• My Family's Baby Nearly Saw Porn, WTF VERIZON?!?
    184 replies, posted
We're rating him dumb because he felt it was necessary to make a thread about his sister almost seeing porn [editline]29th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Elecbullet;27719676]OP didn't say how old the baby is but a child's first knowledge of sex shouldn't be a macho man getting sucked off by a double D hottie then blowing a load on her face[/QUOTE] Sounds a lot similar to a strawman fallacy to me, except in this case the strawman is fucking some Latina woman (I guess? Apparently it's softcore porn anyway)
[QUOTE=commandhat;27719308]Yes, yes, I know, :ohdear:s all around. but good god, she only pressed 1 button and I know my family definitely does NOT watch that kind of stuff at all. So anyway I was gaming as usual and suddenly the baby started crying. I ran in wanting to be Big Brother, then I saw the problem. Her Spongebob show was gone, and replaced with a message: "You are currently not subscribed to Playboy en Espanol, would you like to subscribe?" I switched it back without a word. I asked her what happened and she said "I accidentally sat on the remote and spongebob dissappeared!" I asked how she sat on it, only one button was pushed enough to be registered. Edit: I love how facepunch instantly rates me dumb. HE'S HATING ON PORNOGRAPHY HE MUST BE A MORON![/QUOTE] Angry 13 year old detected
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27719685]Name one negative consequence that isn't something retarded like "her innocence will be gone".[/QUOTE] in my opinion sex shouldn't just be this not-special thing that people just do for the sake of doing, it is more sacred than that
[QUOTE=commandhat;27719308]Edit: I love how facepunch instantly rates me dumb. HE'S HATING ON PORNOGRAPHY HE MUST BE A MORON![/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Firefox42;27719406]nothing really happened so I don't really see a need for a thread.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;27719595]Yeah okay I don't think it's good for a little baby girl to see porno. I don't understand the people around here who say "let her".[/QUOTE] It's not that good either but it won't destroy the kid's fragile and young mind. It's not a big deal at all.
And I realize that the text in my avatar detracts from my opinion but
So you sister pressed a button on the remote. And the remote did exactly what it was meant to, and changed the channel. To a channel that gave you a banner and said 'Please pay for pr0n, lolz'. And nothing else? And you're freaking out?
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27719685]Name one negative consequence that isn't something retarded like "her innocence will be gone".[/QUOTE] Children are very impressionable at age five, and pornography is one of the most unrealistic portrayals of sex ever. Besides, what does a five year old need with sex? That being said, a one time viewing of Playboy will definitely not leave a permanent mark on her view of sexuality. [editline]28th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Elecbullet;27719676]OP didn't say how old the baby is but a child's first knowledge of sex shouldn't be a macho man getting sucked off by a double D hottie then blowing a load on her face I don't understand today's attitude about sex as just something, where one-night stands are valid and acceptable.[/QUOTE] First half: Yep Second half: Eh, not so much.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;27719712]in my opinion sex shouldn't just be this not-special thing that people just do for the sake of doing, it is more sacred than that[/QUOTE] It's not more "sacred" than that, people typically have sex because it's pleasurable, or, if they don't use contraception, because they want a child.
[QUOTE=Billiam;27719751]That being said, a one time viewing of Playboy will definitely not leave a permanent mark on her view of sexuality.[/QUOTE] just for reference, Playboy TV is more explicit than Playboy magazine, and shows actual penetration and oral sex [QUOTE=Xolo;27719774]It's not more "sacred" than that, people typically have sex because it's pleasurable, or, if they don't use contraception, because they want a child.[/QUOTE] what I object to is the idea that it's perfectly fine to go out and meet up with a person, fuck that night, and never talk again
Your sister was exactly three easy payments of $9.99 away from hardcore pornography.
[QUOTE=Billiam;27719751]Children are very impressionable at age five, and pornography is one of the most unrealistic portrayals of sex ever. Besides, what does a five year old need with sex? That being said, a one time viewing of Playboy will definitely not leave a permanent mark on her view of sexuality. [editline]28th January 2011[/editline] First half: Yep Second half: Eh, not so much.[/QUOTE] What does it matter if it's an unrealistic portrayal of sex? Sponges don't really talk, so I guess Spongebob is an unrealistic portrayal of marine life and it should be taboo for children to view it.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;27719784]just for reference, Playboy TV is more explicit than Playboy magazine, and shows actual penetration and oral sex[/QUOTE] Ah, I didn't realize that. Sorry.
[QUOTE=Billiam;27719817]Ah, I didn't realize that. Sorry.[/QUOTE] no problem, I wasn't actually directing it to you, just saying in general
[QUOTE=Billiam;27719817]Ah, I didn't realize that. Sorry.[/QUOTE] Regardless, they aren't even subscribed to Playboy TV so there's no way for her to accidentally view porn anyways.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;27719784] what I object to is the idea that it's perfectly fine to go out and meet up with a person, fuck that night, and never talk again[/QUOTE] Not all porn portrays one-night stands. By the way, I [B]THOROUGHLY[/b] object to the idea that it's perfectly fine for sponges to just [i]talk[/i] The fact of the matter is that if you restrict people from viewing something because you dislike the idea it conveys you're walking a (rather considerable, but apparent) line between socialism and healthy society
[QUOTE=Xolo;27719816]What does it matter if it's an unrealistic portrayal of sex? Sponges don't really talk, so I guess Spongebob is an unrealistic portrayal of marine life and it should be taboo for children to view it.[/QUOTE] The difference being the program's relevance to life. "What is the danger of a person thinking sponges can talk?" compared to "What is the danger of a person not knowing anything about sex?" [editline]28th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Xolo;27719853]Not all porn portrays one-night stands. By the way, I [B]THOROUGHLY[/b] object to the idea that it's perfectly fine for sponges to just [i]talk[/i] The fact of the matter is that if you restrict people from viewing something because you dislike the idea it conveys you're walking a (rather considerable, but apparent) line between socialism and healthy society[/QUOTE] She's five. Laying some boundary's is some of the things you're suppose to do when you're taking care of a five year old.
[QUOTE=Xolo;27719853]Not all porn portrays one-night stands. By the way, I [B]THOROUGHLY[/b] object to the idea that it's perfectly fine for sponges to just [i]talk[/i] The fact of the matter is that if you restrict people from viewing something because you dislike the idea it conveys you're walking a (rather considerable, but apparent) line between socialism and healthy society[/QUOTE] Censorship is like stopping everyone eating meat because a baby can't chew it?
[QUOTE=Xolo;27719853]Not all porn portrays one-night stands. By the way, I [B]THOROUGHLY[/b] object to the idea that it's perfectly fine for sponges to just [i]talk[/i] The fact of the matter is that if you restrict people from viewing something because you dislike the idea it conveys you're walking a (rather considerable, but apparent) line between socialism and healthy society[/QUOTE] yes, clearly, by restricting my 5-year-old sister from viewing Playboy TV I am walking the line of socialism but since you made a valid point about not all porn portraying one-night stands I will allow her to watch it, but ONLY if I pre-approve each one as portraying consensual sexual activity between two adults who have known each other for a significant amount of time, and ONLY if they cuddle afterwards
Oh no! Your sister nearly saw human genitalia, WHAT WILL YOU EVER DO!?
[QUOTE=Billiam;27719863]The difference being the program's relevance to life. "What is the danger of a person thinking sponges can talk?" compared to "What is the danger of a person not knowing anything about sex?"[/QUOTE] How does porn extract information regarding what sex is from a child's head? By the way, that was a silly comparison to make you realize how ridiculous your argument was, but here's a more relevant one: sex and eating are similar. They're both primal needs that humans perform regularly. The cartoon "Dexter's Laboratory", in one episode, showed a muscle-man eating rocks. I suppose, since children are so impressionable, kids who view that episode of Dexter's Laboratory will think it's healthy and will give them muscles if they eat rocks. [editline]29th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Elecbullet;27719898]yes, clearly, by restricting my 5-year-old sister from viewing Playboy TV I am walking the line of socialism[/QUOTE] Sorta, yeah
I once got caught watching porn. Family went bitch'in
I still want to know why you called her a baby when she is 5.
[QUOTE=Upturned_Walrus;27719943]I still want to know why you called her a baby when she is 5.[/QUOTE] In all likelyhood his parents do it because she's growing up and they don't want to lose the experience of parenting so he picked up the habit.
[QUOTE=Xolo;27719970]In all likelyhood his parents do it because she's growing up and they don't want to lose the experience of parenting so he picked up the habit.[/QUOTE] fair enough
[QUOTE=Xolo;27719921]By the way, that was a silly comparison to make you realize how ridiculous your argument was, but here's a more relevant one: sex and eating are similar. They're both primal needs that humans perform regularly. The cartoon "Dexter's Laboratory", in one episode, showed a muscle-man eating rocks. I suppose, since children are so impressionable, kids who view that episode of Dexter's Laboratory will think it's healthy and will give them muscles if they eat rocks.[/QUOTE] The difference being that the Dexter's Lab show won't be the child's first experience with eating
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;27719784] what I object to is the idea that it's perfectly fine to go out and meet up with a person, fuck that night, and never talk again[/QUOTE] Lol. I see nothing wrong with doing this. Just because you put pussy on a pedestal doesn't mean we all should.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;27719712]in my opinion sex shouldn't just be this not-special thing that people just do for the sake of doing, it is more sacred than that[/QUOTE] take your sense of decency back to the middle ages where it belongs. sex is not sacred it's just a natural function of the body that feels good.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;27719993]The difference being that the Dexter's Lab show won't be the child's first experience with eating[/QUOTE] OK, maybe I shouldn't have chosen to use an analogy considering how unique of a position sex is in, in relation to society I'll settle for saying seeing an action performed "out-of-the-ordinary" (like non-married one-night-stand sex) won't forever tarnish a child's perception of that action.
5 years old isn't a baby.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.