Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (49632)	6/8/2002 1:16:40 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

It is just one of the issues that face parents that should be considered and dealt with in one way or another. It doesn't mean you give less time to other issues, or even that you place it high on your list of priority issues. I don't get the objections to your objections. I don't think there is much disagreement here as might appear. This discussion started with Jewel's comments on a news clip about the recent court decision setting aside parts of the law that deals with kids using the internet in libraries. Jewel was insistent on making a federal case out of it, literally, and there were some objections to his premise of a federal role. I inferred from his insistence on federal involvement that he was placing a particularly high priority on this risk as opposed to others. The whole discussion was very confusing with different people making different points from different inferences. Anyway, I think that much of the disagreement was about the relative weight of this risk, not so much on the risk itself.

To: Rambi who wrote (49632)	6/8/2002 3:53:18 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I agree with you, as usual. And there's an issue I didn't go into because it's kind of old news, and a feminist cliche, but I think it's real, so before we leave this subject, which I consider a sad one, I'll mention it. First, though, yes, those 'extreme' things are out there, and out there free; I know this because i've never paid for any, and have seen everything I've mentioned except 'golden showers,' and that i've read about as being available on the net. Okay, the cliche, a cliche in the category of cliche-because-true: One problem with young children, children 7 or 9 or 11 -- and even with teen agers, being exposed, and predictably that will be in many cases, to even 'main stream' kinds of pornography is that... it furnishes their erotic minds with certain kinds of imagery and triggers and expectations. This is so obvious I hesitate to say it, but what the hell: Average little girls and average teenagers will inevitably learn to expect, or hope, their bodies will some-day-and-forever-look like those 'enhanced' bodies that are so excitingly presented to them as maximally desirable. Little sexually-developing boys will inevitably learn to expect, and hope, that their real life sexual partners will look like the 'enhanced' images they're getting aroused by in their formative years. That the unrealistic 'models' are ever-present is an unfortunate but unavoidable fact of life; in a mild form, they're on Ally McBeal and in eroticized commercials and on music videos (don't get me started on those, for children)... ...to expand the submersion to the point that these unrealistic images, naked and writhing, become directly associated with not only self-approval, but with sought sexual arousal and with sexual acts and orgasm seems... not what good parents would want for their daughter or son's developing sexual psyches and ongoing personal lives.