What's Worse For Children? Violence Or Pornography?

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Ahhh well if your talking about your run of the mill pron then yeah I probably say that it harms our kids no more that a violent movie.

But when i ask my self would i rather have my kid watch "the Terminator" or "Shaving Ryan's Privates 3", i would pick the terminator.

I must say this is a really interesting question and like i say i think the answer isn't one or the other our kids should be exposed to neither until they are old enough to understand and comprehend what they are seeing.

Like OP suggested, that is a completely backwards way to view things, and our society has been conditioned to be completely backwards in this regard.

I find the notion ridiculous, that you claim viewing a normal, natural, healthy sex act-- which all of us are hard-wired to enjoy (and without which none of us would have life, and our species would die off), is somehow equally harmful as being desensitized to, or even being manipulated (via story lines) into applauding violent behavior. Making violence seem justified. Making it look like violence solves things (as most of these violent hollywood stories inevitably portray.)

If most of us are lucky, and healthy, we will never have to engage in an act of violence in our entire lives. On the other hand, if we are healthy and normal, we can expect to experience the sex act quite a number of times. Yet it's somehow "harmful" for a child to see this sex act, but perfectly okay for them to be taught that violence solves problems?


How barbaric and ridiculous. And to any so-called atheists espousing such a view, I ask you to consider the strongly religious puritanical origins of such a view. Such a view (like the notion that violence is acceptable, or even helpful) is not a natural part of the human experience-- but rather a heavily conditioned response.

Society, and many of its members, apparently, are quite ridiculous sometimes....

Mankind, instead of awakening the higher consciousness through raising the kundalini, are lowering themselves into degradations which take them into lower and lower awareness. Kundalini is associated with the sex energy, and when the kundalini rises to the crown, an individual experiences a higher awareness. People are not going to be happy when they constantly seek the gratification of the lower senses. Children need not be exposed to degradations through porn. Nor do they need to be exposed to forms of violence continually.
In my view, the real issue here is that the media portrays all manner of things which do not need to be continually displayed everywhere, but it is happening because people do not understand their bodies as the Temple of the Living God.
That being said, if mankind indeed gravitated toward higher consciousness, the whole thing might not even be an issue. We came out of the Victorian era where women were supposed to be chaperoned, into the sexual revolution of the 60's. A lot of things changed.
We can celebrate sexual love but people do not seem to realize what they are doing when they focus on the act. Sex can be spiritualized. This is what the Kama Sutra is meant to accomplish, but silly people in the west just see it as interesting positions. In other words, focusing on the base act and not the blending of the energies of two people in pure love.
Authoritarianism is really not the answer either, but really, is this what is important in people's lives?

I think putting this into a context of the lesser of two evils, we are merely mixing apples and oranges. I don't think it serves any real purpose to compare the two things and choose one as better or worse than the other. People need illumination, not the "lesser of two evils".
Also, what purpose are we serving when people are justifying a base desire for porn, which feeds an impossible need for excitement in the bedroom which really does not exist in real relationships, instead of focusing on the expression of love in a committed relationship?

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Once I saw you created this thread I should have just moved on.....

The same line of logic could be used towards sex. If we stopped demonizing people's sexual orientation and sexual choices, regardless of how much we disagree with them on a personal level, our society would be focused on many more important issues.

Should have known your hidden gay agenda take play here....

Neither violence or sex should make a difference to a child....IF they are actually raised properly......Parenting goes a long way, especially when done right......

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

It's not the exposure that's the problem is the over exposure that leads to them normalizing the images and ideas they are being presented.

So over exposure I guess.

~Tenth

Agree.

Im honest with my children. I think many parents are not. That also is a problem.

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein

Should have known your hidden gay agenda take play here....

So.......

Demonizing people's sexual orientation and sexual choices ISNT happening?

Yes or No?

So what's worse for Children?

Martin/Zimmerman or Weiner/Filner ?

Both are destructive, and parenting should be left of to the parents you can teach a child to walk a certain path, but in the end the child must walk it alone.

Going to be tough for every one step forward two steps back, but that is the process of growing up.

That is my opinion.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Not the best way to start this thread. Within just a few short clicks, without any form of registration or age verification can I show you simulated rape videos, gang bangs, various insertions, bondage etc. with the help of Google.

Sometimes, porn and violence are one and the same. Seeing two people make love is something you shouldn't view unless you're one of the two. I watch porn every now and again, so I'm not innocent in any respect. But to claim that internet pornography isn't as bad to let your children view then violence isn't going to work.

How about we just acknowledge that neither should be viewed by persons under eighteen years of age and that the government shouldn't be miffling with either one? It's our jobs as parents to watch what our children do. If you don't want them to watch porn, then don't let them. Don't want them to play violent video games or watch violent movies? Then don't let them.

We are the parents. The government isn't. It's also not the governments job to censor anything online in my opinion.

I wandered back over here after realizing I actually do need to clarify this. I shouldn't. No one should...but even my wife is so jaded by what the Internet has made seem normal in just the advertisements, let alone actually seeing some of the sights? Ugh... Even she initially had to insure what I meant when I mentioned this thread.

When I say Sex and Porn is something I want my kid, in proper time and age, to know and be comfortable with and sex, something he needs healthy respect and hopefully enjoyment from as his life goes on? I don't mean Purple polka-dotted midget donkey sex in Dodgers Stadium before a capacity crowd scoring for points. lol....

I know, some of the net really has gotten THAT bad. Stupid me...I had to actually click and find out what 'scat' could mean in THAt context, the first time I saw it on a mainstream porn listing. Errr..... Oh, how we learn early that things labeled online really *ARE* what they sound like and no, one can't unsee what is seen. If only we could....

I think what the OP may have had in mind, and I'm not sure what I think about actually having to explain this to my Wife, let alone here....is PLAYBOY level porn ...not the kind of stuff someone needs to make sure the doors or locked or something before even loading. I don't think kids would be at all harmed, for example, by the same approach to nudity as Europe has for sunbathing and the general TV attitude.

I don't believe any mainstream 'general' channels in the UK or Europe are off showing hard core sex that would make a sailor blush, are they? On the other hand though, you don't hear about 6 or 7 figure fines being threatened for a quick view of Janet Jackson's breast from the mother of all OOPS moments, right?

Somewhere...there has to be a happy balance between Prudish stupidity that comes out of the 18th and 19th century ...and the stuff even the ACLU would probably agree ought to vanish ....if no one was around to record them saying it.

I'm no prude but some of the porn that is so freely available on the net to anyone regardless of age is pure and utter filth. Ban it, I say, because the world sure doesn't need it.

Banning/blocking both are against the freedom of CHOICE; remember how they take away our rights about smoking?

Now instead of sitting out with friends enjoying live conversation with couple beers/coffee while smoking cigarettes now and then, have been forced to bring all engagements (real) social life into my room in front of computers watching/reading/talking/chatting without restriction of cigarettes/beers/coffee consumptions at the cost of losing real social life outside!

Now do the maths, restriction on sex/porn/violent will eventually force those “hidden animal instincts” going (OUTSIDE) of the living room.. result will be more street violence and rape!

See what is happening in India (gang rape) lately?

I think that both violence and hardcore pornography are equally bad for children and young teens, however i feel compelling to raise the issue of how many children are raised in violent surroundings by teal people as opposed to those that are raised with immediate access to hardcore porn.

I dont agree with the governments plan to ban porn (unless you tell your isp otherwise) and i dont think it will work either! Its just a flawed and half hearted idea, camoron is such an idiot.

A healthy sexually non-hungry person wont have a need for porn. A healthy non-violent person will want to watch a few movies with violence in them though. There is a HUGE difference between the two. Movie violence isnt real. No body is getting hurt. No body is glorifying violence either. Whereas with porn, there is real sex going on. People are actually selling their own sexual performance and image. So comparing the two is very wrong.

If you want to compare the two, youd have to compare a real violence video generating revenue to porn. I dont actually see real time violence being sold as a good thing.

What's Worse For Children? Violence Or Pornography?,

It depends. A lot of porn out there can invoke violence against women.
I'd say that 'all things in moderation' is the way to go. Ya' know??

If you want to compare the two, youd have to compare a real violence video generating revenue to porn. I dont actually see real time violence being sold as a good thing.

BUMFIGHTS?

reply to post by nusnus

There is a HUGE difference between the two.

Not there is NOT.

Simulated violence is prove to induce the same brain reaction that real violence does. Enough exposure to one or the other creates the same apathetic conditioning.

People are actually selling their own sexual performance and image.

I don't dispute that pornography can in some cases, mess with the perception of how women and men, or sex in general should be treated.

Violence in media creates the same exact situation.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Well ive grown up watching jackie chan movies and im definitely not apathetic to violence. Because the kind of violence we watch in movies is usually perpetrated against a bad guy, who was already asking for it, and its not real. So here you are thinking: you killed my pappy, die son of a beetch lol then you forget about it.

Porn on the other hand, is like, oh hey, heres a nice documentary on how people use other peoples bodies for pleasure....

reply to post by tothetenthpower


- pornography *is* violence, Tenth

because it is a way of invading, posessing the other [which is usually female]
in order to Take by Force

...it doesnt really matter, that the means to it is ' but a woman on a screen'
because the Fact that the one lóoking is connecting him Energetically with that female,
IS already the Violent action.

in that aspect, pornography is much more Violent as dumb use of force we call 'violence'

hope i made sense

best wish,

Maybe we are getting too much for free & this might be a possible way for them to charge us for certain uses in the future. At the moment most of this porn & violence stuff is free & it might be having an impact on other media related revenues. Sorry if someone has already made this point.
The more you stop kids from doing things the more appealing it becomes to them & the more inventive they become.
Why is there a constant need to censor things in the UK? The Euros have much more liberal attitudes to sex & violence. They don't seem to have the same amounts of youth issues.
I don't want or need anymore censorship than is already present. I trust my 13yr old son to use his internet connection responsibly & have never put any restrictions on his use. I have warned him about looking at things he cannot possibly understand yet & that I also have the right to check his history at any time. I haven't ever exorcised that right but his door is usually open & like I said I trust his judgement. There is plenty of violence & gore on his XBOX games anyway. We have always encouraged him to ask us questions & he does.
I realise that this isn't suitable for everyone but it works for us.