[plug] [OT] Arguments in favour?

[Oliver White]

Leon Brooks wrote:

> Greg Mildenhall wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 May 1999, Leon Brooks wrote:
> >>>> Tom Atkinson wrote:
> >>>>> Well now, for starters, what is the problem with children seeing
> >>>>> pornographic material anyway?
> >>>>> What effect is it supposed to have on them?
>
> >> In practice, kids just don't handle it well. Destructive and painful.
> >> This is particularly so of the femmes, not because of any mental
> >> deficiency (a little the other way, in fact, at that age) but because
> >> they are left literally holding the baby when something, uh, comes
> >> unstuck.
>
> > From looking at porn?
>
> No, from putting what they see into practice.

Well you may bring your children up as you see fit. The issue of the bill
is not porn however, any kid who wants to get access to porn and has
unsupervised access to the net invariably will, bill or no bill. I would
argue that the social effects of the bill would be to make person-person
porn trading a more widespread activity among children. In my mind this a
more unhealthy activity for children than simply downloading porn
anonomously, but others may dissagree. I think we should remember that
children are sexualy capable often before they reach their teens. In some
cultures children are married at this age. Would it be unreasonable to
argue that a denial of these feelings and impulses by society could lead to
sexual dysfunction later? Perhaps it would, I'm just speculating.

--
Oliver White