|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kaveren
2164 days ago
|
|
|
This is disingenuous. > If porn had no consequences then there wouldn't be a need for better sex education. This is ridiculous. We'd need comprehensive sex education whether or not anyone watches porn. Before porn was trivially available online, teenagers still had plenty of sex. Sexual consent was still widely misunderstood too (and still is). Of course pregnancy is a long lasting consequence, but if it is addressed by a program we need even without porn, it's irrelevant to porn. > Exposure (regular or casual) to porn at a young age has some long lasting consequences. If all you had in mind was condom usage and pregnancy, this is a bizarre choice of phrasing. |
|
|
I don't follow. Of course sex ed is need and I believe it should be updated to take porn into account (if it's not already there).
> If all you had in mind was condom usage and pregnancy, this is a bizarre choice of phrasing.
Of course not, but I can't go around citing every publications or experts under the sun that points to cultural changes and implications on the children's upbringing.
Now I believe the debate is wrongly framed from the beginning. Children aren't teenagers, some culture have varying definitions for children, teenagers, adults, etc. and “porn” is way too generic (softcore, bdsm, gonzo, mutilation, etc.) to encompass the whole situation. Saying it's fine for children to watch porn won't fly when you hear about some kind of porn some people are consuming.
AFAIC I believe parents should take care to protect children from porn watching/accident, explain things sooner than previous generations (this is a change brought in by the total availability of porn content) did. There should be a mention in sex education about porn and how and why it paints some very specific sexual intercourse behaviour in specific ways and why it's not necessarily what's expected from a partner, etc.
I do agree and believe a government filter won't have any meaningful impact though.