121–130 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, not wanting your children to develop sexual relationships with computer screens is draconian.
It's the outright ban on wifi that feels draconian. How would you handle it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've never let them have free reign to screens, whether computer or TV or phone, because there's a whole host of other problems that come from that. So it's not like we're taking internet away from them and that they're used to it. We've been teaching each one, the other they get, how to use computers and the internet responsibly, and we've always supervised to make sure they're not accidentally running into somethi…
No one knows how to better parent your kids than childless millenial software developers :)
Childless millennial software developers (or otherwise generally technical) are in a better position to understand puberty in the modern internet driven landscape than someone who went through it 30 years ago, though. That's a relevant perspective here. . .no? The whole idea is to provide alternative perspectives, so that we can have the most information and thus (in theory) make the best choices, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is not about addiction
In fact, the article explicitly points out there's no scientific evidence for "porn addiction" existing in the first place.
There is, however, considerable evidence that compulsive pornography use and other compulsive sexual behaviors, at a minimum, have many addiction-like features, though there is considerable debate about both the criteria to consider non-substance-use compulsive behavior as addiction and how particular compulsions fit any proposed criteria. Portraying the state of the science as “no scientific evidence of pornography addiction” is both strictly false and substantively misleading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the time, I see the puritanical christians going the route of "sex is evil". It's the unsaid thing as well, but they are also the ones pushing for "abstinence-only training". This is literally dumbing down discourse to students at an age who sorely needs it. I'd also be willing to bet that this family has no compunctions about letting the son watch extreme violent TV shows and movies. People being tortured, m…
the puritanical value isnt 'sex is evil' the puritanical value is 'sex should be enjoyed in marriage, monogamously' pornography is harmful to our brains, many studies have shown this. plenty of studies also show that people who have fewer sexual partners are ultimately happier in their sex life. and it doesnt take much thought to see that STDs would spread much more slowly if people were monogamous. lots of good thin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the outright ban on wifi that feels draconian. How would you handle it?
I read an article a while ago about how a lot of silicon valley people disallow their kids internet access. It makes sense to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read an article a while ago about how a lot of silicon valley people disallow their kids internet access. It makes sense to me.
Does it? These kids are going into a world saturated by the Internet. Does it make sense to disallow Internet access and prevent them from participating in culture, education, entertainment, and pretty much everything else in life while their peers are getting ahead and they're left behind? This is one way to prepare kids for almost certain failure in our increasingly technology-based society.
My position is that moderate and supervised technology use from a young age probably is the best path, but if the choice was between two extremes of “unrestricted access from 0-10 years old” and “no access from 0-10”, I think the latter is the choice that I’d make. I highly doubt my kids would be at a long-term disadvantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one knows how to better parent your kids than childless millenial software developers :)
Haha! I mean, fair. Obviously OP has the most information, so ultimately is probably best placed to make appropriate choices. I don't dispute that. Childless millennial software developers (or otherwise generally technical) are in a better position to understand puberty in the modern internet driven landscape than someone who went through it 30 years ago, though. That's a relevant perspective here. . .no? The whole i…
I'm a millennial software developer who went through this exact thing 15 years ago. So we're in the same boat, the only difference being I have kids. And poker is a whole different game when you're not playing for keeps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read an article a while ago about how a lot of silicon valley people disallow their kids internet access. It makes sense to me.
Does it? These kids are going into a world saturated by the Internet. Does it make sense to disallow Internet access and prevent them from participating in culture, education, entertainment, and pretty much everything else in life while their peers are getting ahead and they're left behind? This is one way to prepare kids for almost certain failure in our increasingly technology-based society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That only works if you have a SO, which isn't even necessarily what everyone wants.
Well sex kind of inherently requires an SO (however you choose to define "significant"), and porn inherently has to do with sex. Masturbation is trying to be your own SO, but sex inherently is a two-person job. I know these things are controversial these days, but they're pretty obvious and self-evident if you ignore recent ideologies and politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, not wanting your children to develop sexual relationships with computer screens is draconian.
Not quite what I was saying. Not wanting anyone you care about to "develop sexual relationships with computer screens" is normal, I'd think. Mandating all levels of access to computer screens because of that desire is what's draconian, not the intent behind the mandate.