I know that some of you might not agree with Mormoncowboy, but whenever I see
the name I know there's always going to be an intelligent point being made.
Mominthetrenches,Try K9 Web Protection--works for most OS on
smartphones and it's free.
It's important to remember this is a family issue. It's not parents
against teens, moms against dads, girls against boys or any other intrafamily
conflict. This should be Us against It. Honest, open discussion with kids from
early ages continuing forever is critical. Hiding from porn doesn't help
because it thrives in the dark. Shedding light on relationship issues,
what's healthy and what isn't and what the difference is between real
relationships and porn-based self abuse or other abuse keeps porn out better
than maintaining places it likes to hide.
From the article[It may not be classified as a listed addiction by the
American Psychological Association..]I think this is the point
everyone is missing. Mainstream psychology does not classify viewing pornography
as a problem. It may be used as a paraphilia(a fetish), but so can anything
else.All the claims of "science" proving pornography as
being harmful to any normal, healthy adult or adolescent are simply unfounded.
The Deseret News and these message boards continue to perpetuate the claims of
fringe "experts" in trying to prove pornography harmful.The
fact of the matter is that most young adult and teen males have viewed
pornography these days, and yet, violent crime is at some of the lowest rates
since WWII.So claim pornography is bad from religous arguments all
you want, but don't bring science in to it, because it won't support
mark,Perhaps you missed the point of my argument. "To think
someone is wrong just because they disagree is a hostile position." I
imagine that this line is what caused the confusion.I didn't
argue that no one can claim moral righteousness or virtue and that it isn't
moral or just to hold another accountable to your own moral system. I believe
there is a true moral system which is self-evident that we are all accountable
to.What I argued was that the mere existence of disagreement
doesn't prove one's own statement of morality correct. "Well I
don't agree with you" -this statement doesn't prove me right. It
doesn't justify my acting against you, my opinion, or anything really.
It's a statement, not an argument. I believe what is moral can be
adequately explained, even proven true. But a statement of disagreement
doesn't prove you or I correct.I argue for something similar to
virtue ethics, not Kantian or other more traditional systems- so while my
argument may seem to oppose those systems as relativism does, it is only because
morality functions very differently in virtue ethics.
Dear Mominthetrenches,You need to talk to the administrators of your
daughter's school and district. Is your daughter required to have a smart
phone in order to attend this class? If so, you need a lawyer. If she is not
required to have it, then you should be on the site council or PTA and attending
every school board meeting until they hash out an updated technology-use policy.
Do NOT take this lying down. If it's merely a peer pressure/popularity
situation, then grow a backbone and teach your daughter to do the same. My
teens will never own smart phones because I can't think of a better way to
get smut into every mind on the planet than to stream it right into their hands.
Heaven help us all.
A voice. . . Amazing. You just argued for both sides of the moral
relativity question. And you did not make a good argument on either side. Mom, 13 year olds need phones, and Internet access on them, for school?
That doesn't sound right. But maybe they do nowadays. I'd bring it up
with the principle. I can't imagine a school requiring a cell phone. But
what do I know? I haven't been in school for awhile. As far as how to keep
the phone relatively safe, there should be password controlled parental controls
you can activate. At least my phone has that. Of course I don't have then
activated (being an adult and all that) so I'm not sure how they work, or
how well. Good luck. Anyway, about the subject at hand, porn,
I'm an adult, I will choose what I deem to be viewable for myself. I would
imagine what i define as watchable would be different then others posting. And
that's fine. Freedom and such.But, yeah, kids shouldn't be
exposed to this stuff. Ultra violent cartoons should be the cut off.
We have followed the very sensible tips that are suggested (which have been
around for years now). We now have a 13 year-old whose jr high teacher
regularly asks the kids to use their phones in class and access their Internet.
He did this so frequently that we felt like we needed to get her a plan that has
the Internet so she wouldn't be behind. My question is how do some of you
filter out this stuff on the phones? It's not in the front room where we
see it, it is now in her hand. She is a responsible, conscientious student and
technology is just a given in today's world, with kids texting back and
forth for homework. Any advice?Please, no more hyper-sensitive
comments--these posts are really being blown out of proportion. I think we can
all cite examples of people that we know and love whose lives, marriages and
families have been completely destroyed by drugs OR porn, along wtih other evils
that are out there. I wouldn't want to choose which one is the worst.
Just need to help our children navigate through the sleeze and embrace the good!
Mr Whim, and LValfre,You both suggested relativism in your
comments.Whim- Are you a relativist? Would you say that
"it's only wrong if you believe it is." That argument is a lot less
able to substantiate than someone arguing against porn. Saying "it is
wrong" can hold its ground. Whereas a relativist can't justify
disagreeing with Hitler. That's basic philosophy 101.LValfre-
"To call pornography evil is just wrong in my opinion." Respectfully, to
call porn anything but evil is just wrong in my opinion. Neither statement gets
us anywhere. It is either wrong or it isn't. To think someone is wrong just
because they disagree is a hostile position. The mere holding of an opinion
isn't a wrongful act. If it is to you, then a world with more than one
person isn't a place you can live in peace.Unless I
misunderstood either of you, that is what I gather from your comments. I'd
be happy to hear another explanation for your comments if I misunderstood
To call pornography evil is just wrong in my opinion.Did you ever
see the pornography found in the Pompeii ruins? Those same artistic depictions
of human sexuality have been expressed in every culture throughout history.Everyone is affected by these things differently. In my youth I had
experimented with most drugs and I did see a few pornographic videos. I'm
fine. I'm healthy, I'm a good person, I have a great career, a lovely
girlfriend and family, and I'm still here standing on my own two feet. To
infer that I'm evil or have partaked in pure evil is very insulting.
I'm well known for my good deeds and love for everyone.Drugs
didn't change me. Pornography didn't change me. And it didn't
to my friends either. But I have seen those who take off with drugs
and it ruins their lives ... only a few but it is a risk. Again, everyone is
affected by these things differently.
Idablu:"If you look at perpetrators of sexual violence and
pedophilia, almost without exception, their inclinations began with viewing
pornography."You just pulled this out of the air. There is very
little effective study on where the "inclinations arose from". The only
real examples we have for this kind of thing are the Ted Bundy interview, which
needs to be viewed very skeptically. Long story short, Bundy was not remorseful,
but was instead playing to Dobson's needs. Had he been truly remorseful he
would have finally been forthcoming on the victims. He played an act, and Dobson
wanted to hear that pornography was the cause, so Bundy gave it to him. The neuroscience argument is a weak grasp by non-neuroscientists to
pursue an agenda. What the good "scientists" advocating the neuroscience
argument against pornography have failed to do, is distinguish the the
neurological effects between pornography stimulation and real sexual
stimulation. In other words, the same "lights" go on for both normal
sexual behavior and pornography use. Stick to the scriptural
justifications against pornography, they are for more compelling than bad
science arguments. And this isn't a defense for pornography.
mattrick78, you are right to clarify that my statement that "As a parent, if
I had to pick, I might honestly rather find out my kid is experimenting with
drugs as pornography" should not be construed to mean that it is the
"worst thing ever" (superlatives in general are almost always wrong).
But nor was my comment merely hyperbole. I honestly feel that way, I was not
just saying it for effect. And I am not merely speaking hypothetically, either;
I have some experience in this area.But I think the end of my
comment needs to be recognized as the qualifier it is: the effect drugs and
pornography each of any given individual varies quite a bit, so it's not
possible to say that one is actually worse than the other. For one person
cocaine might be the stronger, more debilitating addiction; for another person,
pornography might be. Bottom line: avoid both like the dangerous things that
they are. Human potential is too great to be hamstrung by such stupidity.
wow took some guts for that guy to speak out about it, I'm sure.
@ Mormoncowboy:"Pornography is more of a social stigma than anything,
and at worst harms normal social development. The effects of drug use are in
fact physiological, and documentably far worse than anything pornography could
aspire to."I strongly disagree. If you look at perpetrators of
sexual violence and pedophilia, almost without exception, their inclinations
began with viewing pornography. Families and marriages are torn apart by porn
addictions. Several studies have shown that there is indeed neurophysiological
aspect to porn addiction. Although drug addiction can also be very
socially destructive, to assume that porn addiction is essentially benign is
either burying your head in the sand or just plain naive.
"Where I am lost by the overzealousness to demonize pornography is when it
stray's into the argument that pornography is the absolute worst evil thing
ever."A person who says that they would rather their kid
experiments with drugs than pornography is just making a hyperbole not that they
believe that it is the "worst evil thing ever." Of course it isn't
the worst thing, but it can potentially lead to the worst things ever.
I can be persuaded by the "porn is evil" mantra up to a point. For
example, Joe Moe says:"Our sexuality is so pervasive in our
human nature, that anything that messes with it in such a substantial way as
pornography does, is logically going to have a huge impact. I
actually agree with this comment. Particularly as it relates to child
development. There is a good research showing that, particularly when children,
access pornography they develop unhealthy attitudes and expectations about women
and sex. To that end, I am persuaded that pornography is "harmful".Where I am lost by the overzealousness to demonize pornography is when
it stray's into the argument that pornography is the absolute worst evil
thing ever. For example, nothwithstanding my agreement with the comment above, I
am completely astonished at Joe Moe's next comment:"As a
parent, if I had to pick, I might honestly rather find out my kid is
experimenting with drugs as pornography."Pornography is more of
a social stigma than anything, and at worst harms normal social development. The
effects of drug use are in fact physiological, and documentably far worse than
anything pornography could aspire to.
"People have food addictions. Is food evil and demonic? Should we avoid
it?"No one is making that comparison. Addiction to pornography
is evil. Sex is not. Food is not evil. But if someone is addicted to food in
harmful ways then it is. Addiction is considered evil to some. Even in the
humanistic sense, addiction is debilitating.
Aggielove, not all of us believe in demons, a Below, or Pride with a capital P.
(seriously, why are those capitalized?)Apart from that, there is
science that shows the mind reacts when viewing sexually explicit material.
It's an instinct for the sake of reproduction of the species. When one is
too young to fully understand those urges, they can be damaging to mental
health. Children might not understand exactly why they want to view such things,
but their brain chemistry compels them.But the chemicals released in
this process are supposed to lead to something else. With today's
accessibility, it's much easier to start the process than finish it. It is
important for parents to not only take steps to keep minors from accessing
pornography, (which includes the less savvy learning how a computer works), but
to explain to those who have already been exposed the reasons for what
they're feeling. Whether the explanation is scientific or evangelic, they
need to be made to understand that viewing material is starting a process in
their mind which they will feel compelled to finish.
LValfre. Simply expressing your opinion means little. There are a plethora of
psychologists, therapists, and pornography users who agree that there are
substantial parallels between pornography addiction and drug addiction. You
offer no support to your statement, you argue against expert opinions, you
ignore people who have walked the path (like the kid featured in the article),
and you speak subjectively. While religious people certainly see
connections with religion and spirituality, this is undeniably a psychological
and physiological issue that affects people and communities regardless of
religious thought. Our sexuality is so pervasive in our human nature, that
anything that messes with it in such a substantial way as pornography does, is
logically going to have a huge impact. As a parent, if I had to
pick, I might honestly rather find out my kid is experimenting with drugs as
pornography. The former is simpler, if not less dangerous, in my mind. But it
is also evident that drugs as well as pornography have different impacts on
different people, depending on their physiology, their psyche, their support
systems, etc. It is not a simple picture, but this IS a critical issue for our
society and for our families.
So porn addiction is a demon. I agree. But porn isn't. Just like drugs
aren't, coffee isn't, etc.Addiction is the problem, not
the substance(s) themselves whether they be porn, alcohol, tea, or what have
you.People have food addictions. Is food evil and demonic? Should
we avoid it?
Lvalfre, addiction is addiction. It's all driven by the demons Below.
Let's not let Pride and science convince us differently.
Comparing porn to cocaine, demons, and physical drugs is ludicrous.
Parents. Let's open our eyes. It's the cocaine of the new century.
Pornography. It's about time it has become the deomon of the day.
Despite what critics of the LDS Church will likely post on this comment section,
porn is dangerous. It can be said a thousand times and users will try to justify
it to themselves and others to evade guilt- but we all know that addiction
isn't part of the path to happiness.---From the
article- "Learn how to search the Internet history and make it a family rule
not to clear the history on the computer"Making it a
"rule" doesn't necessarily mean people will follow it. While
password protected filtering programs are useful, there are plugins for browsers
and programs that will actually allow password protecting windows/browser
settings as well. I would suggest people learn everything they can, from
filters, DNS options like OpenDNS, password protecting settings, and software
that restricts searching to "safe searching" modes only- to the extent
of locking out unwanted content is as effective as possible.The more
we know is directly related to our ability to keep our homes as clean ans safe
as possible. Without knowledge, dirt will most certainly be explored or find its
way in the home, on the computer, or on other internet-accessible devices.