• My Family's Baby Nearly Saw Porn, WTF VERIZON?!?
    184 replies, posted
Those crazy Dutch.
The first says that people who "seek out" online porn have those negative traits, it doesn't mention online porn being the actual cause. In fact, that's what all of those say excluding third (which a quick Google reveals is full of bullshit).
[QUOTE=Rubs10;27720676]Nudity and sex is only viewed as bad, because people make it that way. There's really nothing harmful or "bad" about viewing it, no matter what age. The only harm that could come out of it, would be because of the rest of society viewing it as bad. Look at nude beaches. Those places aren't filled with erections. Those people are so used to nudity, that they really don't care. Are you one of those intellectually superior guys?[/QUOTE] Look at nude beaches? there's nothing worth looking at.
seriously though deal with it [editline]29th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Elecbullet;27720850]Those crazy Dutch.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Xolo;27720803]According to the study, the "some" mentioned comprise about .5% of the survey body. You think it's right to restrict the other 99.5% from viewing pornography because a small percentage doesn't respond to it well? Oh, and also the 0.5% were almost all surveyed as being from "strongly religious" families[/QUOTE] First of all, survey's aren't exactly the most reliable measure of a effects on a child. Secondly, I think the parent is the most ideal person to decide that, but I'm inclined to not risk it because: A) At age 5 not many children are after pornography B) 1 out of 200 is still a pretty big measure. C) Why risk it for no reason?
I'll point out that none of those three surveys are peer-reviewed btw
How did this degenerate into socialist views and surveys?
[QUOTE=commandhat;27720892]How did this degenerate into socialist views and surveys?[/QUOTE] Because comparisons + sources are the best ways to show people how wrong they are
Think of the children!
I'm not going to spend hours on this forum restating my points, but you guys should seriously reconsider your moral views if you think children looking at pornography shouldn't be allowed despite proof showing it isn't harmful to 99.5% of them [editline]29th January 2011[/editline] I mean that's like saying eating hard candy should be banned because of the deaths as a result of choking on hard candy
[QUOTE=Xolo;27720922]I mean that's like saying eating hard candy should be banned because of the deaths as a result of choking on hard candy[/QUOTE] No it's like saying children five and under shouldn't eat hard-candy because it's a choking hazard.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;27720821][quote]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. 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. 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.[/quote] source: [url=http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn.aspx][u]APA[/u][/url] nice to have something actually readable for once[/QUOTE] Cool, you found some research that shares your same opinion. What you and your source have [b]still[/b] completely failed to point out, is why sex should be glorified. [QUOTE=Elecbullet;27720954]You realize this is the American Psychological Association speaking right?[/QUOTE] I don't get how a publisher name makes them right, especially if they fail to point out anything that would have any impact at all. Sure, a name could suggest that maybe you should spend more time considering that maybe they're right, but in their case, they're wrong. Especially when they used that whole "play things" argument.
[QUOTE=Xolo;27720876]I'll point out that none of those three surveys are peer-reviewed btw[/QUOTE] You realize this is the American Psychological Association speaking right?
You can't get aids from hard candy
[QUOTE=Xolo;27720903]Because comparisons + sources are the best ways to show people how wrong they are[/QUOTE] Because attacks on religion + bullshit surveys are the best ways to show people how wrong they are. Because apparently parents aren't allowed to have the option to not expose children to sex and shit at an early age. It's their choice. I don't know how this changed from about the 5 year old to why people shouldn't give a damn if their child watches pornography / is exposed to sex at a very early age. Gah, I just realized how poorly worded the first line of the post is. Ignore the attacks on religion statement.
They're going to see porn eventually.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;27720954]You realize this is the American Psychological Association speaking right?[/QUOTE] No, it isn't. It's an independent third party which could've (because of the lack of peer-review) skewed its results to show what they would prefer it to have showed. It was submitted to the APA for public viewing at its target audience. On the other hand, peer-reviewed sources (what I posted) are reviewed by huge boards of career specialist who also check that it is nonbias and checked for validity against the raw results of the survey.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;27720951]Cool, you found some research that shares your same opinion. What you and your source have [b]still[/b] completely failed to point out, is why sex should be glorified.[/QUOTE] Do you believe that a woman who has had sex with a hundred men is no worse a partner for a long-term commitment than one who has had sex zero or only a few times?
You can't deny credibilty just because you think that there is a chance that it could have been altered for the party's intent.
[QUOTE=MBAfortytwo;27720988]They're going to see porn eventually.[/QUOTE] Some parents don't want their children to see pornography at an early age because they want their child to at least be a bit older so they can understand the concept. At 5 they'll see it as, "o hay dat guis pepe is in dat girls pepe im gonna tell my friends at my kindiegarten" Atleast when they're older they'll understand the concept a bit more.
[QUOTE=MBAfortytwo;27720988]They're going to see porn eventually.[/QUOTE] But why not view it at a developmental age like 10 when it's both more enjoyable and less confusing.
Yea WTF VERIZON for putting Playboy on a TV service that adults often use!!
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;27721021]Do you believe that a woman who has had sex with a hundred men is no worse a partner for a long-term commitment than one who has had sex zero or only a few times?[/QUOTE] Completely irrelevant question
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;27719827]no problem, I wasn't actually directing it to you, just saying in general[/QUOTE] How would you know?
[QUOTE=Billiam;27721058]But why not view it at a developmental age like 10 when it's both more enjoyable and less confusing.[/QUOTE] Are you agreeing with us? LOL
[QUOTE=Xolo;27721075]Are you agreeing with us? LOL[/QUOTE] I think you've been misunderstanding me this entire thread.
[QUOTE=WarRocker32;27721047]Some parents don't want their children to see pornography at an early age because they want their child to at least be a bit older so they can understand the concept. At 5 they'll see it as, "o hay dat guis pepe is in dat girls pepe im gonna tell my friends at my kindiegarten" Atleast when they're older they'll understand the concept a bit more.[/QUOTE] If they don't understand it then what's the harm and why is it necessary to prevent it [editline]29th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Billiam;27721085]I think you've been misunderstanding me this entire thread.[/QUOTE] I don't think so
[QUOTE=Xolo;27721061]Completely irrelevant question[/QUOTE] I'm asking what are the implications of a society which treats sex as just something that feels good, and are they good implications
[QUOTE=Billiam;27720950]No it's like saying children five and under shouldn't eat hard-candy because it's a choking hazard.[/QUOTE] Not really
[QUOTE=Xolo;27721061]Completely irrelevant question[/QUOTE] Completely irrelevant answer. He probably had a point to make with it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.