"Pornography Offends the Holy Ghost"

[Subduction Zone]

Child abusers are arrested everyday. So yes it is strictly enforced. The APA article states how it is harmful to children. But I guess you skipped over that part. So I'll present it here.

This is a strawman. We were not discussing child abusers.

"In one study surveying 471 Dutch teens ages 13 to 18, the researchers found that the more often young people sought out online porn, the more likely they were to have a "recreational" attitude toward sex--specifically, to view sex as a purely physical function like eating or drinking.

So they have a more rational approach to sex than others. How is that harmful?

In the study, reported in the December 2006 Journal of Communication (Vol. 56, No. 4, pages 639-660), the team also found a relationship between porn use and the feeling that it wasn't necessary to have affection for people to have sex with them. Boys were much more likely to hold these views than girls, and they tended to hold these attitudes more strongly when they perceived the material as realistic, the team found.

Again, realism. If you want a long term relationship then affection is a must. You are not helping your case here.

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.

A bit weak, but a case might be made for this. Still not seriously harmful in any way.

Another study not yet finalized will likely add more rigor to the way such variables are measured. Emory University health psychologist Ralph J. DiClemente, PhD, and colleagues are using high-tech software to capture which and how many sex Web sites 560 young people access over 16 months. The team also will survey the teens every two months on their sexual attitudes, onset of sexual behavior and frequency of sexually risky behavior."

A study not finalized is not convincing. And there are no conclusions there. So that is a big zero for you.

It's a crystal clear definition. I wasn't talking to you about the clothes bit, a quote got left out by mistake.

Nope, not a crystal clear definition as shown when these cases actually make it to the Supreme Court. There is no set legal definition of "obscene". It is why pornography is legal. Justices could not agree on what is and what is not obscene.


But at least you admitted your error in quoting.

So we should regress back thousands of years of evolution? Gotcha you have fun with that.

Please, once again you rely on a strawman, now that you are obviously wrong in a prior claim. The proper move would have been to own up to your error in the first place.

And even in pioneering days there were many one room cabins in the U.S.. We don't have to go back nearly as far as you seem to think that we do. Pioneer children did not seem to be traumatized. Personally I like a bit of privacy in such matters. But then that is the way that I was brought up. I am not going to make the mistake of thinking that it is the only way it could or should be.

 

[sayak83]

Ah but viewing it as such at a young age, leads to the problem below of objectification.



Not while they are still children though. It's ok to talk about sexual issues openly at an appropriate age.

But children under 13 years old brain's are not developed enough to comprehend these issues. As the APA article suggest this may develop into disorders like depression, anxiety, or PTSD. Which are not mental disorders that can simply be "talked" away with your elders. It takes many years of therapy to treat these disorders, of which not everyone is able to successfully conquer.

I find this inherently unlikely without the social taboo attached that makes it a secretive and guilt ridden activity. I could imagine similar studies among conservative Muslims where children feel similarly after secret seeing videos of uncovered faces of women.

 

[Skwim]

This video is not a true depiction of the modern families of today.

Of course not. It's the Christmas wish of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

There are many problems with porn, whether you are a child or an adult. Porn is not a true depiction of normal human relationships.

Some porn is. Some porn is not.

Porn is not a true depiction of the average male and female genitalia(studies demonstrate). In fact, watching porn will inevitably lead to ED, dependency, urgency, impotence, and the inability to function without its assistance. This includes developing a preference for one or more of its new and improved sexual-perverse upgrades. Porn has nothing to do with the Heavenly Father(maybe at some point during the sex act).

OMG! Exactly what kind of perverse Jack Chick rubbish have you been reading?

How Many People Are Watching Porn Right Now? (Hint: It's A Lot.) The numbers of porn addicts are staggering.

Ah ha, Fight The New Drug. Another alarmist exposé outfit with *surprise* its not so subtle appeal for 501(c)(3) "donations."

Have a good day.

.

 

[Enoch07]

This is a strawman. We were not discussing child abusers.

Yes we are. People who advocate that pornography is not harmful to children are potentially child abusers.

So they have a more rational approach to sex than others. How is that harmful?

From the objectification problems that arise because of it.

Again, realism. If you want a long term relationship then affection is a must. You are not helping your case here.

Watching porn does not encourage long term relationships. It encourages spontaneous short term interactions, as presented in the majority of porn.

A bit weak, but a case might be made for this. Still not seriously harmful in any way.

Sexual objectification is a serious issue which can possible lead to even more serious issues.

A study not finalized is not convincing. And there are no conclusions there. So that is a big zero for you.

The evidence is strong though, or else the APA would not have mentioned it.

Please, once again you rely on a strawman, now that you are obviously wrong in a prior claim. The proper move would have been to own up to your error in the first place.

Perhaps you should not advocate that children witnessing their parents have sex is fine then.

I find this inherently unlikely without the social taboo attached that makes it a secretive and guilt ridden activity. I could imagine similar studies among conservative Muslims where children feel similarly after secret seeing videos of uncovered faces of women.

Thats a huge false equivalency.

A child witnessing 2 adults in the process of having sex. Is not equal to a Muslim child getting a glimpse of a womans face.

 

[sayak83]

Yes we are. People who advocate that pornography is not harmful to children are potentially child abusers.



From the objectification problems that arise because of it.



Watching porn does not encourage long term relationships. It encourages spontaneous short term interactions, as presented in the majority of porn.



Sexual objectification is a serious issue which can possible lead to even more serious issues.



The evidence is strong though, or else the APA would not have mentioned it.



Perhaps you should not advocate that children witnessing their parents have sex is fine then.



Thats a huge false equivalency.

A child witnessing 2 adults in the process of having sex. Is not equal to a Muslim child getting a glimpse of a womans face.

Why not. I see no difference except that both are considered taboo.

 

[Curious George]

Are you even paying attention? Did you read the statutes? Just because we are discussing porn does not mean that all of them apply. But then too often I have seen people having trouble with the concept of "informed consent".

Yes, I have read the statutes. Certainly, they all do not apply to every scenario. The facts of any instance will change whether a law is applicable. Yet all of these are federal laws which could apply and operate under the concept that such actions are, in fact, harmful.

I suppose I could have tried to find a summary of each state law defining abuse, or simply used the model penal code, but these were easier to pull up and post.

While I know that you feel my lack of citation diminishes my reputation and all, I must say that your exception is a rather obscure one. Consequently, I am not going to trouble myself to greatly to get you citations which you honestly probably agree with already.

You are taking the position that simply viewing sexual activity is not inherently harmful. This really doesn't negate my point.

We are discussing a question of whether a group should need to concern themselves with young children-pre adolescents- viewing porn.

Now I realize that I have broadened the scope by suggesting that, given our current society, having sex in front of your children is also harmful, but your point still doesn't negate this.

Are you suggesting that children viewing pornography is not harmful? Are you suggesting that this is not something that parents should reasonably guard against? Are you suggesting that parents engaging in non-shameful age and experience appropriate discussions with their children to help them process this is somehow wrong or unnecessary?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

This video is not a true depiction of the modern families of today. This video is just another religious indoctrination to reinforce the role that a supernatural all-powerful religious father figure, is there to watch over you, and protect you from the "bad pictures" depicting what grown-ups do. There are many problems with porn, whether you are a child or an adult. Porn is not a true depiction of normal human relationships. It is only a depiction of sexual relationships. Most adults(or children) can become so preoccupied with porn, that they will sacrifice natural intimacy, self-respect, important social skills, empathy, sensitivity, honesty, ambition, and their ability to excel. Porn is not a true depiction of the average male and female genitalia(studies demonstrate). In fact, watching porn will inevitably lead to ED, dependency, urgency, impotence, and the inability to function without its assistance. This includes developing a preference for one or more of its new and improved sexual-perverse upgrades. Porn has nothing to do with the Heavenly Father(maybe at some point during the sex act).

How Many People Are Watching Porn Right Now? (Hint: It's A Lot.) The numbers of porn addicts are staggering. This include kids under 10 consuming 22% of the porn watched. My heart goes out to the women of today, who's biological need for motherhood must outweigh their own common sense for normalcy and family. Porn is just as insidious as drugs, gambling, graphic violence, or alcohol. Porn is a preoccupation that can lead to many emotional, social, and other health issues. It is not the "flower-power", "free love" movement of the sixties. That movement at least required real social interaction, real mating rituals, with real people. Internet porn offers no social skills necessary to sustain a meaningful relationship. My heart really goes out to the ladies. In my time, porn should have stayed in the closet. It was easy then to spot those with only lust in their heart. But not so easy today. DAMN THAT LARRY FLYNT!!

It is our own complacency, apathy, and ignorance that has allowed porn to flourish in the world. Because of the Billions that watch it each day, it has become more than just self-sustaining. For many, it is a way of life. What a waste! Don

 

[Sha'irullah]

Heavily love it! It is very true but very cute to watch. On the other hand hearing a child say pornography is just weird.

 

[Enoch07]

Why not. I see no difference except that both are considered taboo.

Well for one the Muslim child seeing a womans uncovered face is not going to think "Why is my Dad hurting my Mom and making her scream?". Maybe a tad bit guilt for seeing something he is not supposed to see, but no trauma involved.

Whereas a child witnessing his parents having sex is going to say "Why is my Dad hurting my Mom and making her scream like that!?". Witnessing this and not being able to understand the nuances of sex can cause trauma which can lead to depression, anxiety, and PTSD for the child.

I am not one of these give every child a participation trophy, trigger warning, and a safe space people. They should be allowed to face challenges, make mistakes, fail, and learn how to grow from that. But exposing a child at an early age to concepts they are not mature or physically developed enough (brain) to understand is detrimental to their psyche.

The majority of American society agrees, even convicted felons agree. As child molesters have an increased chance of violence or death brought to them by their fellow inmates once their status of "Chomo" (prison slang for child molestor) is discovered.

U.S. laws and Courts agree sex offenders that expose children to sexual acts are arrested, convicted, and imprisoned daily.

The American Psychological Association (APA), which is composed of members over 100,000 scientist, educators, clinicians, and consultants. All agree that underage consumption of porn is detrimental to youth.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What a load of bull. Back it up if you think you can prove that claim. The only people ok with exposing their sexual activity to children are pedophiles.

The Birth And Death Of Privacy: 3,000 Years of History Told Through 46 Images
enjoy.

But please, tell us where you think people had sex before the invention of private bedrooms?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes we are. People who advocate that pornography is not harmful to children are potentially child abusers.

Nonsense, you just put a huge burden of proof upon yourself and we know that you don't support your claims. You were wrong again, why not admit it?

From the objectification problems that arise because of it.

See above.

Watching porn does not encourage long term relationships. It encourages spontaneous short term interactions, as presented in the majority of porn.

So what? That is not a duty of porn. That is not its job. This is not a flaw, this is a false flaw that you made up. I see the desperate clutching at straws has begun.

Sexual objectification is a serious issue which can possible lead to even more serious issues.

Prove it.

The evidence is strong though, or else the APA would not have mentioned it.

Wishful thinking, more clutching at straws.

Perhaps you should not advocate that children witnessing their parents have sex is fine then.

Amazing, more dishonesty when a solution is politely offered.

Thats a huge false equivalency.

I know that you are responding to another now, but warn a guy. You just broke another irony meter.

A child witnessing 2 adults in the process of having sex. Is not equal to a Muslim child getting a glimpse of a womans face.

Since historically neither seem to have a negative effect how are you going to prove that?

 

[Mock Turtle]

People with little or no clothing on is not pornography.

It can be, as it all depends upon how they are presented, which is why some nude images of children seem to be allowed, as in the photographic art of Sally Mann or Jock Sturges but mostly they are not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I have read the statutes. Certainly, they all do not apply to every scenario. The facts of any instance will change whether a law is applicable. Yet all of these are federal laws which could apply and operate under the concept that such actions are, in fact, harmful.

Just because a law exists does not mean that the action proscribed is harmful. It used to be illegal for a white person to marry a black person. Does that make that an immoral act?

I suppose I could have tried to find a summary of each state law defining abuse, or simply used the model penal code, but these were easier to pull up and post.

Laziness is a poor excuse since all of one's "work" can easily go for naught by not properly supporting one's claim.

While I know that you feel my lack of citation diminishes my reputation and all, I must say that your exception is a rather obscure one. Consequently, I am not going to trouble myself to greatly to get you citations which you honestly probably agree with already.

My "exception" explains why the second statute that you listed does not apply. Adults can't assume that kids want to engage in sexual activities since they are not able to perform informed consent in such matters. It shows that you did not understand the statutes that you cited.

You are taking the position that simply viewing sexual activity is not inherently harmful. This really doesn't negate my point.

Actually it sort of does.

We are discussing a question of whether a group should need to concern themselves with young children-pre adolescents- viewing porn.

Now I realize that I have broadened the scope by suggesting that, given our current society, having sex in front of your children is also harmful, but your point still doesn't negate this.

Like Enoch you should simply admit your errors when they are made manifest. I did not broaden the scope. I replied to a claim made by others.

Are you suggesting that children viewing pornography is not harmful? Are you suggesting that this is not something that parents should reasonably guard against? Are you suggesting that parents engaging in non-shameful age and experience appropriate discussions with their children to help them process this is somehow wrong or unnecessary?

It has not shown to be harmful. If anything appears to be harmful it is the approach of parents to sex. An explanation of what sex is, how it is a pleasant activity and how it in of itself is not harmful then there would be no problem. A parent could explain how it is not realistic just as Hollywood movies are not all that realistic even when they are "based upon a true story". What they are doing is wrong in that video. They are protecting the unsupported biases and fears of parents in regards to sex instead of encouraging them to do the what seems to them the hard work of teaching their children about sex.

Teaching your children that sex is evil and dirty is not an adult action. It only does far more harm than good.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yet children watch WWE, do they not? What is there in TV, cartoons or stories that contain interactions that modern people do engage in today? If one looks at internet today, most porn is simply story-less sex acts between adults, unless one is paying for video movies or something. The only thing that would be of interest to kids is the fact that we make it taboo and they don't usually see adults naked. Children don't feel shame running around naked either, it's something we teach. Thus, in the final analysis, it seems clear to me that it's not porn that is messed up, but rather our own attitude towards our bodies and our sexuality.

Perhaps but porn hardly helps here. It has become ridiculously overblown as a reality and influence on the internet.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Please provide data showing that children watching porn or adults having sex is harmful for them.

Why not do some research - like the numbers of underage children sexting, the earliest ages for those being exposed to porn, the numbers apparently exposed to predatory behaviour on the internet, or the numbers of children sexually attacking other children. For starters. Nothing to do with the amount of porn available? One would have to be a supreme optimist to think this. Internet porn has been and continues to be one of the disasters of the modern age.

I would quote from Gail Dines book, Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked our Sexuality (2010), but unfortunately I didn't get around to reading it fully - as for many books - but I can imagine I would agree with every word, even though I am at odds with many feminists, but not on this.

 

[Thief]

Hell, I don't even believe in a holy ghost; however, the makers of the video do, and they're the ones who put those words into the mouth of the kid.

.

so your using someone else's stand .....but not really interested in the question

ok....you don't believe
but then why as if the Holy Ghost is offended by pornography?

I will say.....nay
God doesn't care what you have seen

 

[Prestor John]

The video won't work for me. I'll have to watch it later.

However, pornography is not a good thing and should be avoided.

It's like fast food for your sex drive. Sure, it's satisfying in the moment, but it ultimately gum up the works and is not healthy.

The Lord gave unto all creatures these desire for sexual congress, yet to His children only did He give the blessing of marriage and the commandment to operate sexually only within marriage.

We are asked to be more responsible with these powers He has given us.

 

[Prestor John]

That's a rather non-sequitur comparison.

That's all this guy really ever offers.

 

[sayak83]

Well for one the Muslim child seeing a womans uncovered face is not going to think "Why is my Dad hurting my Mom and making her scream?". Maybe a tad bit guilt for seeing something he is not supposed to see, but no trauma involved.

Whereas a child witnessing his parents having sex is going to say "Why is my Dad hurting my Mom and making her scream like that!?". Witnessing this and not being able to understand the nuances of sex can cause trauma which can lead to depression, anxiety, and PTSD for the child.

I am not one of these give every child a participation trophy, trigger warning, and a safe space people. They should be allowed to face challenges, make mistakes, fail, and learn how to grow from that. But exposing a child at an early age to concepts they are not mature or physically developed enough (brain) to understand is detrimental to their psyche.

The majority of American society agrees, even convicted felons agree. As child molesters have an increased chance of violence or death brought to them by their fellow inmates once their status of "Chomo" (prison slang for child molestor) is discovered.

U.S. laws and Courts agree sex offenders that expose children to sexual acts are arrested, convicted, and imprisoned daily.

The American Psychological Association (APA), which is composed of members over 100,000 scientist, educators, clinicians, and consultants. All agree that underage consumption of porn is detrimental to youth.

If a child is confused, why not ask the parents? That's the point. Why all the cloak and daggers? Porn will lose all its bad influence if society is fully upfront and open about sexuality.

 

[Prestor John]

Wait, that girl is WAY too young for earrings.

LOL

Um? I've seen LOTS of National Geographic magazines and watched LOTS of documentaries about usually naked people. That's NOT pornography.

It could be. It depends on the perspective of the viewer.

Also, God made us naked and we are not to tell Him something is unclean when He made it, so ....

Yet, God immediately made "coats of skins" for Adam and Eve after He became aware of the fact that they had gained the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

This was a husband and wife. Two people who literally had seen the other naked every second of their time together.

Yet God found it imperative to cover their nakedness as an example to them and their future children.

I see attraction is only for a white hetero couple.

Why is that?

You know what will get some people off without STD issues? Porn.

So would any sexual encounter with any person that does not have an STD.
So would saving sex for marriage and complete fidelity in marriage.

I don't do it myself, but I get the attraction.

We know it's attractive, that's why the video was made.
Why don't you do it if you don't consider anything wrong with it?

"Mommy, I saw evil pictures of a penis!"
"Dear, that is your biology textbook. It's SUPPOSED to be there."
"Mommy, learning about my body is of the devil!"
"I'm not seeing you on the internet posting stupid crap like 'can I get pregnant by sitting on the toilet'. Get educated."

Calm down. When did the video discourage sexual education or even biology class?

Plus, I love the fact the boy who turns to his parents downstairs after seeing porn sits on the armrest. Women weren't supposed to ride bikes or ride horses like men because they thought it was ... stimulating.

"Mormons" came up with those riding rules?

Jesus loves you. No matter what. As long as you can't label a vagina on a diagram.

"Mormons" tend to have huge families so I'm sure they not only know what a vagina looks like, but they know where it is and how to use it.
These petty exaggerations just make you look...

I mean, seriously, the real issue with porn is consent and objectification/exploitation and this video doesn't care about ANY of that at all.

How does this video not care about any of that stuff?
If you watched an instructional video teaching parents how to help their children not to drink random liquids, because they could be harmful, you'd say that the video doidn't care about the ingestion of poison?

If you avoid pornography and do as the Lord would have you do you will never have any issues with consent or objectification/exploitation.

It's just "body parts ... ewwww." It's like when I brought my students (4th graders) a Leap Frog and there was a science booklet for it and the youngest students saw the anatomy one (it wasn't THAT graphic) and was like "Ms of the Phoenix! Those are NAAAAASSTY!"

Grow up.