It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is worse for the children, Pornography or Violence?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
Point. children should NOT EVER be subject to viewing sex.
I dont care how "natural" a part of life it is.




Why?
as you stated in a other thread
You dont have children,.
So your capacity to understand values isnt there.




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
Point. children should NOT EVER be subject to viewing sex.
I dont care how "natural" a part of life it is.




Why?
as you stated in a other thread
You dont have children,.
So your capacity to understand values isnt there.


My capacity to understand values is most certainly here. The other thread is about how everyone must pay because people with children do not know how to take care of their children.

You are minimizing my viewpoint with emotions that have little to do with the subject.
I asked a simple question...why
and instead of give an answer, you decided to attack me.

If you cannot give a sensible answer to "why?", then simply state the obvious...
which is "I don't know..its how I was trained".

At least then your furthering the discussion without the feel to minimize someone



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Sex ed at its finest:

(for the lol's)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

I never suggested that porn was harmless overall..its a very mature post pubescent subject that requires a healthy outlook on sex to begin with, and with some opposite sex friends to note substance beyond just the flesh.
But I would rather that be the biggest issue (which can be untrained the moment you have a real conversation with a woman) than violent fetishists

Again...I suggest that years and years of porn watching can be unravelled the moment you meet a woman (or man) that goes against the grain of what your programmed into watching...its perhaps the most easily dismissed negative one can have,
Violence however is difficult to dismiss as being the way to resolve conflict as history shows.

I think ultimately violence is prevalent in society because the higher ups want to make war an accceptable outcome for nations that disagree.


There is certainly truth in those words, though having experienced it, I should tell you that sexual programming at a very young age is not an easy thing to reverse. It does get better, yes.

In any case, I did neglect to say that I do believe violence in media desensitizes us to the suffering of others, and that IS worse. I agree there for certain; much better a man thinks sexual thoughts about nearly every woman than that same man lack all empathy for anyone.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 
Hmm,. attacking,. no
I answered your question as to why.
quite simply, when you have your own children your values in protection change.
my telling you that you havent the capacity would be a fact. not a slam.
As you dont have children and seems as if you cannot understand "why"



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
Point. children should NOT EVER be subject to viewing sex.
I dont care how "natural" a part of life it is.




Why?
as you stated in a other thread
You dont have children,.
So your capacity to understand values isnt there.


I'm afraid it's you without any "capacity" to understand..
That is an ignorant remark to make.

He doesn't understand family values because he doesn't have any kids


He cant take part in this discussion or have a view because he doesn't have kids


You don't need kids to understand what is good for them.

His point is a good one.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventytwo

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
Point. children should NOT EVER be subject to viewing sex.
I dont care how "natural" a part of life it is.




Why?
as you stated in a other thread
You dont have children,.
So your capacity to understand values isnt there.



You don't need kids to understand what is good for them.







then answer the OP question yourself



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Porn itself is subjective in todays society. Violence is not. Really I do not understand your question very well. sensuality and eroticism is fine with me, but I am an adult.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Both are.. Though would say violence is worse.. People need to learn there are civilised ways of solving problems without maiming and killing others.. All life is valuable.. Violence only adds to the misery in the world and does nothing to make the world better for all...



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Good question OP, but hard to answer definitively.

Since typical Western parents do in fact worry more about porn, than violence, there must be something there that has significance, even if they might not be conscious of what it might be.

Could be simply inherited norms, with the Victorian Age not really so far in the past. Could be ill-defined personal issues, being projected, coming out during the parenting years.

Or could there be some kind of parental "instinct" that recognizes the potential "harm" of porn, over violence, that may in fact be quite legit, even if one can't quite put their finger on it?

The secular atheist Soviet Union, like Nazi Germany before them, explored some of these issues, although their "experiments" are not so well-known.

In Nazi Germany, a sort of classical (as in Greco-Roman) idealism seemed to play it's part in the glorification of the Aryan "Super Man" (and woman), with many interesting historical images available today that tell part of that story. The esthetic merged with dogma, as the philosophy morphed to include an Aryan breeding program.

The old Soviet Union spent some resources as well, setting up nudist colonies (imagine, in a cold country like that!) during the 1950's, with the perhaps scientific aim of studying what would happen, what norms might be adopted, how the children might be different, from the usual population.

Unfortunately, none of these programs enjoyed much success, from what I have read. Venereal disease, at least in the Soviet experiments, went crazy. Unwanted pregnancy went off the charts. What we might call "child molestation", seemed to become somewhat of a natural "norm" that was adopted.

Perhaps not so shocking, especially within a country that would go on to lead the world in abortion, with "most" women having multiple abortions in their fertile years, in spite of plenty of contraceptive availability.

Oh, and speaking of porn, the nations of the former Soviet Union today seem to be playing a huge role in that industry. It's not just "Russian" (or Ukrainian) "brides" that are for sale, a whole lot of pornography these days covers these highly desirable women, from their nose, to their toes.

The modern nudist "camp" may also offer a glimpse into these issues, maybe some will agree. As a man, you can't actually just show up at most nudist establishments hoping for some fun. Most require that you bring a female. On the other hand, females are allowed to go to a nudist facility, without a male.

There's something here of course, and it shouldn't be terribly controversial. You can go out to visit the nightclubs in any city, and encounter this same issue, with ladies everywhere being a hot commodity (within that venue), and too many men not being seen as productive. Simple recognition of sexual differences, as we actually encounter them.

SO, the issue itself may be based on these basic differences between men and women, that naturally manifest in these different historical, and social contexts.

As a father myself, I do tend to go with perhaps "conservative" instincts in this regard. No, I'm not personally religious, I don't feel that sexuality is "bad" in any way, but as the old song used to say, to everything there is a season, and even biology tells us that sexuality is a thing that comes around puberty.

I'm not sure we have to make the thing more complicated than it is. Even Muslim nations, so vilified for their "repressive" culture, recognize puberty as a "line", as have all ancient cultures. I don't think that's such a bad idea.

Now, as far as "how" a parent wants to introduce things, as maturity takes place, that's another story.

As for some kind of legal strictures, some how necessary to "protect" youth, perhaps beneath this age that I am suggesting is just common sense, I'm not sure that's the way anyone would want to go.

Europeans sometimes visting the US for the first time can laugh at the seemingly "Puritanical" restrictions on TV, newspapers, etc. But there is in fact already a lot of "license", as pointed out before, pop figures who might be presented to youth, who hardly wear much clothing to begin with.

OR, is the rather "loose" European way better, where any child can tune into their TV, and find all sort of things, or wander up to a stand selling newspapers, and see more than they might see at home? Certainly, simple female toplessness, isn't what I'm speaking of, and that probably needs to be perhaps "separated" from intercourse, fetishism, etc., as anyone reasonable should easily see. Too much remains just as "mixed up", as people are.

These are issues the West needs to address, perhaps better than they have so far.

One last thought. While I am personally inclined to far more freedom, and I abhor governmental restrictions, there may in fact be greater issues at stake. With the rise of Islam in these past few decades, it's possible that the West needs to begin looking at the next generations, if they are to "compete" in any real sense, with a system that could make all their high ideals of freedom utterly moot in the end.

No, I didn't even venture into what our masters might be trying to accomplish, with the actual trends we are experiencing, but even that should be weighed. My instincts also tell me that our masters are probably getting some mileage out of the promotion of violence, and the prevalent attitudes that seem to support it.

JR



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Actually the effects are minimal in both cases. They may desensitize you to killing or sex, but they won't make you a killer or make you a sex freak. I think it's worse to be desensitized to killing, so give porn to the children instead!! (That last clause shouldn't be taken seriously)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
As was said earlier, "pornography" needs to be defined.
If the question were nudity vs. violence, then clearly violence has the worse effect on child development. The reason that nudity is thought to have a bad effect is due to the puritanical attitudes that remain, particularly in the US. These attitudes end up having a reverse effect in fact, so that the least glimpse of what is forbidden (nudity) leads more quickly to arousal. The best example would be breast-feeding, which brings stares or demands to cover up in the US, but which in many other countries don't draw attention at all (except from American tourists, maybe).
Having been brought up in the US, and now living in a country with more open attitudes toward nudity, I can definitely say that I much less mind my son or daughter catching a glimpse of a naked body than having them see that same body blown up or slashed to pieces with blood spurting all over the place. Both are present on normal broadcast television, but my children are not allowed to watch the more violent programs. On the other hand, I have no problem with them watching a cartoon program where one of the characters is very likely to take off his pants at least once during the show and show his butt or front (although drawn very simplified).
To me, nudity and pornography are very different, with pornography being the objectification of the human body (more often a woman's body) as a toy for sexual pleasure to be used as desired. This demeans the person, and does indeed have a deleterious effect on how children view other people.

To sum up, nudity is fine. Pornography is bad, and violence is even worse.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Violence is worse, without a doubt. Violence is never the answer. Sex should be, all the time. Make love, not war, lol

Seriously, though, I definately think that violence is a lot worse than pornography. I mean, inevitably, most of us will have sex. Sure, it's not great for little kids to watch or anything, but at least it's not teaching them to decapitate anyone or beat them up.

Or, if it is, that's some really sick porn.
edit on 12/19/2010 by SFlowers because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Neither. Bad parenting, and lack of, or bad education, is the real problem. Let us not treat the symptoms, we must attack the disease.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Neither, Jesus is the worst for children.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Yeah I would agree religion is up there...I dont think sex is bad at all. For example in the netherlands children are not lied to about how things work, it is a natural part of life for them..they are properly educated about it and guess what? Those places have the lowest stats for STDS and unwanted pregnancies! Google it!



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by dementedtheclown
 


Yes violent pornography is the worst thing that a kid could see. Totally agree with this statement.

While pornography and violence alone are fine - I know. I grew up using violent computer games and watching violent movies and checking in here and there on porn sites.... When i came across something that was a porno with some strangulation occurring in it, it just made my stomach sick and made me think how sick some people must be to like that rubbish. Disgusting.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Well, it's a good thing nobody has to make that decision between exposing a child to porn or to violence. I wouldn't allow either in my kids life, they cannot watch anything I don't approve of, not even icarley. Yes they complain, but too bad, I'm the parent.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Deep question I feel they both have major downs. Pornography, no child needs to observe until adult. all it will do is alert their little minds of things only adults should be aware of. Early exposure can cause them to be sexually driven a little early as well as have them experimenting early. We dont want that.

Violence is a part of living for there are many forms ov violence to experience on a day to day bases. So to expose children to violence can alter their young minds to preceive violence as an ok or normal thing which it is not. But violence is something naturally experienced by many from birth. I wouldnt want to expost my children to to much violence but can understand there are multiple access points to experience violence (VIDEO GAMES-TV-MUSIC-CARTOONS-TOYS ACTION FIGURES KEEP THE BEST GUNS?)

As parents we have to pay attention to what our seeds like to entertain themselves with so we can guide them on a personal basis and answer questions comfortable they may need answered about pornography & violence. It is almost impossible with all the technology for them not to become exposed thats why they need good guides/parents to steer them...

good question OP.

edit on 12/20/10 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Hmmm... your question is perplexing of its own because first one has to define pornagraphy and violence to really answer that question.For me perhaps pornography is not Playboy or the videos that hidden under the bed but the outright forcing of rape and mutilation that I find to be pornographic Some its the statue of David or the Cherubs in Michealango paintings.As for violence that is all relative too. My husband is a boxer and his brother an MMA fighter both considered very violent but if one considered the training and discipline that is involved in the sport it could be considered an art form in itself.. Monks in the mountains of Asia train daily to obtain zen through meditation,education and what some would call acts of violence through various jutsus. I believe context is the most important thing. For me I have exposed my child to DragonBall Z and Naruto both which if are just blanketed are violent in nature,yet if I sit their with my child explaining why such violence is necessary it becomes an educational tool for my sense of morality.I explain to her that Goku or Naruto are taking on the "bad guys" to protect the ones they love and sometimes we have to hurt others because they want to hurt us or take away something we value. These lessons are very valuable because sometimes we can talk our way out of a situation and others we must fight back and nothing will ever change that. I have also exposed my child to various art that depicts nudity and sexual themes yet as I take her through the museum we have discussions on why the artist painted this and what is the feeling and meaning behind it. As parents we must guide or kids through each of these taboos with our own sense of morality because at their cores both are very harmful and both are very beneficial to a child. It's all up to the parents actions to decide which.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join