DescentBB

flip wrote:How old are you now Null, and do you have a meaningful relationship at this time?

I am 24, I am getting married to a very classy lady I've known for 10 years (and been romantically involved for 4) at the end of July.

null0010 wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I don't think kids have the frontal lobe development to discern between doing those things to either actual beings or virtual cyber beings, especially if that cyber being is someone else's avatar. You've all heard of the connections between children who torture animals when they're young and then grow up to be serial murderers? Well, can that same idea be applied to children using depictions of cyber violence, in a virtual world where there are usually no limits to what one can do?

Speak for yourself; I was playing Doom at age 7 and I've never brutally murdered anyone.

well, so far, at least......

Drakona wrote:I think it is inappropriate to group porngraphy and violence together simply because both are offensive. Pornography is addictive by nature, and has a dramatic and obvious effect on one's present and future relationships. It is appropriate to restrict its access to those who understand the consequences of its use.

Why? Both can influence the mind if done in excess.

Drakona wrote:By contrast, violent entertainment is not addictive, and what effect it may have on people is not completely clear.

Violence is addictive. People like getting the rush from it, just like with sex. Sex and violence are closely linked in the brain too. What do you think drives rapists? Violence or sex?

woodchip wrote:TC must of forgotten all the terrible things the Roadrunner did to Wily Coyote....speak about violence.

Yep. Those two really warped my little brain. You might have given a better example with Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd, and they used guns.

Well, moral implications aside. I know several couples who have admitted to watching porn together. If done in that manner I guess it's about as healthy as it can get. It's when one does it without the knowledge of the other that problems can arise. Trust me on this, there is nothing worse to deal with than an insecure woman.

I think there's a huge difference TC, leaving obvious deviants out of the question. Most people are not born wanting to inflict violence on others. It's usually brought on by a perceived threat or some other problem being masked by the violence. My kids love killing others in COD, and they seem to see it just as you would winning a hand of Gin or checkers. BOOYA, IN YO FACE . Pornography on the other hand appeals to an inward drive we all possess. That is why I agree porn is addictive in and of itself as it appeals to basic needs and desires, whereas violence is usually indicative of something underlying. Find out the root cause of the anger and usually violence will subside, but I see the way those 90 year old's look at my 18 year old daughter, and that's something inherent.

flip wrote:I think there's a huge difference TC, leaving obvious deviants out of the question. Most people are not born wanting to inflict violence on others. It's usually brought on by a perceived threat or some other problem being masked by the violence. My kids love killing others in COD, and they seem to see it just as you would winning a hand of Gin or checkers. BOOYA, IN YO FACE . Pornography on the other hand appeals to an inward drive we all possess. That is why I agree porn is addictive in and of itself as it appeals to basic needs and desires, whereas violence is usually indicative of something underlying. Find out the root cause of the anger and usually violence will subside, but I see the way those 90 year old's look at my 18 year old daughter, and that's something inherent.

I agree that most people are not born with hate or violent tendencies. So why do some turn to it? What happened in their lives that made them go over that line between aggression and full blown violence towards others? I still think that violence can be like a drug to some people. It gives them a thrill. Maybe it's those types of people, who's brains get a rush from violence, that makes them cross that line. And if one goes further with that idea, can violent video games trigger that innate trait of loving violence to surface in that person's mind, making them a killer? If that were the case, banning video games for all kids would hurt the majority that can play the games and not get warped by what they see or do.

This argument has been going on since I can remember. It's an old saw. First it was comics, then movies, then TV and now video games. Personally, I think most normal kids can play violent video games without becoming crazy mass murderers. If the association was even half true, we'd have a huge crop of killers running around out there just because video gaming is so prevalent. I don't think playing video games is a corrupting influence on kids anymore than anything else they see on TV nowadays.

CUDA wrote:people are a product of their environment. if your thinking that these things have no effect on you. then your being naive. playing these games or watching these things on TV especially at a young age is like a virus inoculation. you start to build up an immunity to it without every knowing it. when your dealing with Kids that already have a warped sense of thinking and reality. This "can" and sometimes does affect them. to say it doesn't is pure stupidity

I think that genetics is an important influencing factor on a person's actions too. I don't think the environment is the sole contributor to how we turn out in life. My sister and I were raised in the same environment with the same parents, but we turned out as different as night and day.

My honest opinion. I think the most violent are those that have been abused for a very long time and they use hate and violence to mask their feelings of hurt and pain. You wanna hurt me, I'll hurt you worse. You hate me? I'll hate you back. It's their inability to forgive and move forward that eventually pushes them over the edge.

Drakona wrote:I think it is inappropriate to group porngraphy and violence together simply because both are offensive. Pornography is addictive by nature, and has a dramatic and obvious effect on one's present and future relationships. It is appropriate to restrict its access to those who understand the consequences of its use.

By contrast, violent entertainment is not addictive, and what effect it may have on people is not completely clear

I never group porno and violence together "simply because they are both offensive".

Frankly, I don’t find either one offensive.

Again I say it's human nature to be violent. Violent behavior being defined as intentional physically aggressive behavior against another person. As most here like to point out we are after all just mammals. If you look at any other mammal you will see them fight each other over territory, food, their females or partner. Humans do this also. The only difference between the animal kingdom and humans is we can repress our natural urges.

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:people are a product of their environment. if your thinking that these things have no effect on you. then your being naive. playing these games or watching these things on TV especially at a young age is like a virus inoculation. you start to build up an immunity to it without every knowing it. when your dealing with Kids that already have a warped sense of thinking and reality. This "can" and sometimes does affect them. to say it doesn't is pure stupidity

I think that genetics is an important influencing factor on a person's actions too. I don't think the environment is the sole contributor to how we turn out in life. My sister and I were raised in the same environment with the same parents, but we turned out as different as night and day.

So your sister is a staunch conservative ?

Drakona wrote:I think it is inappropriate to group porngraphy and violence together simply because both are offensive. Pornography is addictive by nature, and has a dramatic and obvious effect on one's present and future relationships. It is appropriate to restrict its access to those who understand the consequences of its use.

[ Post made via Android ]

Really? Hate to disagree with you there Drakona, but if an undesirable effect happens in one's relationship, it has much more to do with an underlying issue than pornography. I bet you any money that if anyone I know suddenly has a relationship issue, I can rule out 'watching pronography' as a cause.

And it's not pornography that's addictive, it's simply a person's sexual desire that translates into the amount of porn they watch. Human beings are sexual by nature. and they'll get their fix one way or another. Trying to restrict it's access only causes the desire to seek it out to grow.

And consequences? you're talking about if people watch porn too much, their car will blow up, their health will deteriorate or they'll go postal on their neighbor. The only real consequence that will happen is an erection. There's no peer-reviewed scientific data that people who look at pornography are more likely to commit violent or sexually deviant acts (which I believe you were referring to by 'consequences') than anyone else.

---------

grouping porno and violence together under the 'offensive' title has so much wrong with it, that i'm not even going to bother responding to it.

------------

"WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California clamp down on the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments lack authority to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed" despite complaints that the popular and fast-changing technology allows the young to simulate acts of brutality."

WOW. Did Jack Thompson try to push that kind of legislation? I'm glad to see that the supreme court struck this down. Allowing this to happen opens the door to restricting other things that could be deemed 'too violent for children'. It's also not a government's place to replace parenting via legislature. I'm glad to see that the supreme court has its head on straight for this one.

One time a few years ago, a 14 year old boy came up to the counter and plopped down modern warfare 3. I took one look at him, and then I addressed his dad: "Sir, do you realize this game is rated M for mature? It's content is only appropriate for those 17 and up?" The surprised look on his face told me his son was pulling a snow job.

That last example is the real kicker in all of this. Just because a law creating this sort of restriction was deemed unconstitutional doesn't mean that individual retailers aren't free to enforce the same restrictions themselves. I think GameStop has a policy of not selling M-rated titles to individuals under 17, and I'd imagine that Wal-Mart does too, given that their refusal to stock AO-rated titles is almost singlehandedly what prevents publishers from releasing titles that would receive that rating. It's the same way that the theater industry doesn't sell R-rated tickets to unaccompanied minors.

Just because a law creating this sort of restriction was deemed unconstitutional doesn't mean that individual retailers aren't free to enforce the same restrictions themselves.

I have huge problems with this. It is in essence a way for corporate america to enforce their own morality and circumvent the laws of this land. They should be made to adhere to the laws of this land as well as any other individual or government entity is forced to.

Um...they are adhering to the laws of this land. Last time I checked, the restrictions on government activity enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply to just that: government. Private entities are free to abide or not abide by them as they so choose, so long as their non-abiding doesn't conflict with any laws that actually do apply to private entities. For instance, a religious organization has the right to require that one be a practicing member of that religion in order to get a job there, even if the government could never do so. And a forum admin is perfectly within their rights to ban someone just for being a drooling idiot, the constitutional guarantee of "free speech" nonwithstanding. I f you're a minor and want to buy an M-rated game, simply take your business to a retailer that will sell it to you...it's said retailer's right to choose whether or not to sell said title to you either way. This is exactly how things should work.

flip wrote:

Just because a law creating this sort of restriction was deemed unconstitutional doesn't mean that individual retailers aren't free to enforce the same restrictions themselves.

I have huge problems with this. It is in essence a way for corporate america to enforce their own morality and circumvent the laws of this land. They should be made to adhere to the laws of this land as well as any other individual or government entity is forced to.

Heh, usually Corporate America is being accused of not having any morals.

Yes that's true in a lot of cases, but I had rather them sell my kid some game like Prototype, that I could then decide for myself when he brings it home and maybe even provide an opportunity for a discussion, than Corporate America being able to essentially become a governing agency itself. I'm really afraid of where that could lead. "Yes, it is true that it is legal to bear arms in this country, but we will not hire anyone who has ownership of any weapons because our insurance company deemed you to be a risk." That's an extreme example, but things are getting weird. I'd like as many safeguards in place as possible.

So you'd rather find out that your kid bought a game like that after he's already spent the money on it, instead of going to the store with him yourself and seeing exactly what he wants to buy beforehand? That seems...odd.

flip wrote:Yes that's true in a lot of cases, but I had rather them sell my kid some game like Prototype, that I could then decide for myself when he brings it home and maybe even provide an opportunity for a discussion, than Corporate America being able to essentially become a governing agency itself. I'm really afraid of where that could lead. "Yes, it is true that it is legal to bear arms in this country, but we will not hire anyone who has ownership of any weapons because our insurance company deemed you to be a risk." That's an extreme example, but things are getting weird. I'd like as many safeguards in place as possible.

um.. if your kid attempted to buy prototype from me and didn't show identification showing that he was the correct age (standard policy where I worked), it would have resulted in a no sale. Yes, it might have resulted in a complaint but hey.. sometimes you just have to deal with it.

So you'd rather find out that your kid bought a game like that after he's already spent the money on it, instead of going to the store with him yourself and seeing exactly what he wants to buy beforehand? That seems...odd.

Not really. I let my kids think for themselves and try and make good decisions. If they come home with a game, they know it's gonna have to pass my approval. Let them spend 50 bucks on a game they know I'm gonna disapprove of and the next time they will think about it and make a better choice. Lesson learned and 50 bucks well spent. I don't have much of an issue really with having to show ID for mature games or movies. It's just the premise and where it could lead. I had rather be able to determine for myself what my kids are ready for and at the same time open up a dialogue with them instead of just some stranger telling them no and making them feel like they have been denied something without reason. All that does is divert the whole reason of censoring in the first place to a "when I get older nobody's gonna tell me what to do." Then you have to reverse that whole mindset to be able to have meaningful discussion again. I try to avoid that in the first place and make my kids feel like they have some control over their own lives. So far, that was the only game I've had to do that with and provided me the opportunity to explain to them the difference between combat and murder. Had he not brought that game home we would have missed that opportunity. No, I've said before. All legislation should defer to first amendment rights and parental rights. These rights are given to American citizens regardless of age and I hate the way that has become standard practice, as if because they are young they don't receive the full benefits and protection of Constitutional rights.

I don’t believe it’s possible or practical to give children autonomous rights until they have left the nest, so to speak. Or at the very least reached an age where they have the maturity to exercise those rights.

I think that’s a case of basic human nature taking precedent.

Ferno wrote:

Drakona wrote:I think it is inappropriate to group porngraphy and violence together simply because both are offensive. Pornography is addictive by nature, and has a dramatic and obvious effect on one's present and future relationships. It is appropriate to restrict its access to those who understand the consequences of its use.

[ Post made via Android ]

Really? Hate to disagree with you there Drakona, but if an undesirable effect happens in one's relationship, it has much more to do with an underlying issue than pornography. I bet you any money that if anyone I know suddenly has a relationship issue, I can rule out 'watching pronography' as a cause.

And it's not pornography that's addictive, it's simply a person's sexual desire that translates into the amount of porn they watch. Human beings are sexual by nature. and they'll get their fix one way or another. Trying to restrict it's access only causes the desire to seek it out to grow.

And consequences? you're talking about if people watch porn too much, their car will blow up, their health will deteriorate or they'll go postal on their neighbor. The only real consequence that will happen is an erection. There's no peer-reviewed scientific data that people who look at pornography are more likely to commit violent or sexually deviant acts (which I believe you were referring to by 'consequences') than anyone else.
...

I think watching porno creates much more than stimulation.
Wouldn't it be reasonable to consider that sharing having sexual intercourse with a partner leaves a much different impression on a young person than watching strangers use each other like receptacles for their fluids?

As a father of two young girls I wouldn't want my daughters to get the impression that it is normal for their role in a sexual encounter to be used like a toy.
And the casual nature in which porno's often depict the sexual encounter is not helpful in teaching young adults a proper context in which to frame sex.

I think you are not thinking it through with regards to the numerous permanent effects watching porno can have for young people that go far beyond mere titillation.


I think you need to be old enough/wise enough/experienced enough in the real world before you can appreciate porno as a mere tool for stimulation.

Spidey wrote:I don’t believe it’s possible or practical to give children autonomous rights until they have left the nest, so to speak. Or at the very least reached an age where they have the maturity to exercise those rights.

I think that’s a case of basic human nature taking precedent.

agreed.
if you want to give them free reign then why have a drinking age limit? or why should they wait until they are 16 (in most states) to get their driver's license?
there are age limitations for a reason

I don’t believe it’s possible or practical to give children autonomous rights until they have left the nest, so to speak. Or at the very least reached an age where they have the maturity to exercise those rights.

I think that’s a case of basic human nature taking precedent.

I agree with this, although I think at times they do get kinda run over today and that doesn't make a totally free thinking American when they are grown. I feel that up until the time that they are completely able to exercise these rights, I as a parent hold that authority for them, first and foremost. Not that it matters what I think

EDIT: Lol, Don't misunderstand me, I realize they are still children . For example, I have a 10 year old that is honor role from day one, very smart and very damn opinionated . He has a habit of questioning things and not just believing everything he's told. Well, that has gotten him in trouble more times than I can remember and on top of that it doesn't seem like very many of his teachers really appreciate that . He is a very loving and kind individual and never disrespectful for the most part, but if he disagrees with something he will make it known. He has suffered for it but like his dad he just can't help his damn self. LOL. I feel they go a long way in school to suppress free thought now and a kids right to think things through for him self, and that's wrong. I'm speaking more in these terms than anything else.

There need to be more kids out there like your son. The best way to learn is to ask "Why?" and then follow it up by seeking out the answer.

... and no one has brought up the game rating system already in place?

Duper wrote:... and no one has brought up the game rating system already in place?

Look closer.

Lothar mentioned it directly:

Lothar wrote:The closest analog, the MPAA rating system, is voluntary and not legally binding.

And I mentioned it indirectly:

Foil wrote:Either:

1. Restrict both violent and sexually-explicit material. (Purchases done by parents).

-or-

2. Restrict neither one. (Promote parental-awareness organizations.)

flip wrote:

I don’t believe it’s possible or practical to give children autonomous rights until they have left the nest, so to speak. Or at the very least reached an age where they have the maturity to exercise those rights.

I think that’s a case of basic human nature taking precedent.

I agree with this, although I think at times they do get kinda run over today and that doesn't make a totally free thinking American when they are grown. I feel that up until the time that they are completely able to exercise these rights, I as a parent hold that authority for them, first and foremost. Not that it matters what I think

Well flip, actually there is nothing wrong with your concept of parental rights…I just see your implementation as flawed…

Example:

If you believe your child has the right to bear arms…then you buy that child the gun…just don’t expect me to sell it to him, that way everyone’s rights remain intact.

Same applies to Video Games…Booze…Porno…etc

If you believe your child has the right to bear arms…then you buy that child the gun…just don’t expect me to sell it to him, that way everyone’s rights remain intact.

True enough. I guess I was ranting at a perceived threat and lost perspective there for a minute

Will Robinson wrote:I think watching porno creates much more than stimulation.
Wouldn't it be reasonable to consider that sharing having sexual intercourse with a partner leaves a much different impression on a young person than watching strangers use each other like receptacles for their fluids?

no.

As a father of two young girls I wouldn't want my daughters to get the impression that it is normal for their role in a sexual encounter to be used like a toy.

Let's make things perfectly clear. No one is being used like a toy. never have, never will.

And the casual nature in which porno's often depict the sexual encounter is not helpful in teaching young adults a proper context in which to frame sex.

It's a fantasy setting. it never should be confused with anything else.

I think you are not thinking it through with regards to the numerous permanent effects watching porno can have for young people that go far beyond mere titillation.

And what effects would these be, exactly?

I think you need to be old enough/wise enough/experienced enough in the real world before you can appreciate porno as a mere tool for stimulation.

I understood it was a mere tool when I was twelve.

--------------

this whole porn topic is getting eerily close to the 'violent videogames/movies' vein where it's argued that by watching either or turns you into a murderer,

One thing your not considering Ferno, and one thing that really turned me against porn, is that a lot of these girls are actually exploited and forced into it. Runaways or ones with emotional and drug problems. I find it hard not to think that I'm somehow encouraging that by watching porn. I don't think anyone here will argue it's a good thing to do, just that we are human and ruled by our desires and emotions.

I don't think there's much to defend about "mainstream" porn myself, if for no other reason that it's so fake and so stupid that it's actually an active turn-off to me. Couple that with, as you said, the often-sleazy circumstances many of the people in that industry are in, and there's not a whole lot to like there.

Yeah seems it would be more fun to make your own porn but she keeps saying no

flip wrote:One thing your not considering Ferno, and one thing that really turned me against porn, is that a lot of these girls are actually exploited and forced into it. Runaways or ones with emotional and drug problems. I find it hard not to think that I'm somehow encouraging that by watching porn. I don't think anyone here will argue it's a good thing to do, just that we are human and ruled by our desires and emotions.

exploited and forced into it? you have anything to back this up?

because last I checked, all the people involved are paid, treated well and want to be there.

exploited and forced into it? you have anything to back this up?

because last I checked, all the people involved are paid, treated well and want to be there.

I've seen several documentaries that have made that case. Why would it matter?

EDIT: I'm not saying all of them either, just that it has been said a certain percentage are doing it against their will.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I think watching porno creates much more than stimulation.
Wouldn't it be reasonable to consider that sharing having sexual intercourse with a partner leaves a much different impression on a young person than watching strangers use each other like receptacles for their fluids?

no.
..

If you don't know the difference between the two I can't expect you to understand the rest.

flip wrote:One thing your not considering Ferno, and one thing that really turned me against porn, is that a lot of these girls are actually exploited and forced into it. Runaways or ones with emotional and drug problems. I find it hard not to think that I'm somehow encouraging that by watching porn. I don't think anyone here will argue it's a good thing to do, just that we are human and ruled by our desires and emotions.

Thats true, most prons r illegal produced and the girlz woulda take rather a "normal" life than play/act in a porn. There is a famous movie about that, but i can´t remember the title

flip wrote:

exploited and forced into it? you have anything to back this up?

because last I checked, all the people involved are paid, treated well and want to be there.

I've seen several documentaries that have made that case. Why would it matter?

EDIT: I'm not saying all of them either, just that it has been said a certain percentage are doing it against their will.

seeing "several" documentaries doesn't help your case. I could say I've read a lot of articles that claimed the batboy was real, but that doesn't make it true.

what i'm saying is, how do you know the documentaries you watched aren't full of crap? did they reference any peer-reviewed studies? what do they have to bolster their case?

If you don't know the difference between the two I can't expect you to understand the rest.

first it's 'reasonable', and now it's 'difference'. This 'if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot' argument is pretty weak.

It seems likely enough judging the nature of the business and the taboo that surrounds it. Good reason would tell me that alot of these women are being exploited. That's all I'm saying. YMMV.

Fern is right there is no one being force to do porn or being exploited.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/oct ... tation-ch/