CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Pornography isn't just about sex and nudity. In many cases it is often a case of "get in the shot and do some dirty scenes," which can go far beyond just "sex and nudity." One common example is abuse; pornography is often filled with abuse, both physical and mental. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that calling a girl a "whore or slut" while doing her head in to the point of causing her pain isn't simply "sex" or "nudity." On top of that, it certainly is not natural. Note: this is an occurring example that does not necessarily happen all the time, but it does happen. In fact, one thing that many people find hard to believe is that rape is often posted online with the intent of being viewed as simple pornography.
"unlike the graphic violence many of them see on television nearly every day."
As you would now note from the above text in my first paragraph, violence can also occur in pornography.
Consider this: a young boy (let's call him Billy) at the age of 11 watches a porno involving a woman getting raped by three men. The men are screaming at her as they rape her, and they are physically harming her as they do so. Billy does not want to ask his parents, so he decides to ask his friends. His friends do not understand what Billy is talking about, so Billy shows them the video. Soon enough, Over fifty kids of Billy's age are watching rape videos, who are all now gaining a negative vantage point when it comes to knowing about sex. Even if Billy came clean and asked about the video, that would not help the situation that now involves over fifty other children of Billy's age.
The debate failed to differentiate between pornography and violent pornography.
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that calling a girl a "whore or slut" while doing her head in to the point of causing her pain isn't simply "sex" or "nudity."
What you are describing would be classified as 'language' and 'violence' by the MPAA. Language is also a common element in our society.
On top of that, it certainly is not natural.
What is unnatural about the body or bodily functions?
"I don't know what porn's like - I don't watch it."
You don't need to watch porn to see how it affects society.
"This debate failed to differentiate between pornography and violent pornography."
Thus violent pornography can be used as an example.
"What you are describing would be classified as 'language' and 'violence' by the MPAA. Language is also a common element in our society."
Classifications do not justify the act or state of the pornography in question, they are simply a reminding statement which describes what sort of content will be displayed within the film. For one thing, children do not stop and read classifications, they are more concerned with what they are going to see rather than how they are going to immediately interpret it. Children don't watch pornography with the immediate assumption that it is going to change their lives forever. When you refer to language, you openly refer to the fact that bad language is an accepted part of society. Firstly, that is not entirely true, as there are prohibition laws for bad language in certain areas and specific places. Secondly, pornography is not everywhere in our society, and it should be simple enough to understand why. This understanding is the whole point of my side; to convince you why it is wrong for kids to watch pornography.
"What is unnatural about the body or bodily functions?"
Sex isn't always just about the body or bodily functions; in pornography, body or bodily functions aren't always the concern. For example, rape is a horrific, haunting experience, as labeled by many of it's victims. Rape is an unnatural process, and to label it so would be only for the wrong reasons.
"P.S If I am not mistaken, violent porn is illegal. Thus they oughtn't watch it one way or another."
Kids aren't going to stop watching violent porn just because it is illegal. Example: kids graffiti the streets; that is illegal. Kids commit robbery; that is illegal. So on, so forth.
You don't need to watch porn to see how it affects society.
What affect does porn have? Does it cause the societies morals to decline? No! Studies show that porn has a positive influence. Societies that watch more porn have lower rape rates. Did you read the link?
For one thing, children do not stop and read classifications, they are more concerned with what they are going to see rather than how they are going to immediately interpret it.
If they are going to get it one way or the other then this debate is pointless.
When you refer to language, you openly refer to the fact that bad language is an accepted part of society.
Rarely can I so much as leave my house without hearing profanity. Whether or not it is accepted, it is a ubiquitous part of modern American culture.
pornography is not everywhere in our society, and it should be simple enough to understand why.
My response was to the use of vulgar terms used in pornography.
For example, rape is a horrific, haunting experience, as labeled by many of it's victims.
As I said before, this debate failed to differentiate between violent porn and regular porn. Seeing as how violent porn is illegal, I failed to incorporate it into my original argument.
Rape is an unnatural process
Sex is natural. The sexual part of rape is natural - the methods used to coerce the victim into the sexual act are unnatural.
Kids aren't going to stop watching violent porn just because it is illegal.
Then why bother to debate it?
Example: kids graffiti the streets; that is illegal. Kids commit robbery; that is illegal. So on, so forth.
A wide variety of Prostitution, violence against women, a further spread of STD's; need I say more?
"Studies show that porn has a positive influence."
This depends on the viewer. If a child who is uneducated about sex suddenly stumbles upon a porn video of a woman getting smacked around, and ends up spreading the "smacking" to others in his school, would you call that a positive influence?
The topic discusses a situation like the above. Try showing how porn positively influences young children.
"If they are going to get it one way or the other then this debate is pointless."
Incorrect.
If a child discovers sex in an abusive or "inappropriately experimental" way, then this is a problem. Therefore, this debate has a clear and obvious point; kids need to learn it the right way.
"Rarely can I so much as leave my house without hearing profanity. Whether or not it is accepted, it is a ubiquitous part of modern American culture."
I never denied this.
"My response was to the use of vulgar terms used in pornography."
Which in itself is a problem if a young child is watching. We can't call society an excuse to use vulgar language; that is just pathetically ignorant.
"Sex is natural."
Correct.
"The sexual part of rape is natural -"
That's iffy... if it is highly abusive then I'd go with no, but if it was merely the sexual actions taken as if it were sex, then I would agree.
"Then why bother to debate it?"
You're missing the idea of this debate. I'm saying that youngsters shouldn't be watching pornographic films, I'm not calling for any action; it's just a debate.
"These are generalizations."
Note the word "Example".
These examples occur with a certain number of kids; this is an undeniable fact. Therefore, they are legitimate.
A wide variety of Prostitution, violence against women, a further spread of STD's; need I say more?
As the link stated, regular pornography does not raise aggression.
This depends on the viewer. If a child who is uneducated about sex suddenly stumbles upon a porn video of a woman getting smacked around, and ends up spreading the "smacking" to others in his school, would you call that a positive influence?
Violent porn is illegal and, in comparison to regular porn, quite rare. As I have stated on numerous occasions, they should not watch that subcategory of porn because it is illegal.
Try showing how porn positively influences young children.
Children are curious - viewing porn could keep them from becoming a voyeur or a peeping Tom. Their desire to see the 'forbidden' parts of the opposite sex's body would be reduced by watching porn. As the study clearly states, areas with higher access to porn has a lower rape rate; areas without access to porn have a higher rape rate. There were other 'connections' listed in the study, as well.
I'm saying that youngsters shouldn't be watching pornographic films
They should be able to watch pornography. They should not be able to watch violent pornography.
You have fallen prey to an urban legend. The common belief is 'porn increases aggression' - this belief was propagated by the Meese Report, which later turned out to be grossly erroneous. The Meese report stated that viewing pornography raises sexual aggression; however, the writers of the report (Christians and anti-porn activists, mostly) had an agenda: they wanted to eliminate pornography. The real results of their study was that pornography doesn't have a negative influence but that violent porn does have a negative influence.
"As the link stated, regular pornography does not raise aggression."
A couple of things:
1. Define "regular pornography."
2. Aggression can arise should a child get an example of what 'seemingly' violent sex can involve, and then decide to put it into practice.
"Violent porn is illegal and, in comparison to regular porn, quite rare. As I have stated on numerous occasions, they should not watch that subcategory of porn because it is illegal."
Kids are impressionable; porn doesn't have to be classified as violent in order to create a violent impact on a child psychologically. Legal or Illegal, rare or common, violent porn does exist. As I said anyway, porn can appear violent to a child from simply one hard tap on a woman's behind. Need an example of an impact? Observe typical American teenagers, many put the hand motions in practice from time to time. This occurs from learning, and we don't want younger kids to be learning as well.
"Children are curious - viewing porn could keep them from becoming a voyeur or a peeping Tom. Their desire to see the 'forbidden' parts of the opposite sex's body would be reduced by watching porn."
Or it could perhaps inspire children to further enhance the sensations that are received from pornography by taking up such acts as those of a voyeur or a peeping Tom. These desires are common and natural, and pornography isn't always going to satisfy the urges that follow. It really does depend on the child.
"As the study clearly states, areas with higher access to porn has a lower rape rate; areas without access to porn have a higher rape rate. There were other 'connections' listed in the study, as well."
So, based on the study, you have derived the belief that pornography acts as a solution to rape? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that pornography should be shown to youngsters, after all, they aren't the ones committing the rape are they?
"They should be able to watch pornography. They should not be able to watch violent pornography."
They should not be able to watch pornography. Anyone should not be able to watch violent pornography.
"You have fallen prey to an urban legend."
In response to that whole paragraph:
The writers of the Meese Report were focused on eliminating pornography. By writing these arguments, I am stating that pornography should be available for view for older teens and those of ages above, but not for youngsters, as the topic defines the focus towards "youngsters". Though my argument and theirs may appear identical, I am not simply focusing on aggression. Aggressive behaviors are shown in many pornographic videos, from a hard tap to overall abuse. Also shown within pornographic videos are experimental forms of sex, often which can seem confusing. Pornography can often involve individuals of the same gender, which can also create confusion within young children. There are many observable aspects of pornography, all of which create impacts of their own.
Kids are impressionable; porn doesn't have to be classified as violent in order to create a violent impact on a child psychologically. Legal or Illegal, rare or common, violent porn does exist.
Have you not read anything I said regarding violent pornography? If it is violent, then it should not be watched. You do not need to convince me of that.
As I said anyway, porn can appear violent to a child from simply one hard tap on a woman's behind.
You can see a female's buttocks be hit in innumerable television shows and movies. While not always pornographic in nature, they are still going to see it one way or another.
Or it could perhaps inspire children to further enhance the sensations that are received from pornography by taking up such acts as those of a voyeur or a peeping Tom.
That has been the common belief for years. It has been disproved by the study I linked to in a previous argument.
Granted, some may become voyeuristic, as can adults - however, if the child sees no pornography, that curiosity will still be there. They will still become voyeurs or peeping Toms. Pornography can take away the curiosity and reduce the number of children who commit such acts.
So, based on the study, you have derived the belief that pornography acts as a solution to rape?
No. It reduces the number of rapes - it decreases the urge.
but that doesn't mean that pornography should be shown to youngsters, after all, they aren't the ones committing the rape are they?
Maybe, but there are other sexual crimes that they can - and do - commit: Frotteurism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, scatologia, thievery, breaking into movie theaters - the list goes on. They are going to assuage their curiosity one way or the other; pornography assuages that curiosity in a non-criminal way. Of course there are going to be those who wait, but there still will be some who commit those crimes.
In response to that whole paragraph:
Everything can impact a child. So much as seeing a simulated sex scene in a movie can create impression, with or without nudity. It may even shock them if they've never seen it before.
Fetishes are not extremely uncommon. It is possible that they'll develop a fetish or two whether or not they watch fetishistic porn. Kinsey believed that most children experimented with intercourse (this was back in the 50s, mind you) during elementary school. Though I have yet to have read more than a few chapters, the book is quite fascinating:
Homosexuality is commonly believed to not be a choice but to be something that they are born with. If that is true then viewing homosexual porn should not influence them too much.
The more pornography that they view the less that one experimental form can influence them. Say that they watch eleven 'normal' pornography videos and one 'abnormal' pornographic video. While I've little doubt that the 'abnormal' video will intrigue them, they'll have enough experience to understand that it is not natural, so to speak.
Well have you ever searched for porn and came up with a rape video? If you did it was most likely staged, and quite obviously might I add.
A kid wouldn't end up watching a rape video labeled under pornography unless he/she payed for it or was really trying hard to find a rape video. A kid of 10-12 only knows of very simple things when looking for pornography. Such as sex, intercourse, fucking, and essentially simple words. So yes I am still on my side.
"Well have you ever searched for porn and came up with a rape video?"
It isn't about searching for rape videos. I am stating that rape videos do exist alongside pornography.
"If you did it was most likely staged, and quite obviously I might add."
Perhaps this is true, and perhaps it is obvious to Adults and Older Teens, but this would not necessarily be the case for younger children. If a young child watches a rape video labeled as pornography, the child has received incorrect education. For this reason, kids shouldn't be searching for porn in the first place.
"A kid wouldn't end up watching a rape video labeled under pornography unless he/she payed for it or was really trying hard to find a rape video."
Where is the evidence to suggest this? Pornography can be found, regardless of the duration or level of abuse. Since young kids most likely aren't paying for porn, they are going to look at free sites, which probably will contain abusive pornographic videos.
Whether it is rape or harsh abuse, labeled pornography can send bad messages, and if anyone can watch them, kids can watch them.
"A kid of 10-12 only knows of very simple things when looking for pornography."
Well, if rape/abusive videos are labeled as simple "porn," then that would support my argument that kids can have unknowing access to it.
"So yes I am still on my side"
Even if it means simplifying the difficulty of arguing against your side? That's what seems to be happening.
I am Mercy,I visited your page today and i really want to have some personal words with you. We may be friends because it will help us to know ourself better.Send me a mail on([email protected]) and i will send you my photo.
Masturbation shouldn't be existent with young children (not talking about mid-aged teens), because they are still being introduced to love. A schoolyard crush is as far as it would need to go, they don't need to know about the nature of sex until they are old enough to understand and control it. If you teach a girl about sex too soon, there is a chance that she will grow into a sex addict, and will possibly end up working as a prostitute for several years. The same can easily be said for boys.
"But i don't think its good for adults."
Care to explain?
Adults are mature enough to understand what sex is, children can't grow up thinking that pornography is the basis of which sex is made. I don't see how it can be good for kids, but not good for adults.
If they think ther mentally ok to watch them leave them watch it, theres nothing wrong with it its a natural born thing, there going to be doing it soon enough
listen its a topical issue but regardless of your view its impossible to stop someone watching it. im not gonna lie that button which says "by clickin enter i confirm i am over18" is not much of a deterant.
in my view its only natural at that age to have urges and this is a natural outlet for it
If they want to watch porn, let them. If they want to watch violent or unusual porn, let them as well.
What is important is that children be taught the difference between fantasy and reality. Porn is a depiction of fantasy sex, not a depiction of real-life sex. The participants in porn movies are only acting, and they take many safety and health precautions that happen off-camera. As long as children understand these concepts - and children can be taught these things; they're not stupid - porn won't hurt them any more than any other form of entertainment.
Look, arguing yes for this debate has a problem. Kids shouldn't watch porn just because they are missing out on sex life or should be entitled to see how sex works. Since we mention "youngsters" in the title, we do not focus simply on teenagers. Would you want a 10 year old boy who didn't know anything about sex watching a 26 year old prostitute get banged by some 20 year old guys? This is one case, just one, out of the millions that occur with children of a similar age.
This kind of exposure sends the wrong kind of message to kids of a younger age. Some kids who see this kind of thing before learning about sex think that what they see in porno films is what sex is all about. Even worse, what if certain people in the video are abused by, or are abusive to their sexual partner(s)?
It is an obvious fact that sooner or later that children who reach the teenage stage in their lives will develop hormonal curiosities and will undoubtedly act upon them. Self control will be present, but it won't be dominant. So, teenagers are acting upon these feelings because they have learned how to, and since Mom and Dad haven't been doing practical lessons with the child, they are probably getting the idea of what to do after they've seen how it's done in pornography films. This is so common these days that it is considered a natural part of life. The problem is that the line of age where youngsters of a certain age can or can't watch porn is drawing back, meaning that younger kids are being exposed to a lot more than they should.
I say no not because I think pornography is inappropriate for all adolescents, but that specifically younger adolescents shouldn't be getting exposed to it as they have been. So before anybody decides to argue that I want pornography banned or some BS like that, please make a heavy note of the above sentence.
Look, arguing yes for this debate has a problem. Kids shouldn't watch porn just because they are missing out on sex life or should be entitled to see how sex works. Since we mention "youngsters" in the title, we do not focus simply on teenagers. Would you want a 10 year old boy who didn't know anything about sex watching a 26 year old prostitute get banged by some 20 year old guys? This is one case, just one, out of the millions that occur with children of a similar age.
Why shouldn't they witness it if they are curious and decide to go looking? It's a natural part of life and stigmatising it leads to hangups and psychological issues. Maybe it will inspire them to try a fantasy in real life.
This kind of exposure sends the wrong kind of message to kids of a younger age. Some kids who see this kind of thing before learning about sex think that what they see in porno films is what sex is all about. Even worse, what if certain people in the video are abused by, or are abusive to their sexual partner(s)?
We are capable of empathising and learning. Violence in pornography would inspire BDSM or dominance and subserviance roleplaying, but that's where it ends - roleplaying. Various kinds of pornography can help youths figure out what they like.
It is an obvious fact that sooner or later that children who reach the teenage stage in their lives will develop hormonal curiosities and will undoubtedly act upon them. Self control will be present, but it won't be dominant. So, teenagers are acting upon these feelings because they have learned how to, and since Mom and Dad haven't been doing practical lessons with the child, they are probably getting the idea of what to do after they've seen how it's done in pornography films. This is so common these days that it is considered a natural part of life. The problem is that the line of age where youngsters of a certain age can or can't watch porn is drawing back, meaning that younger kids are being exposed to a lot more than they should.
Typical rant used to justify the idea that people who watch television cannot think for themselves and will be forced to repeat what they see. It was used to incite fear against rock and role, rap, video games, television, and now pornography. It never occurs to you that people who act on it have a psychological proclivity. If a person watches a BDSM film, and acts on it, it's because they have a proclivity, not because they thought "gee, I should try that, looks interesting."
I say no not because I think pornography is inappropriate for all adolescents, but that specifically younger adolescents shouldn't be getting exposed to it as they have been. So before anybody decides to argue that I want pornography banned or some BS like that, please make a heavy note of the above sentence.
Pornography helps create a safe environment to explore your sexual tastes. Would you rather these adolescents and young ones were learning about hardcore fetishes from their friends and siblings, firsthand?
You should be a bit more specific about the term youngsters.
I'd say anybody under the age of 15 shouldn't really be watching porn. Its never going to happen though, because kids know how to use the internet, most the time better than their parents - which means they'll be jacking off about 10 times a day. They wouldn't be doing that if they had restricted access to the pornside of the internet. FACT.
I'm pretty sure I've wasted 100million hours of my life jacking off when I could have been doing something a lot more productive. Maybe that's why girls are doing better in education than boys. Because boys flick over to porn every other hour while girls will be studying.
There are countries where they have extremely limited access to porn. The kids are totally fine. Infact they tend to be better (but thats another story) They're normal kids... not horny teens who can't keep it in - which has now been accepted as normal in our societies.
Porn also raises the standards. For both men and women. I'm not sure if it's a good or bad thing - but it does raise the standards. I guess the argument is for those who don't meet those standards, their relationship is over. Instead of focusing on whether or not they're good partners people check how good they are in bed.
Pressurises everybody into having sex.
The list goes on to be honest. I can't be bothered to continue.
Most regular pornography (in particular, the genre known as 'Gonzo porn') shouldn't be viewed by people below their teens because it gives them a totally false view of human sexuality: it treats women (and to a lesser extent, men) as sexual playthings, teaches forms of sex which are painful or bizarre (anal sex, deep throat oral sex, double penetration, fisting, etc.) and, as a result, may be prone to giving young minds a completely false idea of sex, and is completely lacking in the human emotion of love.
On the other hand, if it were possible - a big 'IF', in my opinion - to make pornography (call it erotica if you want) which portrayed human sexuality in a the context of a relationship based upon love, trust, etc. then it shouldn't hurt anyone. Indeed, it could even be used in lessons on sex education in schools.
