Ethical & moral standards for the 21st century #2

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Well, this is part two of my glorious series to reform the conservative establishments of all modern countries. My last thread turned out relatively decently for a thread that was barely more than insane rambling. Until Mike and Ace showed up with their wacky talk (j/k guys, I appreciate it). Anyway, only 25% of the CE crowd were in favor of harvesting organs (including the opt-out option) and I am sure this poll will turn out even better.

 

I think it's about time to demystify the act of sexual intercourse and remove all age restrictions for aquiring porn. I can't come up with another completely natural thing the conservative establishment tries to hide from the eyes of minors in so many different countries. I furthermore believe that watching people having sex is neither confusing nor irritating no matter how old you are [anecdotal evidence ahoy]. At least if you have decent parents that talk to you at least once a week.

 

Mind you, so far that's not exactly radical and I feel it's more of a matter of definition of the word "porn". Some countries, for example Germany, don't have age restrictions for certain kinds of porn.

 

In Germany "soft core" porn can already be bought by all people without limitations. The tricky part is the definiton of "soft core", AFAIK it's the implied or actual sexual intercourse [vaginal, anal or oral] that does not display erected dicks or labias [or something close to that definiton, I'm no lawyer]. That sucks in my book. I can't see the difference between porn with erected dicks and without them. Well, at least not from a moral point of view

 

As I feel this part of the law deserves a change and I don't want to make soft core porn illegal for minors there's only one solution: Remove all age restrictions from hard core porn.

Now here comes the tricky part however. Having browsed around some of the darkest allies of the internet I can imagine what potentially disturbing pornography looks like: Whether it be snuff, people cutting their cocks or people masturbating on plush Turtles, all of these images are probably not fit to be comprehended by kids younger than 14.

 

The solution is that age restrictions for "normal" hard core porn should be dropped. The definition for the word "normal" is tricky though and probably changing over time anyway due to evolving societies. The best definition of "normal porn" I've come up with yet is "The majority of people could jack off to it". Well, this is not only a fallacy [appeal to majority] but probably in this form not suited to be written in any kind of law. It's still the best I can offer. Maybe you can come up with something better.

 

Any thoughts?

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well since there is no LITERAL punishment for a minor caught with porn(besides a beating or lecture from a parent) I am not sure what is wrong with the current system!?!

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

There is is precedent for outlawing the sale of certain things to minors.

 

http://www.protectkids.com/dangers/pornleg...definitions.htm

 

material harmful to minors-Known as "variable obscenity" or the "Millerized Ginsberg Test." See Ginsberg v New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968); and Miller, Smith, Pope, supra. It is illegal to sell, exhibit, or display "harmful" ("soft-core") pornography to minor children, even if the material is not obscene or illegal for adults. See also Com. v Am. Booksellers Ass'n, 372 S.E.2d 618 (Va. 1988), followed, American Booksellers Ass'n v Com. of Va., 882 F.2d 125 (4th Cir. 1989), Crawford v Lungren, 96 F.3d 380 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1249 (1997). "Harmful to minors" means any written, visual, or audio matter of any kind that:

 

1. the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, and

 

2. the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; sadomasochistic sexual acts or abuse; or lewd exhibitions of the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or post-pubertal female breast, and

 

3. a reasonable person would find, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

[Guest DrTom]

The problem with restricting certain types of porn is that those types have to be rigidly and accurately defined. Does one visible dick take something from softcore to hardcore? Does one glimpsed instant of penetration make something hardcore? All of these things would need to be defined. Then there would be the matter of coming up with a "rating system" for porn, and labeling all existing materials with it. That's an awful lot of work.

 

My opinion: leave things as they are. Let kids go thru sex ed and development courses, let them talk to their parents, let them try to figure things out on their own first. A thirteen year-old who has not had sex ed nor had "The Talk" with his parents could watch porn and think sex is slapping a girl on the ass, fucking her as hard as you can, then jerking off in her face when you're finished. That's an unhealthy attitude for someone that young to have. Once they know more about sex in general, and its portrayal in the pr0n industry in particular, that's fine, but we don't need adolescents getting their views on sex from the "Rocco Loves..." series.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

With the internet being the way it is, one has to wonder if restrictions on "physical" porn material are all that relevant anymore. At any rate, status quo seems fine to me.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

What about: No porn before 12, no hardcore porn before 16?

 

I'm firmly of the opinion that kids won't be looking for porn until their sex drive kicks in and they want to see porn.

 

 

DrTom is kind of right though. Compulsory sex education is a very, very, good use of everyone's precious Hillary's village surrogate parenting time.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

With the internet being the way it is, one has to wonder if restrictions on "physical" porn material are all that relevant anymore. At any rate, status quo seems fine to me.

This is the kicker right here. I've been viewing and watching porn since I was 11 or 12, but I never picked up any physical porn until I turned 18 and it was legal. There's no way to censor the internet (unless one wants to make an overbearing law requiring all computers to use Net Nanny software or whatever it's called), and since that's where all the "worst of the worst" is located, legal or not, minors already have access to it. So why the hell not let minors, if interested, get physical "softcore" porn?

 

By "softcore" I mean like a Skinemax late night flick (whoops, I guess kids already have access to these too, all they have to do is stay up past their bedtime). At least partial, possibly full nudity, and implied sex, but no actual representations of the dirty deed. Although, quite honestly, I don't see the real problem in that either, but I can see without restricting it to "softcore" there'd be Kinderfisting Tapes or something available, and I don't think people should be allowed to focus/define their fetishes until becoming bored after a few years of non-fetish pornography (as I did).

[Guest Some Guy]

I think it's about time to demystify the act of sexual intercourse and remove all age restrictions for aquiring porn. I can't come up with another completely natural thing the conservative establishment tries to hide from the eyes of minors in so many different countries. I furthermore believe that watching people having sex is neither confusing nor irritating no matter how old you are [anecdotal evidence ahoy]. At least if you have decent parents that talk to you at least once a week.

You really consider porn to display "completley natural" sex? I think many and plenty guys were disappointed when tehy realized that most girls don't scream like banchees when orgasiming (if a young kid can even get a girl to), that they don;t want you to cum on theri face when you finish, that many don't wan to be treated like plastic fuck dolls, that kissing rewuires more than a flickering outstreched toungue, etc...

 

A friend of my girlfriend was mightly dissappointed to find this out when he finnaly got laid. I think it's best to keep the system the way it is. Don't sell the kids stuff, at least make them find creative ways to obtain it. It's easy enough on the Net.

[Guest EQ]

I voted "No porn of any kind for minors [defined as people younger than 18]"

 

I'm 20 years old, so it doesn't apply to me. If I had a kid though, I don't know if I'd want him/her looking at porn, even though I did. It may sound hypocritical, but that's just me.

[Guest EricMM]

I really don't think the current "porn situation" we're in is a problem. I think that if there's sex involved, there needs to be some sort of restriction because kids will try to do things they see.

 

I however think that the rigidity of the nudity laws in this country are slightly off. IMO there's nothing harmful with full nudity, be it pretty or ugly. Sex should be private, and porn involves sex, which is something kids shouldn't be doing. But breasts shouldn't be as taboo as they are today. And even full nudity, there's nothing unnatural about nudity, I don't think it's harmful for half of the kids in this country to know what the other half looks like.

[Guest Slapnuts00]

I would vote to make softcore porn legal by 16 (playboy, etc.). At that point they're already looking at it and, what's the difference between 16 and 18 anyway? Keep the hardocre stuff till 18. We don't need young kids exposed to this stuff because it's not appropriate...

[Guest The Metal Maniac]

and, what's the difference between 16 and 18 anyway? Keep the hardocre stuff till 18. We don't need young kids exposed to this stuff because it's not appropriate...

 

But you just said yourself - what's the difference between 16 and 18? If you feel there's no significant difference, then why shouldn't 16-year old's be allowed to view hardcore porn?

 

Personally, I think there's no problem with the system as it is, and it's fine in it's current state. I also don't feel that the argument "they'll get it on the net anyway" is a very good one. I mean, people are going to get heroin, even though it is illegal. That doesn't mean that it should be legalized just for the sake of convience.

 

And yes, I realize that heroin is about a zillion times more dangerous then any porn could hope to be, but hopefully you can see the point I'm trying to make. Just because certain people will do certain things, that shouldn't mean that these things should then be made available to all, especially in cases where these things could potentially cause harm (As some have pointed out, a kid who watches porn before love & sex are properly explained to him could have some twisted views).

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

You really consider porn to display "completley natural" sex?

Well, there's a point.

 

But do you really think the government should be regulating such stuff? As far as my hypotetical kids would be concerned, I am the law.

[Guest Some Guy]

If you say so.