# Nudity & Sex VS Children



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

It seems that in some cultures (including in the US), there's a big fear that exposing kids to nudity and sex is a bad thing. And yet, nobody can give me solid reasons and quantifiable damage that this causes?

Firstly, it's not boobs that makes people horny. It's hormones that make people horny. And if you take away the hormones, the sex drive also goes. Kids don't have these hormones until they hit puberty. So where is the problem exactly and could this facade be causing real damage?

The irony is that kids watch violent cartoons anyway... how is showing a boob worse?


----------



## Ben (Aug 23, 2009)

Kids learn by observation. Watching nudity and sex on TV before they're mature enough to understand that not everything on TV is appropriate encourages that kind of behavior, which may eventually lead to actual problems. TV violence doesn't excuse it, either; it also has negative effects on young children and should be monitored as well.

The fear is that it will cause future problems, not immediate ones, I think.


----------



## StandingTiger (Dec 25, 2010)

Values are imposed on us by our society. Many cultures view breasts/nudity as nothing out of the ordinary.

The fact that the average woman in the US keeps breasts hidden makes them more alluring. However, men are going to be drawn to anything that signifies healthiness, femininity, and fertility regardless.

But our Fe-style society needs to loosen the reigns a bit and let us each decide for ourselves what goes against our values.


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

Ben said:


> Kids learn by observation. Watching nudity and sex on TV before they're mature enough to understand that not everything on TV is appropriate encourages that kind of behavior, which may eventually lead to actual problems. TV violence doesn't excuse it, either; it also has negative effects on young children and should be monitored as well.
> 
> The fear is that it will cause future problems, not immediate ones, I think.


Seeing nudity on TV will make kids believe nudity is okay? Sounds healthy to me...

I think kids are more likely to wind up with future problems if they're completely sheltered from anything the parents subjectively deem "indecent". Sexual repression is much more damaging in my opinion than the NATURAL HUMAN FORM.

Violence, on the other hand, is something that should be regulated and explained to your children. Worth noting is that tons of kids (myself included) turn out fine and perfectly nonviolent, despite being into violent games/movies/TV.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

Ben said:


> Kids learn by observation. Watching nudity and sex on TV before they're mature enough to understand that not everything on TV is appropriate encourages that kind of behavior, which may eventually lead to actual problems. TV violence doesn't excuse it, either; it also has negative effects on young children and should be monitored as well.
> 
> The fear is that it will cause future problems, not immediate ones, I think.


So we should keep car ads and driving, drinking, and smoking out of TV too? Where does it stop? We should block all news channels because it may encourage kids to be extremist terrorists? 

What sort of negative effects later in life would showing a boob or sex cause exactly?


----------



## Michail (Jan 28, 2011)

i have very very unpopular views about these things haha. Everybody please don't think I'm some kind of pedophile because I believe these things, most people would consider me to still be a kid anyway as I'm underage myself. 

There is nothing inherently harmful about the idea of children and sex. nothing. Children are naturally sexual anyway, but it is suppressed by parents because parents believe that any instance of sex occurring in a child's thinking is negative and harmful and abusive. So they suppress it, and children grow up thinking sex is something that should be suppressed. Can't see sex on TV, can't see nudity, can't have "the talk" until they're "old enough", can't talk about masturbation (or anything relating to sex), can't ask questions about sex because they're deflected by adults, etc. It's entirely an unhealthy way to view the subject and you can see the results of that unhealthiness by the ADULTS in our country, who were once CHILDREN who had these SAME THINGS imposed on them. We don't talk about sex. We don't ask questions. We don't discuss more than necessary. We don't believe nudity is okay. We in turn don't expose our children to sex. The cycle continues. Our society has very unhealthy views about sex to be honest and it all stems from how we treat our children when it comes to sex. I don't think we should all have sex with children LOL but you know it isn't an abusive thing to educate. And then people talk about how you shouldn't expose children to sex because they will think it is okay, and they will ... what? Have sex? Because children never explore that topic by themselves anyway? Because no one actually engages them and educates them and listens to them? I don't know I think a lot of these ideals are ridiculous.


----------



## abster (Feb 9, 2011)

I think it depends on the context on how children are exposed to sex and nudity. Porn, sex scenes on tv/movies and sex child abuse does not help a child learn about sex and nudity positively but just further damages. I remember speaking to a child psychologist re: this and she said that imagine a child is a little cup and you try to fit a big rock inside, it doesn't work and it bogs down the child with too much information that their brain can not handle yet. If a child watches porn, sex scenes or exposed to sex abuse it may be that this creates excitement in them but still unable to graps or understand the information and their brains and bodies are not yet designed to handle this (same with violence) thus, children can act out sexually without understanding the consequences and responsibility of sex. A lot of primary/elementary schools now in australia (not sure about the US since i dont live there) now have sex education/ family planning education and this teaches children about their body parts and genitals, positive body image, changes in the body in adolescent years, about sex and how babies were made and how sex is a good thing but comes with responsibility and consequences such as unplanned pregnancy, emotional and physical risks and also about protection. Growing up without shame by Dennis Craig Smith and Dr. William Sparks maybe worth a read, its an interesting 5 year study which looks at the families who find a way to overcome the fear of exposing themselves both physically and intellectually to each other. it also speaks about how open commuinication is essential to protect children in the way they see sex and nudity. A child who learns to explore his/her genitals for example may be subjected to shame and told that this is wrong when a parent discovers a child doing this but if the parent does not shame the child and talks openly about that part and teaches the child that genitals is a special part of the body and can talk openly about sex than it doesnt restrict the child and the child maybe too busy to focus on the genitals because the child has other interests. Whereas a child who is restricted and told that its wrong, thats where the focus may be and the child may secretly continue to explore in that way with shame and not understanding that curiousity about sex and nudity may have consequences.


----------



## Ben (Aug 23, 2009)

intjdude said:


> So we should keep car ads and driving, drinking, and smoking out of TV too? Where does it stop? We should block all news channels because it may encourage kids to be extremist terrorists?
> 
> What sort of negative effects later in life would showing a boob or sex cause exactly?


It depends on the environment in which the child is raised. Some kids, instead of turning to their parents or researching for themselves, might turn to TV and believe the principles that television shows depict real life scenarios. In a sex scene, you (usually) never see the couple use or even mention protection, and they seemingly always walk away scotch free unless getting the girl pregnant was central to the plot. No mention of STD's, either. These can make children, when they get older and hormonal, that sex is a no strings attached kind of thing, and severely misinform them of the risks involved. 

I should be clearer, however; I am only arguing against explicit sex on TV. Showing a body part, as far as I know, won't do anything. It's the act that encourages the possible behavior.

As for drinking, smoking and violence on TV, I'm not saying it should be completely censored. Kids just need to be mature enough to handle it. There's a time for everything.


----------



## Peacock (Mar 11, 2011)

I think that children should be shown to be comfortable with their bodies, not fearful. I believe that a cause of young promiscuity is the lack of understanding. I was raised in an open house regarding sexuality and nudity. (My mother is practically a nudist.) I have never let myself be objectified by someone and have always been responsible regarding sex. Children are curious creatures.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Infants breastfeed. Breastfeeding is completely natural and advisable for the best health and survival of an infant. While that may seem like an inane comment, breasts become forbidden once the child hits age two or three. Why? Breasts have a sexual connotation. I don't think children would make that connection as it's too abstract. Even after hitting puberty, they may only then understand the appeal because of how "forbidden" they are or how they've been sexualized. 

If we didn't obsess so much over breasts, maybe we could get some work done :tongue:


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

My daughter's father is European and he grew up going to nude beaches with his family. The last thing I want is for my daughter to think that the human body is shameful or anything but beautiful. It is because it is so beautiful and not "taboo" that she respects hers.

I would never deny her access to tasteful art and other media that puts the human body in this perspective. There are films that show the human body in this light. However, I find most of them tend to be independent or made some place other than Hollywood.

I don't have hang ups about nudity or my daughter seeing it. But I do have a problem with violence on t.v. or the misuse of power being glorified.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

The odd thing is that everytime this question comes up, the majority seems to agree that nudity isn't a big deal... so why are things still the way they are?


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

intjdude said:


> The odd thing is that everytime this question comes up, the majority seems to agree that nudity isn't a big deal... so why are things still the way they are?


I would say this forum (as any online forum) is not an accurate sample of the general public (I'm using the USA here, as we seem to have the biggest hangups regarding this stuff). Also, the people who are uncomfortable about the subject are the ones who are the most rigid about it. It's easy for all of us to not care; we already don't. It's much harder to get a group of people who feels strongly about a nonissue to stop caring about that issue.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

intjdude said:


> The odd thing is that everytime this question comes up, the majority seems to agree that nudity isn't a big deal... so why are things still the way they are?


I think it will take time to adjust to the change for many. It was regulation in the 1950s and 1960s that couples on television never share the same bed and that if they were kissing, one foot always had to be touching the ground. It was part of a series by IFC called Indie Sex.


----------



## AussieChick (Dec 27, 2010)

I want my children to feel comfortable with their bodies,but there are certain things that need to be age appropriate,and adults need to realise that they are role models and that children are like sponges absorbing everything.My husband used to walk around the house naked when our kids were little,and he even tried having sex with me when our son was in the bed,and let our sons watch pornography when i wasn't home.These are not appropriate behaviours for adults to encourage children to do.But things like tasteful artworks and teaching children not to be ashamed of their bodies are ok.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

I bet that porn is more widespread in countries that censor nudity than in countries that don't. By labeling nudity and sex bad and guilty pleasures just creates an industry that serves that theme.

Last night I happened to watch a foreign film from Iceland which had plenty of nudity in. It's about a lazy guy who is 30 and still living with his mother. Their tub doubles as the kitchen bench and the dude is just naked in there all the time with his mom and mom's friend in the room. It's all pretty normal it seems. It kind of reminds me of Japanese culture where they sometimes take family baths together... all naked of course..

If you make nudity and sex perceptually common, then you can't really build an exotic perception of it as much as the porn and fashion industry has.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

While I have no **real** issues with nudity, I do not think kids should be exposed to _actual sex_. I wouldn't let my daughter (who is 4) watch a movie with sex scenes in it. There is a big difference between nudity and sex. I also don't understand why being nude is automatically something sexual.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Eerie said:


> While I have no **real** issues with nudity, I do not think kids should be exposed to _actual sex_. I wouldn't let my daughter (who is 4) watch a movie with sex scenes in it. There is a big difference between nudity and sex. I also don't understand why being nude is automatically something sexual.


Agreed. I wouldn't feel comfortable with sex to the point of showing it to my child or even engaging in it in front of them. I think that's inappropriate.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

Eerie said:


> While I have no **real** issues with nudity, I do not think kids should be exposed to _actual sex_. I wouldn't let my daughter (who is 4) watch a movie with sex scenes in it. There is a big difference between nudity and sex. I also don't understand why being nude is automatically something sexual.


Honestly, I don't think a kid would have any interest. It's much like driving. They wouldn't have interest in it until they are that age where there's a need to fill. Without the hormones, I just don't see it affecting them... they'll just wonder what the attraction of it actually is. 

And lets be honest, kids find things out from their friends anyway as they age... then there's the internet and tv that they watch on their own.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

So? I'd let her find things out on her own time then, I'm not going out of my way to expose my child to sex. And I remember being 5-6, they understand more than you think they do.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

To me it doesn't matter whether kids will see it eventually or not. At a young age, they can't properly understand sex & the implications of sex, which means they're at risk of forming dangerously immature opinions about a very mature subject. The same logic applies to any number of things. You wouldn't show a kid some autopsy photos, even though they might eventually see something like that when they get older.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

Eerie said:


> So? I'd let her find things out on her own time then, I'm not going out of my way to expose my child to sex. And I remember being 5-6, they understand more than you think they do.


Exactly, so there's no need to pretend. But just because they understand the concept doesn't mean they are interested.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

timeless said:


> To me it doesn't matter whether kids will see it eventually or not. At a young age, they can't properly understand sex & the implications of sex, which means they're at risk of forming dangerously immature opinions about a very mature subject. The same logic applies to any number of things. You wouldn't show a kid some autopsy photos, even though they might eventually see something like that when they get older.


I don't think many adults understand the implications of sex. I don't see the point of shielding kids from the topics they will face in reality sooner or later... the earlier they face them the better if you asked me. Firstly, it'll excercise their brain at an early age, secondly, it allows them to think about it before the hormones kick in. Many of these arguments are that kids 'can't think' but that isn't actually the case...kids can certainly think, they just don't have real life experience/perspective. All of these arguments that it's bad for kids have been speculative thus far... name one concrete study or cause and effect that has come from early exposure to sex or nudity? I think it's mostly about the 'how they are exposed to it' than the 'what'. 

The thing is that you can put your head in the sand like an ostrich, but your kids know about sex anyway...so where's the point?


----------



## Ben (Aug 23, 2009)

intjdude said:


> I don't think many adults understand the implications of sex. I don't see the point of shielding kids from the topics they will face in reality sooner or later... the earlier they face them the better if you asked me.* Firstly, it'll excercise their brain at an early age,* secondly, it allows them to think about it before the hormones kick in. *Many of these arguments are that kids 'can't think' but that isn't actually the case...kids can certainly think, they just don't have real life experience/perspective.* All of these arguments that it's bad for kids have been speculative thus far... name one concrete study or cause and effect that has come from early exposure to sex or nudity? I think it's mostly about the 'how they are exposed to it' than the 'what'.
> 
> The thing is that you can put your head in the sand like an ostrich, but your kids know about sex anyway...so where's the point?


You're assuming kids think like adults. They don't. They weigh risks and rewards differently (especially during puberty/adolescence) and form opinions using different criteria than adults. 

Everyone goes through a mental maturation process; as a child grows older, they are able to think abstractly, but at a young age it's much more difficult to think in any way other than concretely. So they won't necessarily be able to reason that sex isn't a big deal; if on TV sex and nudity is presented as holyshitthisisawesomefucktherulesI'mhorny, that's how they will likely see it, especially if they don't have a parent figure to tell them otherwise.

Reference: Piaget's developmental theory

Another link, since you asked. This website links watching sex on TV with higher levels of teen pregnancy. I am unsure of its validity, however, so you will need to check that out for yourself. Exposure to Sex on TV May Increase the Chance of Teen Pregnancy | RAND 

Some supplementary info: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9068/index1.html

It really doesn't matter if they will see it sooner or later. There is a time and place for everything, and rushing a child's development and exposure to certain subjects won't help things.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

Ben said:


> You're assuming kids think like adults. They don't. They weigh risks and rewards differently (especially during puberty/adolescence) and form opinions using different criteria than adults.
> 
> Everyone goes through a mental maturation process; as a child grows older, they are able to think abstractly, but at a young age it's much more difficult to think in any way other than concretely. So they won't necessarily be able to reason that sex isn't a big deal; if on TV sex and nudity is presented as holyshitthisisawesomefucktherulesI'mhorny, that's how they will likely see it, especially if they don't have a parent figure to tell them otherwise.
> 
> ...


See, I don't consider sexual activity a negative thing. That is the problem... that we're being taught that sex is the problem. The problem isn't sex. The problem is pregnancy and disease. Lets not confuse the two. It's like saying 'don't drive because crashing is dangerous'. Ya?

Firstly, those studies are about teens. As I already mentioned, teens are subject to hormones. Kids aren't. Those 'sex' content shows are also on the TV when kids are 7 but you don't hear rampant sexual activity among those. Of course if you show sexual images to teens who are hormonal they may act out... this is what I already implied. But which is worse: Teens exposed to sex on tv without prior sex ed or teens exposed to sex on tv after sex exposure in their younger years? This is a good question indeed.

If sex is kept from kids in the younger years it becomes an exotic activity (it's a guilty pleasure)... that's why shows like FRIENDS, as one of the article describes, could be pretty dangerous... the cool kids are doing it... but this isn't a problem of sex on tv, this is a bigger problem of culture and the way we go about it... do you really want FRIENDS to establish what sex is for your kids? Most of that crap is something like 'we are cooler than you and we have tons of sex with everyone unlike you'. It's the same with other shows like Seinfeld, etc.

The early pregnancy issues in the US have to do with the culture itself and for profit TV. Other countries have more graphic content on TV and don't suffer as much. Obviously the problem is something bigger...


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

Why would you want to expose your kids to sex, for the first time, when they are most hormonal?


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

intjdude said:


> Why would you want to expose your kids to sex, for the first time, when they are most hormonal?


I've made sure my daughter's education about sex came from me. Her mind does not process information the same way adults do. There is only so much you can put into their little brains without them becoming some sort of maniac.

I have always been honest with my daughter about sex _but in age appropriate fashion._ I can do this because I am her mother. I know what is out there and I know many wrong ideas about sex are out there. It is essential that I not only guard her to the best of my ability from being exposed to those things too soon, but that when she _is_ exposed to those things, she is less _influenced_ by them because she already has a different understanding about sex and her body.

I was molested as a child. I have devoted a huge portion of my life doing research on prevention. There is no way I would I send my daughter out into the world, even at kindergarten age, without some age appropriate knowledge of her body and sexuality. Yes, I did it even then. I could still tailor the information. As a parent I am _supposed_ to be responsible and guard her brain and protect it. It is my job. And no, I don't believe making her watch hollywood type movies "let's bang and have unrealistic type sex" would have helped her in anyway. You can molest a child physically _and_ emotionally. 

Every year, I have to let go of the shield more and more. I've always known I there are times I couldn't be around 100%. That is why the main thing I've always wanted for her is to _trust herself_ and the values I've tried to fill her head with since she was born. She is more prepared for what is thrown at her that I can't control.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Saying it is just about pregnancy and disease, is kind of a working against fear model, which is cool, but we also on the other hand, all have ideals, and love we want to provide for the child as well, from the other end of the model. We can want our kids to be less intruiged by sex, so that they can have less peer pressure, and more romance (waiting for the right guy) etc... 

It might be possible to remove the taboo of sex completely (which is another factor) for some people, but others will always feel a deep connection with sex, and therefore know the dangers of forming that connection without some other criteria.

Then, there is also the cultural mores. We might value removing the taboo, if say we look at the problem as pregnancy and disease only, however, we must balance our idealism, with a healthy pragmatism, so that we dont become self righteous etc.. later in life, so that we can develop healthy relatinships with people etc.. If we value that to that degree that is.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

Souled In said:


> Saying it is just about pregnancy and disease.


This is a good question isn't it. Let's say that there was no such thing as pregnancy and disease in sex. What is left and what age is the right age?

If there was no pregnancy or disease, is it a problem having sex at 14? Remember, there's no pregnancy or disease. I'm not sure that there would be a quantifiable problem. What would it be?


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

One measurement would be "deviance" when related to any degree of social structure. This depends on both knowledge of society, as well as what we privately consider deviant.

The other measurement would be emotional development, and our perception of such. This is the main topic being discussed I think.

It is good to treat both as factors, since learning habits that might be various degrees of deviant in certain cultures, might effect the emotional development.

The other measurement I will list is the opposite of deviance, but idealistic, our ideals, that will effect the emotional development as well.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

Souled In said:


> One measurement would be "deviance" when related to any degree of social structure. This depends on both knowledge of society, as well as what we privately consider deviant.
> 
> The other measurement would be emotional development, and our perception of such. This is the main topic being discussed I think.
> 
> ...


What are you getting at? Are you implying that having sex at 14 is going to stunt someone emotionally? Or?


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

How could someone even suggest that "I don't consider sexual activity a negative thing." when it comes to children, or am I missing something here ...


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

Eerie said:


> How could someone even suggest that "I don't consider sexual activity a negative thing." when it comes to children, or am I missing something here ...


Well, that's actually a good debate isn't it... if two 10 year olds have sex without the possibility of pregnancy or disease, is it a bad thing? How?


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

intjdude said:


> What are you getting at? Are you implying that having sex at 14 is going to stunt someone emotionally? Or?


It could or it could not, depending on various factors and how you define "stunt." I have outlined some of those factors in the section you have quoted.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I don't think there is anything wrong with being naked around one's children, or allowing one's children to be naked. In fact, I don't think there is anything wrong with nudity, including public nudity, and I think it is wrong for there to be laws against it. 

Sex is a different, more complex issue. I believe children should be told about sex as soon as they are old enough to understand, and should be given age-appropriate answers to their questions about it. It should not be hidden from them, but the manner in which it is revealed to them should be carefully controlled.

I do not think children should be exposed to manipulative media that devalues sex by turning it into something trashy and casual, nor do I think they should be exposed to anything that might cause them to associate sex with a specific physical stereotype while they are still young enough to pattern on whatever they are shown. For example, I do not think it is acceptable to expose children to pornography that will cause them to have unrealistic or inappropriate expectations about sex, or about what their future partner should look like, should enjoy, should do to them, etc. 

I definitely think it is good to talk to them about sex. I don't see anything wrong with showing them loving, realistic married couples making love as part of a television program or movie, and I don't think such things ought to be censored. The problem occurs when sex is detached from the idea of intimacy, and is shown outside of the context of loving relationships. Children who are commonly exposed to images of people who are sexualized without there being any significant personal or emotional reason for the sexualization will likely end up detaching love from sex, and could grow up thinking that sex is something primarily physical, to be enjoyed with another body rather than another PERSON. This will almost certainly have a negative impact on their adult sex lives, and will create a self-perpetuating cultural catastrophe in which life imitates art, which will imitate life, setting the expectations of the next generation. If this occurs, it will not take long for previously unacceptable things become normal, subtly undermining romantic relationships by shifting their most problematic aspects until they seem like mere background issues, if they are noticed at all. Loveless coupling will simply become part of a seemingly neutral familiar reality, and this will be how all relationships come to be defined.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

intjdude said:


> Well, that's actually a good debate isn't it... if two 10 year olds have sex without the possibility of pregnancy or disease, is it a bad thing? How?


You might actually get a lot of information about various viewpoints that involve people's personal ethics by reading some information on basic ethics and anthropology.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

snail said:


> I do not think children should be exposed to manipulative media that devalues sex by turning it into something trashy and casual, nor do I think they should be exposed to anything that might cause them to associate sex with a specific physical stereotype while they are still young enough to pattern on whatever they are shown. For example, I do not think it is acceptable to expose children to pornography that will cause them to have unrealistic or inappropriate expectations about sex, or about what their future partner should look like, should enjoy, should do to them, etc.


This seems to be what most parents actually do in practice.. one thing is for sure, you can't trust the corporations that air majority of programs on TV... what they care most is about their cash cow... whatever the fuck sells, goes... Friends, Jerry Springer, MTV, etc...anything that makes big bucks at whatever social cost is A-OK. But yet, this is current culture.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

intjdude said:


> I don't think many adults understand the implications of sex. I don't see the point of shielding kids from the topics they will face in reality sooner or later... the earlier they face them the better if you asked me. Firstly, it'll excercise their brain at an early age, secondly, it allows them to think about it before the hormones kick in. Many of these arguments are that kids 'can't think' but that isn't actually the case...kids can certainly think, they just don't have real life experience/perspective. All of these arguments that it's bad for kids have been speculative thus far... name one concrete study or cause and effect that has come from early exposure to sex or nudity? I think it's mostly about the 'how they are exposed to it' than the 'what'.
> 
> The thing is that you can put your head in the sand like an ostrich, but your kids know about sex anyway...so where's the point?


You must be living in alternate reality if you really think that the argument is that kids "can't think." It's that kids can't fully understand the situation. Just because some adults can't doesn't mean that kids should be forced to try when they obviously don't have the capacity for it. I wouldn't hand a loaded gun to a 4 year old even if it was just to "exercise" their brain. They can't understand the consequences.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

timeless said:


> You must be living in alternate reality if you really think that the argument is that kids "can't think." It's that kids can't fully understand the situation. Just because some adults can't doesn't mean that kids should be forced to try when they obviously don't have the capacity for it. I wouldn't hand a loaded gun to a 4 year old even if it was just to "exercise" their brain. They can't understand the consequences.


Handing them a loaded gun and talking about a loaded gun are two different things.


----------



## Ben (Aug 23, 2009)

intjdude said:


> But which is worse: Teens exposed to sex on tv without prior sex ed or teens exposed to sex on tv after sex exposure in their younger years? This is a good question indeed.


Neither, if they're both misinforming the child involved. Watching sex scenes as a child doesn't count as sex ed. In all probability, it will only breed misconceptions about sex that might endure into adolescence. The problem with TV is that it's not accurate in it's portrayal of sex, and that could cause problems. 

If a parent wants their child to be knowledgeable about sex, they should offer them age appropriate information using their own research, not TV. Again, there is a time and place to learn everything.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

intjdude said:


> Handing them a loaded gun and talking about a loaded gun are two different things.


 I don't think Timeless was referring to talking to your children about sex. I believe it was more about exposing your children to material that may rape their brain. And you were going a step further when you spoke of them actually engaging in it. So maybe we coming closer to being on the same page?

However, handing your child a loaded gun and glorifying/exposing your child to graphic violence has the potential to cause them serious damage.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

pinkrasputin said:


> I don't think Timeless was referring to talking to your children about sex. I believe it was more about exposing your children to material that may rape their brain. And you were going a step further when you spoke of them actually engaging in it. So maybe we coming closer to being on the same page?
> 
> However, handing your child a loaded gun and glorifying/exposing your child to graphic violence has the potential to cause them serious damage.


That is what he quoted... talking about sex to kids.

But back to kids engaging in sex... can anyone actually argue objectively that this is damaging (provided that there is no pregnancy or disease)? If so, explain.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

intjdude said:


> That is what he quoted... talking about sex to kids.
> 
> But back to kids engaging in sex... can anyone actually argue objectively that this is damaging (provided that there is no pregnancy or disease)? If so, explain.


Are you speaking of consensual sex play? Discovering their own bodies? 

If you see children engaging in this stuff, wouldn't you want to make sure they have the values that go along with it?

Engaging in the actual sex act can conjure up powerful conflicting emotions. Depending on age, if you add that to some of the stress that is already there in maturing minds, it can pretty dysfunctional. Children are not mature emotionally. That is not rocket science is it? Have you not seen some of them run out into the street without looking where they are going or throwing tantrums in the supermarket?

The most damaging is when a child is taken advantage of or guilted into something they didn't want to do. They are innocent, they want to please. It's easy to do Here the limitation is 5 years. It doesn't matter if a child is _begging_ you for it, you're a molester if you engage.

I really don't know what you are asking here. But if you see overtly sexual behavior and a young child engaging in sex, there is a huge chance that they've been molested or someone is molesting them. This behavior _has_ to be paid attention to and evaluated.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

pinkrasputin said:


> Are you speaking of consensual sex play? Discovering their own bodies?
> 
> If you see children engaging in this stuff, wouldn't you want to make sure they have the values that go along with it?
> 
> ...


Um, well it seems that the topic here is a bit too spread out covering too many forms of sex. 

What I meant was: What sort of actual damage is guaranteed to be there if two 10 year olds engage in sex (out of their own curiosity) with absolutely no possibility of pregnancy or disease?

This is just an abstract question to discover whether sex at an early age is actually (objectively) wrong (damaging). The problem with the 'loaded gun' example is because a loaded gun can cause great damage obviously.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

intjdude said:


> Um, well it seems that the topic here is a bit too spread out covering too many forms of sex.
> 
> What I meant was: What sort of actual damage is guaranteed to be there if two 10 year olds engage in sex (out of their own curiosity) with absolutely no possibility of pregnancy or disease?
> 
> This is just an abstract question to discover whether sex at an early age is actually (objectively) wrong (damaging). The problem with the 'loaded gun' example is because a loaded gun can cause great damage obviously.


If two ten year olds were having sex, that tells me there is something going on and I'd report it.

Kids should be playing at 10. It's not a good sign.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

pinkrasputin said:


> If two ten year olds were having sex, that tells me there is something going on and I'd report it.
> 
> Kids should be playing at 10. It's not a good sign.


What do you suspect is going on? Can't they just be curious?


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

intjdude said:


> What do you suspect is going on? Can't they just be curious?


Penetration is pretty odd at that age. It's usually a sign that they have been or are being molested.

Also, I asked you if you were just talking about consensual sex play where kids are just being curious about their bodies. I view that as normal. But actively engaging in sex? No, not normal.

And even with consensual sex play, I would have to teach my child that it's normal to be curious. Our bodies _are_ wonderful. I wouldn't shame them for engaging in it, but I would teach them that they should keep their hands to themselves. I mean, they can't just go around doing this at school and touching people, right? 

It would also open up an opportunity to teach them about how special their body and beautiful their body is, and that's why we don't just share it with anyone. And that some day with someone when we really trust ... or whatever is appropriate to discuss at the time. 

Their upper lobes are still developing. We also need to teach them about self control.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

pinkrasputin said:


> Penetration is pretty odd at that age. It could be a sign that they have been or are being molested.
> 
> Also, I asked you if you were just talking about consensual sex play where kids are just being curious about their bodies. I view that as normal. But actively engaging in sex? No, not normal.
> 
> ...


Okay. But the question still stands. 

What sort of actual damage is guaranteed to be there if two 10 year olds engage in sex (out of their own curiosity) with absolutely no possibility of pregnancy or disease?


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

intjdude said:


> Okay. But the question still stands.
> 
> What sort of actual damage is guaranteed to be there if two 10 year olds engage in sex (out of their own curiosity) with absolutely no possibility of pregnancy or disease?


The consequences that were listed and what it may imply as listed. You are dismissing the answers given to you. 

I'm out.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

INTJ dude. If your personal ethics and morals allow that sleeping around is ok if you take pregnancy and disease out of the equation, then I agree that talking to kids about sex at a young age becomes much less relevant.

However, of course it is always relevant, and I admit, it is hard for me to judge the situation, without hard statistics shown. I'm just not sure.

However, I think sleeping around isn't good, at least until someone is in there late 20's (probably because I am in my late 20's).

I would rather keep people sexually, drug, mcdonalds, candy, cuss word, and hate free, until they really have the awareness to choose for themselves, without being addicted to "HIGHS," such as these. I'd rather kids, teenagers, college students, learn to appreciate life from an adventurous point of view, without those things, simply because if you get a rush of sugar, sex, drugs, winning fights, picking on others etc... we start to depend on those things.

So I reverse the question back to you INTJ dude.

At what age are you less likely to be influenced by drugs, or other actions that result in "very good feelings."

How do you talk to your kids, about something that is taboo, and explain to them, why taboo is attractive, how taboo things can be used as an easy way to gain access to social groups, which might be tempting if they have trouble fitting in?

And does that question not lead to the unifying question of: How do you control your kids self esteem?

*If you know how to control your kids self esteem, and you also know how to use that positive self esteem, as a way of introducing the awareness necessary for a kid to make good decisions, then yes, your suggestions are possible options.*

*Please list how you would do that with your kids.*

I will be much obliged.

Furthermore, if you can list ways that you can guarantee doing what is in bold, that would be better of course.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

intjdude said:


> That is what he quoted... talking about sex to kids.
> 
> But back to kids engaging in sex... can anyone actually argue objectively that this is damaging (provided that there is no pregnancy or disease)? If so, explain.


If this needs to be explained to you, then you obviously have bigger issues and should
seek some help, really. Your response is very bizzare and not of normal thought process.
Make that call, today!


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

pinkrasputin said:


> The consequences that were listed and what it may imply as listed. You are dismissing the answers given to you.
> 
> I'm out.


And where are those? 

I see you sidestepping the question all over the place. The closest I've read is "Engaging in the actual sex act can conjure up powerful conflicting emotions.".. but this doesn't tell me anything about the actual harm and damage that it causes. What I see are a bunch of preconceived notions of how 'kids should be playing', 'something else is going on', they are being 'molested', we need to teach them the 'values', etc. when it's a simple abstract question.

I'd like you (or someone else) to establish in tangible (reasonable) terms, how sex in those circumstances is still damaging.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Oh. 

He wants to make sure we aren't being over sheltering (from some preconceived notion), which has been responded to: 

"If you know how to control your kids self esteem, and you also know how to use that positive self esteem, as a way of introducing the awareness necessary for a kid to make good decisions, then yes, your suggestions are possible options."

Please respond how you would "control the variables."

Asking us to provide all the variables is just being lazy.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

Souled In said:


> INTJ dude. If your personal ethics and morals allow that sleeping around is ok if you take pregnancy and disease out of the equation, then I agree that talking to kids about sex at a young age becomes much less relevant.
> 
> However, of course it is always relevant, and I admit, it is hard for me to judge the situation, without hard statistics shown. I'm just not sure.
> 
> ...


Well, my argument isn't really about sleeping around or having promiscuous kids. Being transparent about sex is not the same thing as encouraging them to partake in it. Much like talking to your kids about drugs isn't encouraging them to try them. That is what many on here seem to be thinking. Also, I don't think this is a question about self esteem because we are merely being transparent about sex and nudity. This is not the same as encouraging them to be nudists or promiscuous.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> If this needs to be explained to you, then you obviously have bigger issues and should
> seek some help, really. Your response is very bizzare and not of normal thought process.
> Make that call, today!


If i were 'normal', i wouldn't be INTJ...duh

Perhaps you should call someone who will give you better argument? If you had a real argument you'd put that forth.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

intjdude said:


> Well, my argument isn't really about sleeping around or having promiscuous kids. Being transparent about sex is not the same thing as encouraging them to partake in it. Much like talking to your kids about drugs isn't encouraging them to try them. That is what many on here seem to be thinking. Also, I don't think this is a question about self esteem because we are merely being transparent about sex and nudity. This is not the same as encouraging them to be nudists or promiscuous.


No judge would agree with you.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

pinkrasputin said:


> No judge would agree with you.


I'd fire him anyway. And that is irrelevant to the actual question. :wink:


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

intjdude said:


> Well, my argument isn't really about sleeping around or having promiscuous kids. Being transparent about sex is not the same thing as encouraging them to partake in it. Much like talking to your kids about drugs isn't encouraging them to try them. That is what many on here seem to be thinking. Also, I don't think this is a question about self esteem because we are merely being transparent about sex and nudity. This is not the same as encouraging them to be nudists or promiscuous.


Thank you for the reply. I agree somewhat, but not entirely, and this is why:

The level of self esteem a kid has has a direct correlation on how easy it is to be transparent with kids in a helpful manner.

This is because being transparent is a form of "being constructive."

So look at it this way: Can you really have a constructive conversation with someone with low self esteem, lack of respect for you as a parent, or values that say "i just dont care?"

Those are three factors that will make what you say difficult, however, if the kid has respect for you, they have values that appreciate you and/ or growth, and, they are stable enough to actually "be objective," then what you are saying sounds like a progressive attitude towards prevention of negativity, and promotion of positivity, a normal parenting attitude, etc...

To conclude: Depression takes away the ability to "be objective." So to your question: "Why would it matter?" My answer is, if they are not emotionally stable.

------------------------------------------------------------------
That being said, there is a topic of disagreement beyond this foundation.

If we for theory sake assume the child is stable, what techniques have been studied to work with children well, and have good results?

If there are studies and statistics out there, it would be a great benefit here.

Otherwise, I really have no idea what level of transparency is good. Im sure others have lots of information or have already posted it.

On one other note. About having sex at a young age. I wouldn't see a problem if I didn't have certain spiritual beliefs. And I also made the argument of experiencing certain things too young can form addictions too easily. 

Later in life, if they choose that they want to stop having sex, IT WILL BE A LOT HARDER TO STOP, lol.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

@Souled In... I suppose on an individual level self esteem plays some role... but my argument is targeted mostly in general.

For teens, early sex and media exposure not linked, analysis finds

This chick agrees with me:
Exposure to Sex in the Media Requires Early Talk by Dr. Sylvia Rimm on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent


----------



## Dupree (Feb 21, 2010)

intjdude said:


> It seems that in some cultures (including in the US), there's a big fear that exposing kids to nudity and sex is a bad thing. And yet, nobody can give me solid reasons and quantifiable damage that this causes?
> 
> Firstly, it's not boobs that makes people horny. It's hormones that make people horny. And if you take away the hormones, the sex drive also goes. Kids don't have these hormones until they hit puberty. So where is the problem exactly and could this facade be causing real damage?
> 
> The irony is that kids watch violent cartoons anyway... how is showing a boob worse?


As much as sex is commercialized in our society, I do feel there's a tendency to hide it. All it really is is titillation which is why I sort of agree with you. It's a parent's and teacher's responsibility to educate children about sex. If children then witness sexual "taboos" in media they'll be able to decipher them as aberrations. This is not to say I object _all_ censorship of sex. There are some things children shouldn't be exposed to (ie. sexual violence) but I especially don't have any qualms with exposure to mere nudity.


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

As for the debate regarding whether sex or violence should be more restricted from children, my conversations with American religious conservatives have shown me that they aren't afraid kids will be inspired to actually injure and kill by what they see on TV, but they are overwhelmingly afraid that kids will learn that sex is ok and will actually follow through before they are "ready". They might not have the means to get a shotgun and blow someone's head off, or even slash a throat, but they can screw. 

And screwing feels good. 

As an aside--feeling good seems somewhat decadent to American religious conservatives. However, we have the purifying power of violence baked into our national mythos. Our nation was forged in a crucible of violence, war, and genocide. So there's that as well. Go USA!

Of course many of these people are deluded enough to think that just plain ignorance of sex constitutes a sort of Edenic innocence that shouldn't be violated by any knowledge of the workings of human reproduction. Thus, their girls are more at risk to have unwanted pregnancies and get STD's, and their boys are more likely to spread them. I've seen it happen quite frequently. It's also why abortion is more of an issue in the US than any other country: Western Europeans are generally open about sex education and contraception and their abortion rate per capita is a half or even a quarter of what it is in the US. If abortion really could be "safe, legal and rare" it wouldn't be as much of a hot-button issue.

Just another reason I consider American religious conservatives buffoons: Try to ban abortions and resist all attempts shown to reduce the need for abortions in the name of returning to some "Leave It to Beaver" world that never existed.

But I digress.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

I'm getting really sick of all the USA bashing. Grrr. lol. 

INTJ dude that did give me some perspective.

I read a study today that uses terms such as childhood fragility and infant determinism, calling them myths and untrue.

However they deal with stress and trauma, so they aren't really relevant.

Slowpoke has some good points besides bashing both my religion and country in the same post lmao.

I know we keep rehashing the same thing, but I think I agree that even more vivid sex scenes won't scar children, because they are somewhat reselient actually, however, 

it comes down to our norms, as you all are pointing out.

I just dont want them thinking its okay to have sex without knowing what I think about sex etc..

So videos like that would either be a tool against that or a tool for it, based on my parenting style.

You could always just call it "love making" or making babies, and talk about contraception later, but there is one thing maybe even more important.

Objectifying people, both men and women (I know a lot of people like to focus more on the women part of it), makes unrealistic expectations.

They think sex should look like that, which actually often times isn't realistic, and also has to do with body image.

Now, being in shape is a good thing. Everyone is fine the way they are, but we as a culture tend to move towards health and energy, so I'm not backing down from saying being in shape is a good goal for everyone.

However, there are issues of clothing, mannerisms, tans, fake things, fake situations, positions that are just for show business.

It is much different than as someone else pointed out, walking into a room seeing your parents doing it.

I know this was all over the place, but mainly I do agree with a lot of what youre saying, and these are the specific reasons I personally have a problem with some sex videos being seen by children.

You might argue that Disney movies could create the same kind of "consumerism materialistic fetishism" as a porn would though.

But I'm not sure and would certainly not seek to use anything like that as a tool without being 100% sure.

I do understaand your points a little better now though, despite all the conflict earlier.

Edit:

Freud's theory was mentioned earlier I think:









However, I think the article that was posted was still a bit extreme, because it said that intense pleasure and flushing and all that was common, which I disagree with.

So if you go off of Freud's Psychosexual model, you might end up with the picture below, but I don't think you can so easily control personality. We can definitely control their *knowledge and potential specific habits* though. One of the duties of a parent usually is to prepare the kid for the world. So, the parent has to be aware of what that world is, and when the child will be confronted with it. Otherwise, it doesn't really matter, and your theory or another could have the same result.


----------



## wilderness (Dec 30, 2009)

not exposing children to boobs.. ? 

dosent that discourage breastfeeding


----------

