Perhaps the instinct of adults to shield children from the likes of pornography, and even the Catcher in the Rye itself, is akin to Holden Caulfield's desire the children from becoming "phonies" like the adults who had been exposed to whatever in life he saw as the catalyst of said phoniness.
Only now after so many years from having read the Cliffs Notes do I realize that Holden was "catching" the children from the Rye that was pornography - more specifically to what J. D. Salinger had in mind, bittorrent clients and Kazaa. :)
my suspicion is that governments don't really care that much about teenagers (maybe a little about children, but parents still care more). porn is just an addictive product like alcohol and tobacco and governments want to tax it (more), and they can't if it's so plentiful and easily accessible on the internet. maybe these are just first small steps towards restricting supply and imposing taxes.
"It turns out that the research suggesting that teenagers and pornography are a hazardous mix is far from definitive." [Devil's advocate] If you had children, would you need peer-reviewed literature to inform your decision to allow them access to pornhub? And similarly, if you were a politician elected by people with children?
Okay, but that's an "obvious" case. At what age does it become appropriate for a child to go on, "Go Ask Alice!"[0]? 5? 8? 13? 21? 25? [0] http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/
Children who aren't interested in porn actively reject it even when they accidentally find it. It's hard for me to imagine what hypothetical damage it's supposed to do.
Personally I started watchin porn on the internet at age of 7 and more actively at age of 10.
I have not noticed any sign of it negatively affecting me.
E: “If we start teaching kids about equality and respect when they are 5 or 6 years old --"
And what does this BS SJW propaganda have to do with porn?
It's just a way for people to get off.
Citing Betteridge's law of headlines, I'm going to say no. Scientists are having a hard time proving that porn even has an impact, let alone that the impact is negative. What are they even looking for? That children will somehow start practicing BDSM after stumbling on porn? That their "precious minds" are tainted by the Real World?
What's wrong with BDSM? You say it like "practicing BDSM" is a bad thing.
because BDSM hurts ? (I really don't know, I only guess that's why the OP used BDSM as an example)
my suspicion is that governments don't really care that much about teenagers (maybe a little about children, but parents still care more). porn is just an addictive product like alcohol and tobacco and governments want to tax it (more), and they can't if it's so plentiful and easily accessible on the internet. maybe these are just first small steps towards restricting supply and imposing taxes.
Addiction to alcohol leads to cancers and withdrawals can lead to death. Psychologically, addiction can make folks violent or take unnecessary risks. Cigarettes cause cancers not only in you but in those around you. They smell to high hell too. Porn is not physically addictive and is not physically harmful. It's just as addictive as video games, television, or any other form of entertainment. If your argument against it's that it can help form unnecessary habits, we may as well ban free speech so that we can block all forms of entertainment that offend you.
Only if it falls on them. Stack your DVDs and magazines carefully, folks. More substantively: When divided into "pro-impact" and "no-impact" groups for the "improvised debate" mentioned in the article, the former camp is described as having essentially parroted all the various arguments their elders make for pornography being bad for teenagers, while the latter camp had no such arguments for the position they were as…
> "Given that pornography is emotionally charged, it would be shocking if it had no impact."
I realize you're not making that argument yourself, but it strikes me as exceptionally weak. The "obvious" response is that it's been extremely difficult to document any experiences as having measurable impacts on children (starvation is a big exception, but hopefully it's not too difficult to see what might make that different...). So the baseline expectation should be a fairly strong confidence that no matter what it is that you're showing children, the effect is likely too small to measure.
How can there ever be evidence for physical (psychophysical) harm to children who watch adults have sex? We 're like the only species who copulate in private, so it seems hugely presumptuous to argue that it is harmful. I think the greater harm is done by the continuous brainwashing with messaging that suggests that sex is the ultimate reward and is somehow connected to your value as a person, and is a thing you can trade.
Citing Betteridge's law of headlines, I'm going to say no. Scientists are having a hard time proving that porn even has an impact, let alone that the impact is negative. What are they even looking for? That children will somehow start practicing BDSM after stumbling on porn? That their "precious minds" are tainted by the Real World?
I think the impact is negative, since sexual release reduces the desire of a man for sex temporarily, and with that the man will make less 'moves' to actual women. It's bad from an evolutionary point of view because the loss of actual sexual opportunity means there is less chance the man will have offspring. It's definitely not what the genes intended for a man to go for the junk food, so to speak, rather than the real thing, and so will damage the chances of a man for passing his genes. Of course in today's world, people are allowed to reduce one's chances of passing off one's genes, and do things like getting fat, watch porn, use condoms, have abortions. It's not a crime for people to sabotage their chances of finding a mate / having children. Preventing children from doing those activities to ensure their 'bright futures' as good husbands and wives with children is and should be solely the parents' responsibilities at their discretion.
Citing Betteridge's law of headlines, I'm going to say no. Scientists are having a hard time proving that porn even has an impact, let alone that the impact is negative. What are they even looking for? That children will somehow start practicing BDSM after stumbling on porn? That their "precious minds" are tainted by the Real World?
What's wrong with BDSM? You say it like "practicing BDSM" is a bad thing.