What does "suitable for children" really mean, and why does the phrase even exist? (America, sexuality)

[Druidus]

Why do we make distinctions between suitable and not suitable for children, in terms, especially, of sexuality?

For instance, pornography. Up until you are eighteen years old, viewing pornography is illegal in Canada, and you can be prosecuted for claiming you are eighteen in order to view pornography. Seriously, what difference does it make? So what if I view pornography as a minor? What difference does it make? I did. First at eight-nine, and continued to do so, in secret, for a long time. Now, I don't much care for pornography, besides that of the written word. But I don't think I was harmed by my exposure to pornography. At first, it was merely curiousity. But eventually, it blossomed into sexual awareness and produced very sexual feelings while viewing porn. It's completely natural for children to be curious. After puberty begins, it's completely natural for children to like viewing porn for reasons beyond curiousity, as I did.

And seriously, how is it that the night before I turn eightteen, I'm susceptible to harm from pornography, but the next day, I'm not?

[Scuba Pete]

Druidus,

in America we don't bother with trying to arrest little Johnny for buying a Playboy. However, we ARE supposed to arrest the dealer that sold him the magazine in the first place. I don't think it happens often enough.

However, the wholesale peddling of sex in America is demeaning to all involved. To the participants, to those who humiliate themselves to provide it and to the individuals whose lives are destroyed by it. Just my opinion and you mileage may vary.

[Druidus]

I agree that in some instances it can be harmful to those involved. But why, then, is it worse for a child to view it than an adult? Why can't a child read erotic literature, in which no one is harmed because all is fictional?

However, we ARE supposed to arrest the dealer that sold him the magazine in the first place.

Why? He obviously wanted the magazine, and the magazine won't hurt him. Why punish the anyone?

[michel]

Originally Posted by Druidus

Why do we make distinctions between suitable and not suitable for children, in terms, especially, of sexuality?

For instance, pornography. Up until you are eighteen years old, viewing pornography is illegal in Canada, and you can be prosecuted for claiming you are eighteen in order to view pornography. Seriously, what difference does it make? So what if I view pornography as a minor? What difference does it make? I did. First at eight-nine, and continued to do so, in secret, for a long time. Now, I don't much care for pornography, besides that of the written word. But I don't think I was harmed by my exposure to pornography. At first, it was merely curiousity. But eventually, it blossomed into sexual awareness and produced very sexual feelings while viewing porn. It's completely natural for children to be curious. After puberty begins, it's completely natural for children to like viewing porn for reasons beyond curiousity, as I did.

And seriously, how is it that the night before I turn eightteen, I'm susceptible to harm from pornography, but the next day, I'm not?

Surely you must realize that age limits have to be set - driving, drinking, voting, watching pornography, whatever.

No one is suggesting that the day before your birthday you aren't 'able' and that the day after, you are- for any of the above criteria . But a boundary has to be set.

As for pornography, and the age at which you are 'permitted' to watch it, well, that's a different matter - it is a very personal subject; IMO, I think it ought to be banned, but I dare say there will be those who will disagree with me.

[Druidus]

Surely you must realize that age limits have to be set - driving, drinking, voting, watching pornography, whatever.

These should not be based on age but on maturity. Not all sixteen year olds are mature enough to drive, while some fourteen year olds definately are. Some adults of any age are not mature enough to vote, either, while some minors are able to formulate well thought out opinions on politics.

No one is suggesting that the day before your birthday you aren't 'able' and that the day after, you are- for any of the above criteria . But a boundary has to be set.

In this instance and for this subject, I really don't see why. Perhaps you can articulate this to me?

As for pornography, and the age at which you are 'permitted' to watch it, well, that's a different matter - it is a very personal subject; IMO, I think it ought to be banned, but I dare say there will be those who will disagree with me.[img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Why should it be banned? What if it is merely erotic lituratue? Or something that couples get a kick out of posting on the internet? Not all pornography has to harm somebody.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Druidus

These should not be based on age but on maturity. Not all sixteen year olds are mature enough to drive, while some fourteen year olds definately are. Some adults of any age are not mature enough to vote, either, while some minors are able to formulate well thought out opinions on politics.

In this instance and for this subject, I really don't see why. Perhaps you can articulate this to me?


Why should it be banned? What if it is merely erotic lituratue? Or something that couples get a kick out of posting on the internet? Not all pornography has to harm somebody.

Oh come on! are you going to interview every single adolescent, to find out how mature he/she is, for driving, drinking,voting watching pornography ? Do you fancy your taxes being trippled by the need to employ people to go oll over the country to 'gauge' your 'real' age ?

[Scuba Pete]

and the magazine won't hurt him.

Really now? I suppose you have some proof for this? Just look at the US crime rate to see how wrong you are.

[Druidus]

Oh come on! are you going to interview every single adolescent, to find out how mature he/she is, for driving, drinking,voting watching pornography ? Do you fancy your taxes being trippled by the need to employ people to go oll over the country to 'gauge' your 'real' age ?

I said "should be". I never said it was plausible, or even possible. But I don't think pornography requires an "over the age of" stipulation.

Really now? I suppose you have some proof for this?

Proof is not needed for a negative. It is up to you (or others believing harm to exist as a result of viewing porn) to prove that the harm exists.

Just look at the US crime rate to see how wrong you are.

Indeed. Perhaps you have these statistics? I doubt their existence, but would be willing to accept their possible validity if you can procure and produce them.