For the Children!

[forsyth]

Okay, y'know, maybe this is really a stupid question. But it's been bugging me lately.

One of the givens whenever discussions about porn or information about sex or anything like that comes up is "We've got to protect the children! Keep this away from the children!" Honestly, why? What's the problem if kids see naked people, or even people having sex? Seriously, kids who haven't hit puberty won't care, they think kissing is gross, they wouldn't even believe descriptions of sex. And if kids have hit puberty, then they're going to be able to find pictures of naked people one of many places. And even if they couldn't...

So what? Why are people so set on keeping kids ignorant about sex? Ignorance doesn't protect people, and seeing somebody naked isn't going to scar a kid for life.

Yeah, I'm never getting elected to political office now. And if I ever have kids, maybe I'll get all paranoid about keeping them away from naked people too. But right now, I just don't get it.

Comments

[leticia.livejournal.com]

I have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, frankly. No, seeing one naked body isn't going to scar you for life, but exposure to porn, particularly porn which is disrespectful can screw up kids. And even pre-pubescent kids can be fascinated. (The allure of the forbidden doesn't help, but.)

No, I can't define 'disrespectful' porn. It's a wide category. I'd be inclined to say, hell, just see "National Lampoon style sexual humor" and that's a pretty good definition. Except it's not. :p

[forsythferret.livejournal.com]

But see, that's not just naked people, or porn. That's a specific kind of porn. Kids can pick up lots of bad influences from lots of different places, that's what parents are supposed to be parents about, and keep their kids from getting into stuff they don't want them into, or explain to them what's really going on.

And yes, there's a lot of unrealistic, fucked up porn, probably in part because porn is already forbidden, so once you've broken that taboo, why not break some more? Part of the appeal of some porn is the forbidden nasty aspect. And then there's porn that's just "Hey! Hot people having sex!"

The screwed up part's just not the nudity and sex, it's the other parts. Just like with anything else. I wonder if there'd be more of a drive to make more "friendly" or "happy" porn if it wasn't illegal in so many states. Europe has a lot more random nudity on TV than we do, are their kids any more messed up?

But it's not something new, either. Authority throughout time has wanted to punish or control sex, and I'm not sure why. I guess it's a matter of showing control, and of preventing people from enjoying something outside the authority's control? I'm not sure.

[leticia.livejournal.com]

Now, see, I beg to differ. I suspect that the more you're exposed to 'plain simple normal' porn, the more you're going to go looking for taboo porn to scratch the same itch.
Becuase, really, you see a naked body in that position, you've seen 'em all. Certainly after four or five, you need new positions.

And porn doesn't encourage men to think of women as, you know, people, rather than sides of meat. The very nature of porn - stimulation entirely on peripheral physical features rather than, you know, personality or mind being involved at ALL - encourages further dehumanizing of the people involved - male OR female - and thus making the act of sex little more than the grunting of animals.

(And here's where I expect you to say "That's what it is, isn't it?" which will merely prove my point.)

[leticia.livejournal.com]

Oh, and control of sex is about /controlling women/. You won't find one culture in history in which male sexuality is actually controlled beyond the 'don't be obvious about your screwing around' level. Control of /women/ - good women, that is (whores are, of course, an exception, because those men screwing around need someone to fuck) - is the issue.

[evilcarp.livejournal.com]

Now, to continue with my earlier sentiments. Even after walking away and leaving this for a couple of hours, I'm still nearly stunned by how absolutely ridiculous your statement about not finding one culture in history in which male sexuality is more than minimally controlled. I suppose you could say that yes, you won't find one culture, you'll find almost all of them.

In our own culture, sexuality in general is still frowned on to a great degree. Lots of parents today think there's something wrong with their kids, whether male or female, when they catch them masturbating. Male homosexuality is far more socially stigmatized than female sexuality. Also, the idea of having sex with prostitutes or any woman one isn't married to is expressly forbidden by an overwhelming number of religious and secular traditions, including socialism. Historically in the U.S., male sexuality has been heavily regulated. There have been times when a man who had sex with someone of another race would be looked won upon and were subject to legal penalties. Sexuality for men and women is still regulated through age of consent laws. In Kansas, all sex with anyone under the age of 16 is illegal, even if both partners are under 16 and the same age. If a girl under the age of 16 sought prenatal care, it would be assumed she was a victim of rape and her partner could be prosecuted.

Christian control over male sexuality is incredibly complex. There are plenty of schools of thought which make the ideal of male sexuality celibacy. They didn't just tell women they had to reign their hormones in. In Catholicism before the 12th century, castration was not uncommon among monks and some lay people. Judaism requires that men get circumsized, which reduces pleasure during sex. This is not the reason Jews get circumsized, but it is the reason it became so popular in the US. It was supposed to be a way to get boys to masturbate less. Now, supposedly, it' sconsidered healthier than going uncircumsized (even though there's only very weak and unconfirmed evidence to support this). Really, people let doctors cut up their babies because they want them to look "normal" and not be shunned. They're already setting the groundwork to control their boy's sex life.

I'm unclear on whether you meant tos ay that prostitues are not controlled. It seems as if you're saying only "good" women are. If anything, prostitutes are controlled more than any other woman. Their trade is illegal in most places, after all (I'm sticking to the U.S. at this point). They get arrested for exchanging something that should belong to no one but themselves for money. Because we make it illegal, however, their bodies and sexuality no longer belong to them. They have to seek protection from cops and from people who will rape and beat prostitutes because they know they have no way to defend themselves legally. They end up selling themselves to pimps who control not just their sexuality, but every aspect of their lives.

Even in the one state where prostitution is legal, the women are still controlled. They have to work in certain places, at certain times. They can't live with a man who they aren't married to, because he might be a pimp. They have to get regular check ups, which sounds good, but the state can lock them up in quarantine whenever it feels like it. Instead of being slaves to some pimp, they're slaves to the state.

Now, men and women are certainly not equal and there are a lot of cases in which female sexuality is demonized more than male sexuality is. We could make a very strong case for the idea that Christianity has been making a two thousand year crusade to vilify female sexuality. I do strongly believe that women need to take control of their own sexuality and be proud of it. However, it is beyond ignorant to say that controling sex is only about controling women. Controling sex is about controling people, men and women can be victims or perpetraters.