Internet Porn

quote:

---

I am honestly going to tell you I do not know of, or can think of, any breast configuration that is not handled in porn... except maybe mastectomies?

---

Never come across it myself, but given some of the things that
I have come across I wouldn't discount it.I think it IS important to note that porn doesn't suffer from
the stereotyping of mass-media representations of men and
women -- and that even those are faddy.The issue in this thread as about 'harm' though -- and especially
harm to children.A question I have in this regard is what constitues harm
in any case -- and wouldn't one expect more negative effects
via a 'though shalt not look at THAT' policy?Isn't it more likely to generate unhealthy attitudes towards
sex and sexuality by prohibition rather than exposure?I doubt most kids are that interested until their sexual functions
start to come on line anyhow.

quote:

---

I agree. Though I do believe that is up to the parents to decide, and so companies should not be overriding parental consent by using sexual spam, blindlinking, or popups.

---

I hope it didn't sound like I was suggesting otherwise.Personally I object to being inflicted with any kind of
unsolicited advertising -- including standard TV commercials,
bill posters etc. ... but that's just me I guess.

quote:

---

I think this is not true. Most kids are just plain inquisitive about everything

---

I guess it depends on maturity levels and ages, but my experience
of kids is that adult oriented stuff doesn't cause much
of a response until they've been taught that it's 'naughty'.That kind of ties in with your Danish experience, I think.

quote:

---

I notice you are in the UK, what is the current state of porn in there? I heard at one time that hardcore porn was completely illegal.

---

Somewhat bizarre, to tell the truth.Videos and magazines are treated quite differently, with the
two main applicable acts being the Video Recordings Act and
the Obscene Publications Act.As recently as the four or five years ago, customs would seize
ANY adult material entering the country, and only highly edited
porn was available even in Adult Stores (no penetration,semen,
erections ... kind of removing the point).Things relaxed a couple years ago when the British Board of
Film Classification (BBFC -- incidently the 'C' used to
stand for Censorship) relaxed it's guidelines for an R18
certificate so that it allowed some of the above mentioned
activities, but R18 can only be sold from within a licensed
sex shop, and cannot be sent through the Royal Mail, because it
is illegal to send obscene material and the post office has
a different view on obscenity to the BBFC and customs!!Some things still cannot be shown in videos/dvd/films
and that includes anything where violence and sex are
connected, or anything illegal (which in the UK includes
anal sex between a man and woman or between more than
two men).There are two bizarre aspects to this though:
1) There is no law that states that a common or garden
news agent cannot sell hardcore magazines.
2) One can import hardcore video/dvd's for personal use
(provided that there is no law was broken in the production
of the material).Customs have also bee known to seize items in transit across
the UK (e.g. from France to Eire via the UK).Things are loosening up -- most liekly as a response to
increased internet access in the UK, so porn cannot be effectively
banned any more (although I'm almost positive that if our
government could find soemthing workable they would).Another kink in attitudes is that sexual content on the commercial
channels is frowned upon, but if it's in a BBC production
it's considered automatic art and thus OK.

Isn't it kind of naive to think of your breasts
as 'mommy parts' ? Added on a slightly more serious note:I'm sure I read somewhere that some people think that
the reason for a focus on breasts in regards sexual attractiveness
is related to the ability of the lady in question to
nourish her young.Might be mis-remembering that ....[This message has been edited by Peter, 03-02-2004]

quote:

---

Porn is regulated to some extent in publications. You can't buy magazines everywhere and not just anybody can buy them (legally).

---

Maybe in the US (and some places), but even in the UK there
is no law that directly prohibits youngsters from purchasing
pronographic materials, nor of ANY shop from selling magazines
(unless they are deemed 'obscene' under the definition of the
'Obscene Publications Act'). And there are plenty of European
countries where the attitude to pornography is MUCH more
relaxed.I agree that it should be left to us, as responsible adults,
to determine what we see and what our children see -- and should
not be regulated by some other body with their own mis-guided
agendas.

quote:

---

Let me explain. Some guy (this is bad, i have the AP test soon) did a study on violence and kids. So I will grant that this is a little different, but the same concept. He showed videos of adults, doing some sort of task, and then when they got angry, they would do a certain action. On one video, he would punch this body ballon, the other video the guy would strangle it, and the other wouldn't really do anything, might do another activity.

​

The point is, these kids repeated the behavior of that video when they were in that same situation. This shows that BEHAVIOR IS LEARNED

---

Could you find me the reference for this study, it sounds interesting.From what you have said I have some questions:1) Do you know the exposure time/rate of the kids to the videos?
2) Do you know the duration on the effect?
3) Did the kids who punched/strangled exhibit anger whilst doing
it, or operate in a play-mode?
4) Where the kids completely unmoderated in everyday life?
5) Did it have to be the same task as the adults?One of my points is this, it doesn't matter what behaviours one
picks up if your parents or other youngsters (in socialisation
settings) correct it. Especially if these effects are limited
in duration of effect.From what you have told me so far, it sounds more like conditioning,
and deliberate conditioning, than normal learning pattern.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is no direct
causative link.The general results of studies on media effects seem to be
that they have little or not effect unless the individuals
are already pre-disposed to the behaviours.In the above example, I would suggest that this is not the
first time that one or more of the group in question had been
involved in violent attacks on others. Even more likely is
that only one, strong personalitied member of the group is
so disposed, and is backed by a number of weaker 'followers'.The question that is raised, for me, is whether 'stimuli' should
be banned, or whether greater effort should be placed on
identification and correction of the personality types.Without the obvious stimuli, such people will invent their own.

quote:

---

If all cases where non-acting out of the violence are also cases of countervailing {social training \ parenting} and all acting out cases lack the {social training \ parenting}, then I think you can make a case for the games being a significant factor in the actions.

---

Wouldn't it suggest the opposite?That the game had zero contribution, and the lack of
approriate socialisation was the root cause of the
problem.I also think that a lack of empathy plays a role (or an
inability to consider how ones actions affect others).At the end of the day no well-adjusted human would go out
and act in an anti-social way just because they have played
'Grand Theft Auto: Vice City' or watched Governor Schwarzenegger
stomping around shooting folks.I doubt that the imagery is even a trigger for pre-existing behaviour
-- just an attempt at an excuse.

Not sure what the game was ... but in the types of game
I am thinking of the 'use of the car' would be under player
control ... so they had already thought-up the act and
played it out ... similarly the 'beating' part would usually
depend on the weapon availability and then the player making the
game-person do the acts.I agree that the not-so-well-adjusted are the problem. The
british board of film certification in the UK makes the same
argument for some of its decisions (that a minority of viewers
amy be encouraged to copy the behaviour).Blaming the media is a societal cop-out, though.These problems are social ones, that cannot be impacted
by censorship.There have been far more societies on earth that had none of
these media (and I'm talking historically) where such atrocities
were also enacted. Its part of the dark under-belly of
human nature, and can only be addressed by better control
over the socialising and early education of the peoples of
the Earth.I'll concede that 'zero contribution' was an exaggeration, perhaps
zero causative effect may have been closer to my intent. The
game didn't cause the behaviour.

I thought the name Trojan for condoms was pretty
funny .... let's you get inside without anyone
noticing all them little soldiers

If you read the bible you'd also notice that
god didn't want them to think that nudity was
a problem...Added by edit::Apologies for the replies to such old messages ...
I bin busy This message has been edited by Peter, 08-03-2004 03:45 AM

I couldn't follow that link.I tend to think that there is an unusual fear of sexuality
and sexual behaviour in western governments ... and I cannot
for the life of me figure out why. Is that diet or regular ?

... so the children were being taught to behave violently by seeing violence praised?How is that used to show a link between the media alone and violent behaviour?

People throughout the ages have enacted atrocities on one another .... long before there were video games and movies.Perhaps we should also be looking to novels and cave paintings for excuses for our inability to tame the barbarous, savage nature of humanity.