". How do they know that? It is not even biblical. They are taking advantage of a fear based religion to make them think that what they are doing is wrong. And since it would be the parents that would be showing their children this garbage it is possible to blame the parents.

And we actually discussed this earlier in the thread.

Strange he never admitted that he was wrong to me.

It is not a strawman. Your claim, that it is the parents not the material that causes the harm, entails that parents could change their dialogue with the children and then it would be perfectly harmless to throw on a porn movie every now and again. It is simply not true.

No, and this is a pure strawman on your part. At best it shows that you are not thinking logically. At worst it is a deliberate attempt to be dishonest. Just because an adult can drink in a responsible manner does not mean that one advocates him letting his kids take a belt or two at times. Try to avoid strawman arguments. It indicates weakness on your side.

The video did advocate that.

Where? I just watched the whole thing again. I think that is your interpretation of something in the video and not something that it says.

what?

Oh my! You do not understand that rape is bad at any age? Sorry, but that was a bit of a strawman of mine. Clearly "bad touch" is wrong at any time. I don't blame children when they are sexually molested. That is an example of "bad touch". You brought up "bad touch" as an example not me. Your use failed.

How do you figure they do not advocate actual education?
Which is why they encouraged talking to parents.

That is not necessarily advocating education. The video does not even hint that parents should educate the children. All they will do is to tell them why it is "bad". At least that is all that I got from the video. That is a problem when you openly call something "bad" multiple times without any support. Porn is for adults and it should be explained why. This video is an excuse so that parents do not have to educate properly. It begins by poisoning the well making any proper education impossible.

So when they tell the child that they "are not a bad person for seeimg, being curious, or interested" you think that places the blame on the child?

Please, you know that is weak. When you claim that something is "bad" then you are imply that a person is bad for looking at it. Please note, they realized that people would probably look again. They are sending a mixed message in this regard. Kids are not that stupid. A proper explanation would be better.

When they say that porn uses their natural feelings you think the blame is shifted to the child? How do you figure that?

Once again by repeatedly saying "porn is bad". Kids aren't stupid. They can see that if they are drawn to "bad pictures" that they must be bad themselves.

 

[Enoch07]

It was not even a "scientific study" by their own admission. If anything it was a meta-study. In other words it was a study about other studies and they did not really support your beliefs very well at all. I already explained how your article failed. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?

The study admitted that not nearly enough research had been done. When you find something with some support we can discuss that.

I still haven't seen you cite anything to support your claim. The APA article is solid. Your just in denial, as usual. One day you will learn facts are greater than opinions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I still haven't seen you cite anything to support your claim. The APA article is solid. Your just in denial, as usual. One day you will learn facts are greater than opinions.

Nope, I explained it to you more than once. That is not denial.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Once again, why? You gave no real reasons. Merely your opinions. If somebody is alone and they use porn for release what are they supposed to use instead?

What did they do before all the internet porn came along? There was nothing like the explicit material now available, unless one went to specialist video shops probably. The existence of such a range of material now can hardly be considered as promoting any realistic concept of sex, unless you consider bondage, rape, or humiliation as being anything positive. Not in my world thanks very much. It's not just a matter of the same old thing - things have changed considerably, and I didn't even get on to the fakes business and the implications of things like deepfakes. What kind of morality sanctions making fake pornographic images of individuals - just because they are celebrities? It's pathetic. This is another aspect of pornography hardly being healthy.

I am old enough. And even when I was younger the concept existed. It might be more popular now, though I seriously do not know too many girls that do it that way. And what is wrong with that anyway? If both members of a couple find something new that they both enjoy isn't that a good thing?

Perhaps they don't like the medical implications that might arise - look them up - which might be why anal just doesn't figure in the fantasy life for most females, even though many males seem to like it. Equality in sex? Of course not - girls are just there to satisfy males.

"I didn't say that porn was inherently bad, or that it might actually solve some issues, but I do think that overall it has been a disaster - which is what humans tend to do all the time."

Really? Overall I would say that it has been a net benefit.

Perhaps we will find out in a decade or so and then we can look back, but neither of us is in a position to categorically state this. As I commented, we do various things to mess our lives up and invariably have to pick up the pieces later when we discover the true extent of our mistakes.

Now you are merely grasping at straws. It can and has improved the sex life of countless people.

And it hasn't damaged any? That is the problem - just looking at one side.

I remember sex ed from high school aeons ago. It answered very few questions. Porn answers the questions that many parents can't. Now it is a parents duty to inform their children that porn is make believe. That one can't treat the stories as being true. Women will not take advantage of you if you deliver a pizza to their house. Women will not be as hot and ready (generally) as women in porn. It may go against your morals but at least kids know what goes where. A parent should be a moderating effect on reality. And of course there is a negative correlation between how much porn there is and how much rape there is. More pron, less rape. All you have are examples that should be corrected by a parent as part of a child's upbringing.

I can't argue with sex education being bad years ago because it was just the same here in the UK. One would hope that it is better now. Perhaps kids today are more savvy and hardly see the porn as being anything like reality but from what I have seen, showing conversations with teenage boys and girls, it does tend to affect them so as to give them unrealistic expectations. The differences between what the girls thought and what the boys thought was often quite alarming - the boys expecting the girls to do the things they had seen on the internet, seeing it as quite normal. Hence perhaps the rise in anal, because the boys seem to see it as normal when it just isn't. Also, the growing numbers of those who have indulged in sexting is one effect of all this - one in four under 18 according to a recent report. Lastly, how many parents are comfortable talking to their kids about sex? It's just not realistic to expect them to explain porn to them. Unfortunate this might be but it tends to be the case, apart from in much of Scandinavia where they have rather different attitudes to sex.

 

[Enoch07]

Nope, I explained it to you more than once. That is not denial.

Your "explanations" are just you grasping at straws. All you have done is deny. You have not presented a single bit of evidence to support your claim.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Nope, I explained it to you more than once. That is not denial.

Ideology dictates reality. Ignoring a cogent argument is the same as proving it false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What did they do before all the internet porn came along? There was nothing like the explicit material now available, unless one went to specialist video shops probably. The existence of such a range of material now can hardly be considered as promoting any realistic concept of sex, unless you consider bondage, rape, or humiliation as being anything positive. Not in my world thanks very much. It's not just a matter of the same old thing - things have changed considerably, and I didn't even get on to the fakes business and the implications of things like deepfakes. What kind of morality sanctions making fake pornographic images of individuals - just because they are celebrities? It's pathetic. This is another aspect of pornography hardly being healthy.
[/quoite]

That is true. The amount and variety of porn out there can be jaw dropping at times. One has to remember that a lot of it is fake to some degree. And some people have weird fantasies both as performers and receivers. It is much better to do so through the fantasy of porn rather than in the real world. I linked an article previously that shows not only is rape down in every country after porn was made legal, but rapists watch less porn than the average person.

Perhaps they don't like the medical implications that might arise - look them up - which might be why anal just doesn't figure in the fantasy life for most females, even though many males seem to like it. Equality in sex? Of course not - girls are just there to satisfy males.

"I didn't say that porn was inherently bad, or that it might actually solve some issues, but I do think that overall it has been a disaster - which is what humans tend to do all the time."

Could be, yet some women like the back door. And if they are with a male that is not very well endowed perhaps they can get off without excessive risk. I am sure that education would make a difference on the rate of risk. It is not all about satisfying the male.

Perhaps we will find out in a decade or so and then we can look back, but neither of us is in a position to categorically state this. As I commented, we do various things to mess our lives up and invariably have to pick up the pieces later when we discover the true extent of our mistakes.

Or we could find that it was a boon. I am not denying that it can be abused. But when a group does better overall then the change is a plus, not a minus.

And it hasn't damaged any? That is the problem - just looking at one side.

No, I am willing to look at both sides. It is the Christians that tend to totally denigrate porn.

I can't argue with sex education being bad years ago because it was just the same here in the UK. One would hope that it is better now. Perhaps kids today are more savvy and hardly see the porn as being anything like reality but from what I have seen, showing conversations with teenage boys and girls, it does tend to affect them so as to give them unrealistic expectations. The differences between what the girls thought and what the boys thought was often quite alarming - the boys expecting the girls to do the things they had seen on the internet, seeing it as quite normal. Hence perhaps the rise in anal, because the boys seem to see it as normal when it just isn't. Also, the growing numbers of those who have indulged in sexting is one effect of all this - one in four under 18 according to a recent report. Lastly, how many parents are comfortable talking to their kids about sex? It's just not realistic to expect them to explain porn to them. Unfortunate this might be but it tends to be the case, apart from in much of Scandinavia where they have rather different attitudes to sex.

I don't think that sexting arose from porn. I think that was merely a reaction to a new technology. And kids always have unrealistic expectations. Keeping kids in line and explaining the facts of life is a parental duty. Too often they ignore it. And my problem with the video is how it makes the problem worse rather than better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your "explanations" are just you grasping at straws. All you have done is deny. You have not presented a single bit of evidence to support your claim.

Now, now, I am not the one grasping at straws. That is why I offered to go over it again. Get your link and we can go over it together and try to separate the hype from the reality.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So did Enoch Powell over there ever explain where he thought people had sex before the invention of seperate bedrooms? Just curious because the thread moved fast and I'd hate to miss his response.

 

[Curious George]

I never claimed that it was age appropriate now did I, that was your strawman.

No, you never did but it is relevant not a strawman.

And what is and what is not "porn" is not even properly defined in that video. It claims that porn is everywhere, including billboards. Now I have never seen porn in a billboard, but then I may live in a very protected area.

They do attempt to paint porn much broader than my definition. Yet I really do not think teaching kids to over identify porn is a issue, although it does discredit the message.

Second it is their approach that I find reprehensible. The first definition of porn is of "bad pictures of people with little or no clothes on" ( I forced myself to watch it again). That is not a correct or healthy definition of porn.

Well I think that it is tied to media. But it is certainly not a correct view.

Then to make it worse they make the bogus claim : "These pictures give you a bad feeling because pornography offends the Holy Ghost". How do they know that? It is not even biblical.

They can have their religious beliefs.

They are taking advantage of a fear based religion to make them think that what they are doing is wrong.

Hmmm is it fear of which they are taking advantage? It seems to me that they are taking advantage of the way our mind shapes morality. I suppose fear might be the root emotion, but I do not know.

And since it would be the parents that would be showing their children this garbage it is possible to blame the parents.

That just seems like hyperbole.

Strange he never admitted that he was wrong to me.

He probably does not think he was. Reasonable people can reach different conclusions.

No, and this is a pure strawman on your part. At best it shows that you are not thinking logically. At worst it is a deliberate attempt to be dishonest.

Please show me the error in the logic.

Just because an adult can drink in a responsible manner does not mean that one advocates him letting his kids take a belt or two at times.

Because we believe alcohol is harmful to children.

Try to avoid strawman arguments. It indicates weakness on your side.

Still waiting on you to show how it is a strawman.

Where? I just watched the whole thing again. I think that is your interpretation of something in the video and not something that it says.

I suppose they left why porn is used to trick your mind up for interpretation.

Oh my! You do not understand that rape is bad at any age? Sorry, but that was a bit of a strawman of mine. Clearly "bad touch" is wrong at any time. I don't blame children when they are sexually molested. That is an example of "bad touch". You brought up "bad touch" as an example not me. Your use failed.

It was about labeling something bad that we later modify to add more nuance. I think it worked and you don't or cannot see the value. It is okay.

That is not necessarily advocating education. The video does not even hint that parents should educate the children.

i am not sure that is a fair interpretation.

they will do is to tell them why it is "bad".

That sounds like a very strong unsupported assumption.

At least that is all that I got from the video.

Maybe there was more to it than you were capable of perceiving.

That is a problem when you openly call something "bad" multiple times without any support. Porn is for adults and it should be explained why.

Now we are getting somewhere. Why?

This video is an excuse so that parents do not have to educate properly. It begins by poisoning the well making any proper education impossible.

or it is a tool to help parents of this particular religion.

Please, you know that is weak.

Why are some of their words weak and others not?

[/quote] When you claim that something is "bad" then you are imply that a person is bad for looking at it. [/quote] even when you state that the person is not bad for looking at it?

Please note, they realized that people would probably look again. They are sending a mixed message in this regard. Kids are not that stupid. A proper explanation would be better.

But this is better than nothing at all.

Once again by repeatedly saying "porn is bad". Kids aren't stupid. They can see that if they are drawn to "bad pictures" that they must be bad themselves.

I understand that argument, yet they also highlighted that they were not saying the kids were bad themselves. It sounds to me like this is the thrust of your argument for which there is refuting evidence, not the least of which is the express message that the kids are not bad.

 

[Enoch07]

Now, now, I am not the one grasping at straws. That is why I offered to go over it again. Get your link and we can go over it together and try to separate the hype from the reality.

Still waiting for you to provide anything other than opinion.

 

[Enoch07]

So did Enoch Powell over there ever explain where he thought people had sex before the invention of seperate bedrooms? Just curious because the thread moved fast and I'd hate to miss his response.

Reading comprehension would do you some good.

 

[Curious George]

Reading comprehension would do you some good.

Don't worry, like I said before I sincerely doubt that anyone here would actually believe that porn is harmless or at least not correlated with harm for young children. The reaction your seeing is likely multifaceted. Some really like porn and anything said against it offends them. Some are reactionary and extra sensitive because some religions and some religious people have dealt with sex and sexuality in unhealthy ways; some find any method of parenting that doesn't correspond to their own wrong and/abusive; some are contrarian. It will not matter what statistics you give or what citations you provide. When it comes to raising children, everyone thinks they are an expert, lol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you never did but it is relevant not a strawman.

They do attempt to paint porn much broader than my definition. Yet I really do not think teaching kids to over identify porn is a issue, although it does discredit the message.
Well I think that it is tied to media. But it is certainly not a correct view.

They can have their religious beliefs.

Hmmm is it fear of which they are taking advantage? It seems to me that they are taking advantage of the way our mind shapes morality. I suppose fear might be the root emotion, but I do not know.

That just seems like hyperbole.

He probably does not think he was. Reasonable people can reach different conclusions.


Please show me the error in the logic.

Because we believe alcohol is harmful to children.

Still waiting on you to show how it is a strawman.


I suppose they left why porn is used to trick your mind up for interpretation.


It was about labeling something bad that we later modify to add more nuance. I think it worked and you don't or cannot see the value. It is okay.
i am not sure that is a fair interpretation.

That sounds like a very strong unsupported assumption.

Maybe there was more to it than you were capable of perceiving.


Now we are getting somewhere. Why?
or it is a tool to help parents of this particular religion.

Why are some of their words weak and others not?

When you claim that something is "bad" then you are imply that a person is bad for looking at it. even when you state that the person is not bad for looking at it?


But this is better than nothing at all.



I understand that argument, yet they also highlighted that they were not saying the kids were bad themselves. It sounds to me like this is the thrust of your argument for which there is refuting evidence, not the least of which is the express message that the kids are not bad.

TLDR. Until you quit making strawman arguments there is not much point in continuing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still waiting for you to provide anything other than opinion.

I already did and I also made an offer to you. You ran away from it. That tells us quite a bit.

 

[Enoch07]

I already did and I also made an offer to you. You ran away from it. That tells us quite a bit.

You have not provided any evidence.

The only offer you made was more bullcrap opinion.

Try to be honest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have not provided any evidence.

The only offer you made was more bullcrap opinion.

Try to be honest.

Wrong again, I used your article to show how your claims were wrong. You are merely projecting your flaws upon others. The offer is still out there.

 

[Enoch07]

Wrong again, I used your article to show how your claims were wrong. You are merely projecting your flaws upon others. The offer is still out there.

Your opinion is that.

The article clearly states that porn is harmful. An excerpt:

"In a related study in the March issue of Sex Roles (Vol. 56, No. 5/6, pages 381-395), the Dutch team found a link between the type and explicitness of sexual media the teens saw and their tendency to view women as sexual "play things." The more explicit the material viewed, the more likely young people were to see women in these ways--and Internet movie porn was the only media type to show a statistically significant relationship, they found."

You continue to lie and deny facts that are well established. Your wishful thinking does not change the facts though. Regardless of how strongly you "feel" that porn is ok for children to view, the facts say otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your opinion is that.

The article clearly states that porn is harmful. An except:

"In a related study in the March issue of Sex Roles (Vol. 56, No. 5/6, pages 381-395), the Dutch team found a link between the type and explicitness of sexual media the teens saw and their tendency to view women as sexual "play things." The more explicit the material viewed, the more likely young people were to see women in these ways--and Internet movie porn was the only media type to show a statistically significant relationship, they found."

You continue to lie and deny facts that are well established. Your wishful thinking does not change the facts though. Regardless of how strongly you "feel" that porn is ok for children to view, the facts say otherwise.

If I am lying why are you afraid to link the article?