Teenagers and the Internet • Hacker News Board

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#91

Post by existencebox » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 3:48 PM UTC

coryfklein wrote: post #87

existencebox wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But lets turn back the clock a few thousand years, where pre-teen boys were practically expected to engage not only in sexual acts/experiences, but often with those FAR older than themselves. At the risk of more unsubstantiated statements (qualifier, I spent 7 years studying latin+latin history), I feel like the amount of sexual content exposed to children in that era was FAR greater than now, even with the internet+…

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. That exposure to hardcore porn online is okay because it's better than being raped as a child? Or it's okay because we can adapt to its negative influence and come out alright? What if I want something better than "ok" for my kids?

Firstly, to say that the older/younger relationships from that era would be generally considered rape even by todays standards would be quite a stretch.

Secondly, I must apologize in advance, I'm having a lot of trouble stating my point, probably because I'm sitting in a cluster computing conference, and will try to give this a better shot when I can devote more focus to it, but in short: I think we have some very skewed ways of looking at sex and sexual act. A stigmatization of the topic as a whole even makes it very hard to talk about. There are examples of rape and "improper" behavior in sexually liberal, and sexually conservative societies. There need to be new and less black and white ways of looking at and judging both sexual maturity, "appropriate" behaviors, and conduct. It is not productive to point the finger at a prevelence or lack of sexual material and then yell "THINK OF THE CHILDREN", this is going to be answered I think by a better understanding of human behavior and cognitive function, and right now we're grasping in the dark for useful metrics and basing decisions on questionable logic.

Anyway, I feel like I may be going away from the answer you wanted/rambling a bit, so I'll cut this short and perhaps reread/reedit my response. I also want to brainstorm a bit with my female, who as a psychologist/cognitive scientist, works with the most extreme cases of sexual deviance/criminals, and in positions of sexual assault support, and I'm sure has some relevant thoughts on the issue.

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#92

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 3:49 PM UTC

Do bear in mind that there are effectively two alternatives:

- uncontrolled internet access, where other people's kids have access to a lot of awful stuff (not just porn but "shock" videos; goatse and worse)

- State- or business- controlled internet access, where someone else gets to control what you see, potentially eliminating access to inconvenient stories like Snowden.

We could really do with a "third way", but it needs someone to imagine what it could be, how it could work, and how it avoids the usual attempts to ruin it for everyone.

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#93

Post by diydsp » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 3:55 PM UTC

tomstuart wrote: post #16

Ugh, “the girl who let herself be gang raped”? I expect much better than this from the Guardian.

Yeah, then you read the article and it says "molested."

I went back to verify this and couldn't find it (!). Until I searched for "gang" instead... That's when I found The Guardian had changed the wording in the last few hours! If you scroll down to the bottom you'll find this:

"The standfirst to this article was amended on 12 September 2013. It originally referred to a girl who "let herself be gang-raped" to get her BlackBerry back. The misrepresented the text of the piece, which says she allowed herself to be sexually assaulted."

So, go ahead and blame technologists for allowing the internet to cater to our more prurient interests, but the newspaperpeople seem to the ones directly responsible.

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#94

Post by simias » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 4:00 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #86

simias wrote: post #69

I've always thought the problem was letting kids alone on the net. You wouldn't let you kid alone in a shaddy neighborhood for hours without checking up on them, would you? So why do exactly that with the internet? I think the main problem with the web is that it makes you lose your right to be forgotten. Think of those kids who post stupid videos of themselves on youtube that go viral. It won't go away, people will…

Would it have been okay for your parents to wiretap your phone? No? Then why is it okay to demand to read your children's private conversations? I am terrified we're going to have a generation of kids who have no concept of private. Who've never been allowed to speak or be curious about anything their parents wouldn't approve of. Who are used to having to explain conversations and reading to people who were never sup…

My phone? I didn't have a cell phone while growing up, the only phone at home was in the living room. So no wiretapping really needed...

And seriously, your parents aren't the NSA. Of course they should do what you are doing and of course you will do what you can so that they don't find out. It doesn't mean having a GPS tracker on you at all times.

I stand by my original point: the internet can be a very dangerous place filled with strangers, it's irresponsible to let your kids browse it unsupervised.

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#95

Post by BWStearns » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 4:05 PM UTC

mattdeboard wrote: post #74

themstheones wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is going to get into trouble on craigslist. What's the worst that could happen, buying a couch with bedbugs?

Oh dear, you really don't know much about Craigslist do you?

Wait.... so I shouldn't go to that "modeling shoot"? 0_O

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#96

Post by Gormo » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 4:08 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #89

3pt14159 wrote: post #11

I've had the internet for twenty years (since I was 8) and computer access since I was 3. Most of my friends had access since they were 10 or 11. We turned out fine. Some kids who have poor role models are going to ask for oral sex from boys or girls that like them. This was true 3000 years ago. It is true today. It will be true twenty years from now regardless of what silly idea the person who made the documentary h…

>Some kids who have poor role models are going to ask for oral sex from boys or girls that like them. In some cultures, healthy and loving relationships between teenagers are beautiful. The emotional drama that follows - which advocates for infantilization use to say teenagers cannot be trusted to handle relationships - is part of growing up and learning to be a person. The idea that this is wrong, idiotic, deserving…

> It's a fascinating cultural shift, and the religious right is fighting hard to stay in the 50s

Which "50s" are you referring to?

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#97

Post by refurb » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 4:09 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #89

3pt14159 wrote: post #11

I've had the internet for twenty years (since I was 8) and computer access since I was 3. Most of my friends had access since they were 10 or 11. We turned out fine. Some kids who have poor role models are going to ask for oral sex from boys or girls that like them. This was true 3000 years ago. It is true today. It will be true twenty years from now regardless of what silly idea the person who made the documentary h…

>Some kids who have poor role models are going to ask for oral sex from boys or girls that like them. In some cultures, healthy and loving relationships between teenagers are beautiful. The emotional drama that follows - which advocates for infantilization use to say teenagers cannot be trusted to handle relationships - is part of growing up and learning to be a person. The idea that this is wrong, idiotic, deserving…

The religious right? That makes no sense. It's the religious right that often encourages marriage at a young age. I've never heard of members of the religious right "shaming" teenage dating.

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#98

Post by zwieback » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 4:10 PM UTC

Or maybe the reality is a lot less interesting: a tiny percentage of teens will go off the rails, a tiny percentage will benefit hugely and the vast majority will do stupid things and reach adulthood more or less unscathed.

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#99

Post by Gormo » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 4:10 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #67

barrkel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of the problem is this binary label of children | not-children, which then gives rise to infantilizing treatment. The post you're responding to was splitting the spectrum into at least three parts, children | teenagers | adults, while you're arguing for children | adults - or at least that's how it looks. But I think you're on the wrong track there. Something that is closer to modelling a spectrum is bet…

But laws tend not to involve vague undefined gradients - and when they do people complain. Thus: You can drive when you're X, even if some people are perfectly capable of driving earlier and others need a few years to mature.

Regulatory policy tends not to involve "vague undefined gradients", but the trend of replacing the common law process, which evaluates each case on its own particulars, with static, top-down rules and regulations, is itself a bit of a recent novelty, and really hasn't worked out well.

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#100

Post by Blahah » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 4:11 PM UTC

GrinningFool wrote: post #63

Blahah wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying it can't be a good thing without even providing a reason is not constructive. It could very easily be a good thing.

My biggest concern is that it shows many things as normal and healthy that aren't. Warning - intimate details lie ahead. As an example - in recent years, this has become increasingly common: women fellating until they gag, almost vomit, drool mucousy streams of saliva all over their partner's genitals, and then slurp it all back up. Most of them look truly miserable while they're doing it. The guys look like they thi…

Whether or not we should worry about it hinges on a lot of uncertainties, including:

- Whether some women really do enjoy it. Granted, it's unlikely that most do. Given that some people really do enjoy extreme BDSM, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that some - even many - women enjoy deepthroating. People can consent to whatever sexual activity they want.

- Whether children do really form an image of what people 'should' do from porn. Staged sex acts are fantasy fulfilment. Most people are capable, even as young teenagers, of keeping fantasy and reality separate. Just as most teenagers don't act out fantasy situations they find in other media, they don't expect to act out porn fantasies. Everyone has intrusive thoughts, and the vast majority don't act on them. It's arguable that those who do would do so without the media stimulation.