Defending the Truth

Pornography isn't at fault here. Pop music and Britany Spears is to blame in that case. No the buck stops with the parents.

15 year olds should fuck if they feel they are ready and want to. There is nothing wrong or obscene about it as long as you teach them about safe sex and the risks involved.

Seriously, educated and responsible is the way to go.

Yeah, but like I said other factors I had that in mind. It's still sexually none the less though. I did mention safe sex above

Comparing pornography to heroin, researchers on Thursday called on Congress to finance studies on "porn addiction" and launch a public health campaign about the dangers.

"We're so afraid to talk about sex in our society that we really give carte blanche to the people who are producing this kind of material," said James B. Weaver, a Virginia Tech professor who studies the impact of pornography.

Internet pornography is corrupting children and hooking adults into an addiction that threatens their jobs and families, a panel of anti-porn advocates told the hearing organized by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., chairman of the Commerce subcommittee on science.

Brownback, a father of five, said when he was a boy, the typical kid's exposure was limited to occasional peeks at dirty magazines illicitly obtained by a buddy.

Now, he said, pornography seems pervasive. Children run across it while researching homework on the Internet. Vulgar ads arrive unexpectedly by e-mail. Some of his middle-age male friends limit their time alone in hotel rooms to avoid the temptation of graphic pay-per-view movies, Brownback said.

Mary Anne Layden, co-director of a sexual trauma program at the University of Pennsylvania, said pornography's effect on the brain mirrors addiction to heroin or crack cocaine. She told of one patient, a business executive, who arrived at his office at 9 a.m. each day, logged onto Internet porn sites, and didn't log off until 5 p.m.

Layden called for billboards and bus ads warning people to avoid pornography, strip clubs and prostitutes.

The panel discussion ranged from hardcore, violent pornography to audience complaints about a sexually suggestive promo that aired prior to this week's "Monday Night Football" game.

Brownback, an outspoken Christian conservative who has championed efforts to curb indecency on television and the Internet, said the public is beginning to realize "they don't just have to take it."

But he acknowledged the First Amendment right to free speech has limited congressional efforts.

In June, the Supreme Court blocked a law designed to shield Web-surfing children from pornography, ruling that requiring adults to register or use access codes before viewing objectionable material would infringe on their rights.

Brownback said scientific data is needed to help his cause.

Weaver acknowledged that research "directly assessing the impact of pornography addiction on families and communities is rather limited."

But he pointed to studies that show prolonged use of pornography leads to "sexual callousness, the erosion of family values and diminished sexual satisfaction."

Judith Reisman, a vocal critic of the Kinsey Institute and the field of sexology, suggested Congress require police officers to gather evidence of pornography at crime scenes to further research.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...907EST0715.DTL


These people give "pseudo-science" a bad name...

That may be. But do you think it is the fact that they are running a porn site which has caused them to not wear a rubber? Remember that correlation is not the same as causation. What is likely happening here is that people who are very open with their sexual behavior are not wearing rubbers. It is also the same type of person who might start a porn site.

So it isn't starting a porn site that caused those people not to wear condoms. It is their preexisting opinions about sex. And logically, why would running a porn site cause someone not to wear a condom? There isn't really a good explanation for how it could cause someone to engage in unsafe sex.

For my own part, I haven't ever known someone who has run a porn site. But I've known countless people who use pornography a whole lot. And I cannot think of even one of them who engages in unsafe sex. Many even practice abstinence until marriage.

So you are suggesting that pornography will put the idea of sex into the minds of 15-year-olds? Well that very well may be. But as was suggested above, I do not think this is a problem. Allow me to use some examples to show my point.

We today find it perfectly appropriate to allow a 15-year-old to watch a video of someone bungee jumping. We find it perfectly appropriate for a child to watch a video of a man jumping his motorcycle over cars. We find it perfectly appropriate for a child to watch a video of someone racing his car at high speeds. But the vast majority of our children do not engage in these activities because they understand the dangers involved and how to prevent those dangers.

So why should the same not be true of the far less dangerous act of sex? I don't see why children shouldn't know exactly what sex is. Is there really benefit in preventing them from knowing what sex looks like until they are eighteen?

I can understand saying that young girls becoming pregnant is a problem which should not be igored. But I absolutely don't think that pornography would cause that problem to become worse. Why should it? The best method of preventing children from engaging in unsafe activities is not keeping them ignorant and without a method to fulfill their sexual desires safely, it is keeping them informed.

Thinking more deeply on this, I wonder if there might be a different rating system more appropriate. Instead of rating things based on their sexual content, why not rate them on how much they encourage engaging in unsafe activities? For example, a movie portraying reproductive sex between individuals who aren't prepared to raise a child would be rated R. While a movie portraying naked people would be rated G. Though I imagine such a rating system would only be managable in a society whose ways of thinking about sex change dramatically.

I am all for it in fact a nice shiney PDF using statistics from behavorial studies examing the numbers would nice. This is really becoming a serious issues, it's not just "ohh hey it's porn!". It's becoming a serious addiction for a lot of people, including older consenting adults.

Right it is keeping them informed, but I think what I am trying to get at here is their are a certain percentage (I don't have any numbers, I could try and get them for you) of children they might get idea's from extremely explicit sexual content and trust me there are lot of porn sites out there that have them and it might give them "ideas" to try and perform these sexual acts with partner, etc. I think what we should be looking at here is what exactly are the numbers or percentage of children who are having sex at young age that are openely admitting they are using protection? Preganancy becomes another issues altogether, thus leading reproductive right, etc and we won't argue that.

100% agreed.

The argument that because children "might get an idea" from viewing pornography is utterly ridiculous. First of all, parents need to take the necessary steps to prevent their children from looking at pornography in the first place. People are so willing to point the finger at some other cause when their children fuck up or do something they're not supposed to do. Most of the time, it's the parents fault. Let's think about it for a minute, the only ways a child is going to view pornography in their own house is if the parents don't take the steps to prevent that like setting parental controls on the internet and TV or if the parents have it, hiding it in a place where the child would never find it. It could definitely happen at school which then it is the school's fault and the teacher who was supposed to be supervising. It could happen when a child is with his or her friends, at that friends house, or somewhere else. Then again, we have a situation where it could have been stolen from an older sibling (that could happen in any house, assuming) or it could have been other parents lack of responsibility. The businesses that will sell pornographic material to minors who are at the impressionable age you refer to are definitely far and few between, if at all. Are people really that lazy that they would rather sidestep the First Amendment to assault a perfectly legitimate industry?

I was reading a Newsweek article and these mothers were blaming society that they were bad mothers, I just couldn't believe it, everyone is willing to point fingers and not realize that they are probably the ones at fault.

Having the ability to admit you were wrong or at fault is the first step to an open mind.