Porn or War?

[MakeLemonade]

This thread got me thinking about this again (not directly related to the thread of course, but he has a young child....), and I was wondering what others might think, or whether you have thought about it, as parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, sisters, brothers, whatever:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?t=142826&page=1

 

In this crazy, whacked-out violent, sex-crazed world we all call home, would you rather your child be exposed to porn (mainstream like Debbie Does Dallas MMMXXXIIII, no BDSM or fetish stuff) or violent movies like your typical shoot-em-up actions flicks, horror movies, and especially war movies, Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket and Platoon, things in that vein.

 

I know most answers would be an earnest NEITHER, as it would be for me, my baby boys are 2 and if Daddy has on the History channel even and it's a battle scene or some sort of weapons documentary I make him change it - but I guess the better question would be - which would do more damage, why and in what ways?

 

I think if I had to choose, I would choose against violence, I think the images are mind-numbing and gruesome. It takes a mature mind to process and understand what you are seeing and not become terribly frightened by it. I also believe that excessive exposure to violence in movies, tv and video games may bring out aggressive tendencies in children.

 

A man and a woman doin' it? I can explain that any day. I choose porn.

 

We will let our children go outside and play Gi Joe, cops & robbers, or whatever any day of the week, but if the kiddies get caught playing "doctor" they are grounded for a week. I understand inappropriate touching and all that jazz, it has to be taught. But, if perhaps you would choose porn as the less offensive for kids to see why are war games on the playground ok, and other games are not? Why are societal taboos so strong that if Johnny wants to look up Betty's skirt, he is a naughty, naughty boy that needs to be punished but if Johnny and his allies want to slaughter the enemy forces by any means necessary, that is ok?

 

And if you choose violence over porn? What makes that the lesser of the two evils?

 

I really hope I get some responses on this, the last two threads I started are sitting w/ zero replies and if everyone shuns this one too, I may start getting a complex.

Edited February 14, 2008 by MakeLemonade

[justpassingthrough]

Why not neither?

 

I chose to raise my children without television. Therefore, none of that was an issue.

[Quinch]

This might be controversial but I don't think I would hide either of these things from my children. They're both facts of life after all but, as a (fairly) responsible uncle, I would draw a line when it becomes too much. The important thing is that the child can ask questions and receive honest answers. All Things in Moderation would be my answer.

[Cobra_X30]

And if you choose violence over porn? What makes that the lesser of the two evils?

 

I really hope I get some responses on this, the last two threads I started are sitting w/ zero replies and if everyone shuns this one too, I may start getting a complex.

 

As someone who had friends on both extremes... I'd choose violence. Both my friends who were into porn at a young age are messed up big. One went to jail for statutory rape. Him 22 her 15. The other is addicted to porn and cannot hold together any kind of relationship.

 

Here is what you dont get. Porn is dehumanizing to women. Your boys will take a different message from it than you will!

 

Violent content entertainment is dehumanizing towards "bad guys". It's much safer towards normal psychological development.

[MakeLemonade]

Why not neither?

 

I chose to raise my children without television. Therefore, none of that was an issue.

 

Of course neither, my OP states that would be my choice as well. It's just a thought provoker. I was just curious to see, if you had to choose, which would it be and why is that choice better in your eyes than the other. It's a classic lesser of 2 evils scenario.

 

And if you think your children are never going to see anything on TV because you don't have one/don't allow it, think again - unless you are home schooling and the kids never go to friend's houses, etc. That is nearly impossible.

[MakeLemonade]

This might be controversial but I don't think I would hide either of these things from my children. They're both facts of life after all but, as a (fairly) responsible uncle, I would draw a line when it becomes too much. The important thing is that the child can ask questions and receive honest answers. All Things in Moderation would be my answer.

 

This is an interesting response and the bolded part is very important I think - I would agree that kids (of a certain age, I guess, old enough to understand an explanation when given to them) could see just about anything and as long as an adult they trust was there to openly and honestly answer questions about it, there would probably be alot less fear involved from the child's standpoint.

 

I stand by my original choice however, as I still believe exposure to the gruesome images portrayed in violent TV and movies can have a seriously detrimental effect on development, causing aggression, bullying, etc. And I would rather have to explain & the objectifying of women over the (usually bloody and sometimes quite vicious killing) of fellow man.

 

It's not always the enemy being killed in the violent flicks, there are almost always innocent bystanders.

[blind_otter]

I was exposed to both as a child. I saw Terminator 2 when I was 8.

 

From the stories my Dad would tell, in the past children were reguarly exposed to violence.

 

I had a very difficult time processing the sexuality stuff.

 

I'd have to agree with Cobra - for me it was much easier to understand violence. It was good guys killing bad guys. Porn? Ick. That's just objectification of women. And in some cases, it mimics sexual violence - the worst thing for a child to be exposed to.

[MakeLemonade]

I was exposed to both as a child. I saw Terminator 2 when I was 8.

 

From the stories my Dad would tell, in the past children were reguarly exposed to violence.

 

I had a very difficult time processing the sexuality stuff.

 

I'd have to agree with Cobra - for me it was much easier to understand violence. It was good guys killing bad guys. Porn? Ick. That's just objectification of women. And in some cases, it mimics sexual violence - the worst thing for a child to be exposed to.

 

My original scenario specifically clarifys mainstream porn, as in order to have 2 truly different choices here, one has to remove the violence from the porn choice or it becomes comparing apples to apples.

 

Perhaps I should have titled it and made the choices, sex or violence, rather than porn or war.

 

How about this scenario then, would you rather your child witness a couple having sex or your neighbor being murdered?

[blind_otter]

How about this scenario then, would you rather your child witness a couple having sex or your neighbor being murdered?

 

Neither.

 

But I was exposed to sexuality at a very early age. I was molested when I was 5, raped when I was 12, and raped again when I was 19. I know now, my early experience being molested actually made me more vulnerable to my assaulted later in life.

 

I can't in good conscience say - yeah, sex is better. I was exposed it and it ruined my life. I am still putting the pieces together.

 

Because sex is something you do yourself. Watching it, experiencing it at an early age can warp your own sexuality as much as watching graphic violence.

[MakeLemonade]

I understand where you are coming from otter, I had a feeling I was going to be in the minority on this one anyway - thanks for the input!

 

And I say again of course neither! I am not advocating porn for children , just trying to see what people think is worse for young eyes and why. That's all.

[ElvenPriestess]

Violence can be more comfortably explained I think. But porn even more than violence corrupts the mind and gives a false impression of how to treat and think of women. In most violent films, violence is portrayed as the enemy. In porn, it is viewed as way it is to be. The difference here is clear. I'd take violence, but neither in teaching to young if the option was there.

[Kenyth]

Raising kids to understand, accept and respect social mores is part of raising them right. Sexuality is a bit over-protected, and violence is a bit under-protected in our society right now. It's slowly changing, but that's just the way it is. You also can't generalize porn and violence. There's a lot of different kinds, and they may need to be treated differently. Age makes a difference as well. A video game where one kills bloodthirsty demon monsters threatening mankind is a bit different from Grand Theft Auto type games, which glorify crime, police killing, etc. In the same vein there are differences between your basic Playboy centerfold and S & M type bondage or rape fantasy. Like everything, it's not black and white. Rather than fall for the new "Zero Tolerance" line of thinking, try making sound judgement calls on a case by case basis.

[justpassingthrough]

And if you think your children are never going to see anything on TV because you don't have one/don't allow it, think again - unless you are home schooling and the kids never go to friend's houses, etc. That is nearly impossible.

 

I never said I didn't allow television.

[reservoirdog1]

Well, neither porn nor graphic violence are appropriate for kids.

 

Our society's attitudes towards sex and violence are still very messed up. Sex is something most people will participate in at some point in their lives, and violence is something we wish nobody would have to experience. And yet mainstream society sees sex as far less acceptable in popular media than violence.

 

I remember watching those BBC documentaries "Walking with Prehistoric Beasts" and "Walking with Cavemen". It was perfectly acceptable to show two mastodons mating. And yet, show an Australopithecus couple getting jiggy, and all of a sudden somebody decides they have to be pixeled out.

 

I don't have hard statistics on this unfortunately, but European societies are, and have long been, far more permissive about sexual matters than us North Americans. (Hell, my dad went to an event in Yorkshire when he was a kid in the 50s called the "Titty Variety Show" -- guess what that involved.) They're much less permissive about violence. And, so I understand, most have lower per capita rates of sexual crimes, unwanted pregnancy, and homicide than we do.

[MakeLemonade]

I never said I didn't allow television.

 

Ok, I guess I misunderstood when you said you chose to raise them without TV? It was allowed, just not in your home? To me that's kinda the same thing but I hear what you're saying if that is what you meant.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

[justpassingthrough]

Ok, I guess I misunderstood when you said you chose to raise them without TV? It was allowed, just not in your home? To me that's kinda the same thing but I hear what you're saying if that is what you meant.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

S'okay. I really didn't want to get too much into it and turn this thread into a "to television or not to television?" discussion, although I brought it up because it was my solution to the bigger parenting question.

 

To explain myself: No, television wasn't allowed in our home until my children were 14 and 15 when free cable came with my university apartment (I wouldn't have told them, but they were there when I signed the lease and the manager mentioned it) and they both had jobs and could afford to buy a television if they wanted to. Of course they'd seen television before that - at both friends' and family's houses and at school. When they were younger whatever was on television mezmorized them, commercials and all. However, once a television came into the house, they weren't (and still aren't) all that interested and would go weeks at a time without ever turning it on.

 

And, no, I'm not a control freak. Instead, what happened is that exactly two years and an accumulated $700 in child support later, their father decided to take on the life of a Ho Bo and took off. So, when my budget didn't balance and I had to choose between cable and, say, food, the cable went. Natch. At first it was an economic decision. I'm not gonna lie. Between that time and the time my finances improved enough that I could afford to add luxuries, the kids had become Readers and I invested in a home computer (complete with Windows 3.1) and a dial-up connection. Interestingly, we had a family vote on that one. We'd been saving for a trip to Disney World and I suggested we consider the computer instead and they didn't hesitate. And you gots to be able to read to use a computer.

 

Anyway, this isn't all about me and what I've done and whether it was the best decision (I believe it was), but that yes, there is a big, bad world out there, but that by limiting how much of it came into our home I was able to parent my childrens way through their exposure to it.

 

Had they ever seen porn prior? Oh yeah. The day the kid around the corner came over with a wagon full of his father's Playboy collection because his mother told him to get them out of the house. He didn't know what to do, so he brought them to me. Uh, yeah, everybody saw what was in the wagon; there was nothing I could have done to prevent it. Anyway, I explained those were called pornography and we didn't keep that in our house, either, and sent him on his way. Violence? For sure. They always have and always will read the daily paper. They know what goes on outside, for sure. In fact, my son is now in Basic Training with the United States Army. No, neither of them are niave.

 

Thanks for the discussion. Good topic.

[JamesM]

As a guy who saw porn early, I would say violence.

 

Porn attracts the attention of a boy and violence grosses him out...generally speaking.

 

So, based on that, he will want to mimic what he sees in porn to bring pleasure. And the girls he meets will reap the results.

 

He may try to mimic violence if he is angry, but he will quicker understand how it hurts other people.

 

For girls, I am guessing, but I think it some what the same, except they may view porn sex as "normal," and then when guys treat them in the same way, they accept the degradation as okay. Again, violence tends to turn off women, I think.

 

The negative to violence is that it desensitizes people to what it really is. Watching horror films for some does become a sexual/pleasurable thrill, but the majority of people only get a thrill out of sexual porn.

 

I think children have a harder to translating porn as not normal or not what men and women do or expect in marriage. Because it is so pleasurable to watch even at a young age, it is more acceptable. Yet violence for most is painful looking and not enjoyable for most to watch. It may have a horrifying fascination, but it is not from what people tend to derive pleasure.

 

So, as a man with four children...and mostly boys, I can say that I would rather have violence be portrayed. As has been said, I can easier say that this is not good, normal, or acceptable. But porn "feels" good, so if I say it is "bad," then it is more confusing to them.

[Lovelybird]

Why not neither?

 

I chose to raise my children without television. Therefore, none of that was an issue.

I agree ! If they want to watch tv, I will rent some lovely child stories, hero stories, love stories, learn to be brave, and get a clear sense of what is right and wrong. I won't want my children exposed to all those junk in today's TV. what they learn from early age will influence the life when they grow up. People misunderstand 'liberty' too much

 

If you really love your children, descipline them earlier with love, not with force

Edited February 16, 2008 by Lovelybird

[Arch]

The worlds not such a nice place, its filled with death, destruction, rape and all the bad things people don't want to talk about. Thats not to undercut the good things but those realities certainly do exist.

 

People live in a false sense of security, when anything remotely scary happens that all panic, that shooting is an example - people die all the time from all sorts of things - just because something is publicized doesn't make it statistically significant(I will refrain of bringing up politics).

 

Violent movies alone wont turn your kid into a killer and porn alone won't make him lose "morals".

 

Porn to me is simply a substitute not a replacement, unfortunately most porn lacks "love" which is why its not that fulfilling to watch, just moderately physically enjoyable.

 

Also whats your problem with BDSM? Iv seen plenty of B/D photos that held more artistic value then any "regular" porn I have seen.

[Phateless]

Why not neither?

 

I chose to raise my children without television. Therefore, none of that was an issue.

 

I never said I didn't allow television.

 

wtf? I never watch tv either, but I don't get what you're saying here. You contradicted yourself.

[Taramere]

If I had to choose between the two, I'd let them watch the violent stuff. Most cartoons that are geared towards boys' tastes feature a fair amount of violence - and I think that's inevitable.

 

My nephew's now at that age where he wants to watch goodies beating the **** out of baddies, and will talk at length about the details of particular fights. Naturally kids mimic the violence they see on tv. After watching Darth Vader's antics, he'll take out a toy laser gun and blast me away with it. If he goes too far (eg whacking me with the laser gun) I get serious and he realises he's crossed the boundary.

 

To me, the violent films get harmful when you've got loner kids watching them all day long - with no opportunities to act any of it out under a reasonable level of adult supervision. More socialised children will watch the film, recreate the violence in play - and in the course of that they'll figure out what other people's boundaries are, how to deal with other people's aggression and how to cope with their own.

 

For that reason I don't think children should be shielded from violent films....but neither do I think they should just be plonked in front of them with no effort being made to help them figure out their feelings about/reactions to that violence.

 

Porn is something else altogether. Would anyone seriously suggest that it's okay for children to play-act with other kids what they saw in a porn film? It seems to me there's a hefty difference between a little kid pretending to shoot another kid, both knowing that it's all in the course of play....and a little kid play-acting blowing another little kid after watching a porn film.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Taramere

[justpassingthrough]

wtf? I never watch tv either, but I don't get what you're saying here. You contradicted yourself.

 

 

What, exactly, don't you get and no I did not.

 

Read what I said and figure it out. Other people can. If you try real hard, you might, too.

 

Sheesh!

[Phateless]

What, exactly, don't you get and no I did not.

 

Read what I said and figure it out. Other people can. If you try real hard, you might, too.

 

Sheesh!

 

If television is allowed, then how did you raise them without it? That's like saying you don't use cars yet you drive your kids to school. I think no television is a bit extreme, but I also think it's a complete waste of time, so I dunno... Personally, anything with commercials bores me, but anything that runs straight through I can watch, although I would rather do other things.