pornography corrupts the mind........

[bopdude]

Originally Posted by stuartbe

I see what graham is saying and I agree to some extent....

Yep, I see a lot of sense in there also

Originally Posted by stuartbe

Half the problem with life ATM is that we do wrap our kids in cotton wool..

Unfortunatly it's a sign of the times, it's no longer safe to let your kids wander at will, ok this problem isn't brand new but it is out of control

Originally Posted by stuartbe

We all learn by our mistakes and we will allways make mistakes... Thats life !!!

As long as we do learn by them and don't just dissmiss them to make the same mistakes over and over.

Originally Posted by kronas

i believe a degree of freedom and self thought doesent harm anyone,

it is these points that are the building blocks of life, to an extent, just as long as there are filters to block some of todays nastys being cramned down your throat

[ntluser]

Whether pornography corrupts the mind or not depends to some extent on your interpretation of the word 'pornography'.

In the early days 'pornography' used to contain pictures of attractive, well-endowed,fit naked women in raunchy,flirty poses. There was something artistic about them. It was a ''naughty but nice' situation, because, as has been said earlier, sex and an interest in the opposite sex is quite normal.

The problem today is that the relative innocent 'raunchy' poses of the past have been replaced by images containing naked women in acts of fellatio and cunnilingus. Though adults know, as the Kama Sutra and experience tells us, that there are a variety of sexual positions for almost any occasion,I think that a child or a grandparent today would find such things to be repulsive, dirty and perhaps even frightening. Hardly,the best mindset.

Pornography of that kind may also perhaps induce the wrong mindset into normal sexual relations. Intercourse is for example different from rape.

Though the flirtatious 'porn' of the past was fun and instrumental in raising libido and generating arousal, today's porn does have a repulsive and corrupting aspect to it.

Like most things in life, there needs to be a balance and everything needs to be taken in moderation. So for most guys at least the Page 3 girl is here to stay.

[BBKing]

Children need to be let of the leash and to make their own mistakes, otherwise they won't be very useful adults (unless you like the country being run by a bunch of timid, mollycoddled sheep).

Porn has been around as long as genitals - if our children were Ancient Greek and pretty they'd be in danger of being buggered by philosophers who thought they were acting perfectly reasonably by the laws of their society. Suddenly a quick skim through the Joy of Sex doesn't seem so bad.

Originally Posted by ntluser

Whether pornography corrupts the mind or not depends to some extent on your interpretation of the word 'pornography'.

"Pornography is whatever gets the Judge turned on..."

In the early days 'pornography' used to contain pictures of attractive, well-endowed,fit naked women in raunchy,flirty poses. There was something artistic about them. It was a ''naughty but nice' situation, because, as has been said earlier, sex and an interest in the opposite sex is quite normal.

Sorry, which "early days" are you talking about?!

The *real* early days are those of the ancient Greeks, the word derives from "Graphos" (writing) and "Porne" which dictionaries tend to translate as "harlots" but the Porne were actually a class of temple courtesan and the point of their writings was, unsurprisingly, to stimulate sexual excitement.

You then have, for instance, the frecos at Pompeii, Indian temple carvings, Japanese Brushwood Scrolls and many more besides, which have varying degrees of explictness but often show sexual acts in graphic detail.

Moving up to the late 19th, early 20th century and the invention of photography, quite unsurprisingly, very soon people were using this new medium to take pictures of young ladies (and men) without clothes on and often in graphic poses/ acts (ditto when moving pictures came along).

At which point those who take it upon themselves to "guard our morals" decided that this was quite enough (and it would corrupt the "lower classes", but they, of course, were immune, so they could look at it without worry) and started coming up with "Obscene Publications Acts" etc or silly things like the US "Hayes Code" for what you could show in a movie.

Slowly (very slowly in some cases), however, common sense has prevailed and, incredibly, it appears that, despite porn being more available and more graphic (if that's your thing) society has *not* collapsed into an utter sink of depravity.

The problem today is that the relative innocent 'raunchy' poses of the past have been replaced by images containing naked women in acts of fellatio and cunnilingus. Though adults know, as the Kama Sutra and experience tells us, that there are a variety of sexual positions for almost any occasion,I think that a child or a grandparent today would find such things to be repulsive, dirty and perhaps even frightening. Hardly,the best mindset.

The thing is, what you describe above as "attractive, well-endowed,fit naked women in raunchy,flirty poses" has *not* disappeared, it's just not called Pornography any more. You can go into reputable bookshops and buy works by people like Helmut Newton, Eric Kroll and others which show exactly that sort of thing without even making the girl at the counter blush or giggle.

As to what your children or grandparents would think, well the child might react by going "eww!" but I don't really think it would be so traumatic or frightening for them and you would be surprised (I know, because I was!) to find that actually some grandparents know a *lot* more about sex than you would give them credit for!!

Pornography of that kind may also perhaps induce the wrong mindset into normal sexual relations. Intercourse is for example different from rape.

I am *very slowly* counting to ten at this point...

Do *NOT* make the mistake of considering that what *you* consider to be "normal sex" is anything more than your own opinion.

Most certainly *DO NOT* try to imply connections between pornography and rape because that "connection" has been demonstrated to be fallacious time and time again!

Though the flirtatious 'porn' of the past was fun and instrumental in raising libido and generating arousal, today's porn does have a repulsive and corrupting aspect to it.

If you don't like it, don't look at it. But *DON'T* say that *OTHERS* will be "corrupted" by it just because you don't like it! That was the argument that was forced on us for a century and it was as wrong then as it is now!

Like most things in life, there needs to be a balance and everything needs to be taken in moderation.

And I won't disagree. But, once again, do not make the mistake of thinking that what works for *you* should work for *everyone*.

Originally Posted by Graham

And so did I, when I was about 11 and looking for my Xmas presents in dad's wardrobe. Somehow I survived...!



The thing is, this attitude that "it's not for kids" is often a sign of embarassment on the part of *adults*.

If it's *really* "not for kids" (in the literal, rather than figurative sense) then kids simply won't be *interested* in it, just as I found some adult (as in "grown up" ie not sexually explicit) books in the book case that I didn't have any interest in reading.

What "not for kids" has come to mean, however, is that "this is stuff that parents would be embarassed to try to explain to their children", but that's a failing on the part of the parents IMO.

I don't disagree with that, in the main, Graham, but there is stuff 'out there' that I find objectionable and that I would not want 'kids' to see. Ok I'm projecting my own concept of where lines should be drawn, I admit, but I would fail to be able to explain how watching sodomy, for example, is a 'turn on' as I don't find it so myself.

Originally Posted by homealone

I don't disagree with that, in the main, Graham, but there is stuff 'out there' that I find objectionable and that I would not want 'kids' to see. Ok I'm projecting my own concept of where lines should be drawn, I admit, but I would fail to be able to explain how watching sodomy, for example, is a 'turn on' as I don't find it so myself.

So just explain that it's something that some people like to do because they enjoy it.

Just don't say or imply that, becase you don't like it, it's "wrong".

Originally Posted by Graham

So just explain that it's something that some people like to do because they enjoy it.

Just don't say or imply that, becase you don't like it, it's "wrong".

yes, good point, I wasn't saying sodomy was 'wrong', just I don't get turned on by watching it. Also sodomy was just one example, there are several other 'practices' I find too obscene to watch comfortably (apologies for not expanding on this but I'm not sure if it is appropriate to mention them in the forum). My point being that while I don't disagree with 'laissez faire', I do feel that there is a line to be drawn when it comes to kids, admittedly on the basis that if I am not comfortable with it, I would rather they were a bit older before making their own minds up.

So I agree that we shouldn't 'wrap kids in cotton wool', but I'm not 100% sure that chucking them in the deep end is the best way to get them to learn to swim

Originally Posted by homealone

So I agree that we shouldn't 'wrap kids in cotton wool', but I'm not 100% sure that chucking them in the deep end is the best way to get them to learn to swim

I don't believe that anyone is saying that homealone.I think we all think that some protection is required.I think we are just disagreeing where to 'draw' the line.

Incog.

[zendawn]

The family of the murdered teacher in Brighton are trying to get images of violent sex banned from the internet, cuz they believe it was a major factor in their daughters murder.

[sir_drinks_alot]

in a related story

Pee-wee TV star admits obscenity

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I don't believe that anyone is saying that homealone.I think we all think that some protection is required.I think we are just disagreeing where to 'draw' the line.

Incog.

discussing where to 'draw the line'

Thanks Incog

Originally Posted by homealone

yes, good point, I wasn't saying sodomy was 'wrong', just I don't get turned on by watching it.

Fair enough, that's your choice.

Also sodomy was just one example, there are several other 'practices' I find too obscene to watch comfortably (apologies for not expanding on this but I'm not sure if it is appropriate to mention them in the forum).

Fine, you don't like watching them, so don't!

My point being that while I don't disagree with 'laissez faire', I do feel that there is a line to be drawn when it comes to kids, admittedly on the basis that if I am not comfortable with it, I would rather they were a bit older before making their own minds up.

In the hope that *someone else* will deal with the awkward questions so you don't have to...??

So I agree that we shouldn't 'wrap kids in cotton wool', but I'm not 100% sure that chucking them in the deep end is the best way to get them to learn to swim

No, but *not* teaching them how to swim in the expectation that they won't go near the water and fall in is a little wishful...!

Originally Posted by zendawn

The family of the murdered teacher in Brighton are trying to get images of violent sex banned from the internet, cuz they believe it was a major factor in their daughters murder.

The name "Canute" springs to mind...

(Ok, yes, I know that actually Canute was trying to show he *wasn't* all powerful etc, but "everyone knows" what I mean! )

Oh, and that family have *no idea* what they're talking about either, but they're sure to cause problems for others

I've decided to tag this on here rather than create a new thread since it's apposite to the discussion already under way:

Teenagers as young as 16 should be allowed to appear in and look at pornography, the Liberal Democrats have recommended.

The move also commits the party to allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to visit sex shops which would be made easier to set up and run.

Lib Dem culture spokesman Don Foster said 16 and 17-year-olds were "living in a twilight zone between childhood and adulthood", gaining different rights at different ages.

He said: "Why should 16-year-olds be allowed to have sex and babies and under other party policies vote and earn the minimum wage, but not watch or take part in explicit material?"

He accepted that at times the material could be degrading to women, but said that was dealt with by the law and workers' rights and rejected "misleading claims" that images made people violent.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...020224,00.html

Well all I can say is hoo-bloody-ray and about damn time too!

The current laws are a nonsense and an embarassment. 16 year olds (and a lot younger kids) can easily access porn anyway and to have a situation where someone can a) have sex and b) pose for nude photos but *cannot* legally *see* the results for two years is utterly ridiculous.

I hope that they will also endeavour to ensure that sex education for children is improved to teach them about the importance of relationships and respect as well as sex and contraception which, I believe, will bring down our shamefully high level of teenage pregancy.

Also the laws on sex shops are aimed at trying to get rid of "sleazy back street shop" or, at least, milk them for huge "licence fees" (anything between £4,000 and £20,000 !!) yet the success of shops like Ann Summers and shows like Erotica (last year's show at London Olympia had over 70,000 visitors!) demonstrate that there is most certainly a demand for adults to be able to see and purchase adult material and toys and preferably in an open and welcoming environment, rather than a shop with blacked out windows.

I'm sure that some right-wing people will already be ranting into their Ovaltine claiming that this will corrupt our morals and cause society to descend into a sink of moral depravity, but IMO they should leave their attitudes back in the 19th century where they belong and join the rest of us in the 21st.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by zendawn

The family of the murdered teacher in Brighton are trying to get images of violent sex banned from the internet, cuz they believe it was a major factor in their daughters murder.

Maybe they are (whether consciously or not) looking for something to blame for their daughter's murder. It is natural for people, when faced with the death of a loved one to look for someone or something to blame.