Now you're comparing surfing porn to charity work. Did I miss something, because I don't remember anyone saying porn is as good as charity.

13 year olds are too young to see half the shit that's on the net. They also can't vote. Voting isn't morally corrupt, but you need to be mature enough to handle it.

Since we're now talking about underage sexual conduct it should be OBVIOUS that unless you are 18 you should not, lawfully, be looking at porn. From a realistic standpoint it is impossible to prevent this through legal enforcement without infringing on the rights of others. In this particular case it is the parents responsibility to regulate the access their children have to materials like these. If you catch your 13 year old watching porn, take away his internet or monitor it! 


Either way watching or partaking in sexual conduct which is consentual is NOT immoral. No matter which case you are talking about both individuals are willing exchanging something of value. Prostitution and porn are creations of the human mind, both have existed from the start of civilization. Some of the earliest books in midevil Europe were pornographic in nature, describing positions and fantasies. And what about the Kama Sutra? Is this a book of moral bankrupcy or an expression of artistic value and human emotion?

Yeah, that explains a lot.

Well....this is the great experiment isn't it?

Yours is the first generation of young men who will grow up with unfettored access to hardcore pornography at will.....results will manifest 30 years from now when you are 45 years old and your generation holds the power in all of our societies "establishment".....will this poison the mind of tomorrows men in positions of responsibility?

What will be the state of two parent families?

The wake of destruction that pornograpy and prostitution generally lie at the feet of our children....they are the ones who pay for the broken trust, broken marriages and dissolution of the only home they know....

Seeing as your morality is different than mine, my son does yes have access to porn on the internet.  And so far, he is 16, he has turned out pretty damn good.  One of the factors was that I doubted the dubious claims that porn will be the destruction of America that I had heard, and I felt that the trust between us for me not attempting to control his every action would be much more important.  He can look at porn.  And he doesn't that much.  He IS after all a 16 year old boy.  I trust my own experiences far more than I trust your dire claims of impending doom.

Two parent families?  Doubt the woes there can be laid at the feet or porn and prostitution entirely.  And yes sometimes it IS better to divorce. 

Broken trust has absolutley nothing to do with the two P's here.  If you are going behind your mates back, you will for something else.  Don't blame the P's.  IF you two are OK with it, and it is legal, no broken trust.  Which is what I meant that I don't agree with imposition of morality.  Broken marriages have pletny of other causes that P&P.  Unless you are claiming that they break up the majority of marriages?

This seems to be all over the place Patton, I don't quite get what you trying to say.  Or more to the point, maybe I do, but I think your conclusions do not follow from the evidence you have presented.

I don't agree with htose who said porn always existed.
Prostitution, yes always exsted but not porn, at least not in the form we know it today and certainly not with the level of acceptance we see today.

Sure in lot of periods (Azteque, Grece etc even in the Bible) there are archeological instances of hot stuffs but was it realy porn?

One thing is that it certainly didn't replace prostitution or real sexual intercourses as it does today. The reason is that the cost of pornographic images was as high if not higher than a visit to a prostitute.
For that reason also, hard core porn was the exception rather than the norm but these exception, because they are exceptionals crossed the ages and went noticed and remembered inevitably. Most of the time it was erotic artwork, not porn.
What is obvious is that artists were not obsessed or overpaid to represent these kind of things.

Then the question which comes to mind is "Is porn replacing prostitution?" and "What is better?".

Most of the answer depends of the type of porn and the type of prostitution.



If it's just naked chicks or some pleasant figures, no problems.

Here comes all the importance of the difference between porn and erotism.
Erotism is making the thing attractive while porn is making it digusting.

Porn is actualy more about showing dirty stuff, sometimes utterly repugnant, than sex.
There are some website which I realy wonder if poeple got here to be aroused or to have a maniac pleasure at looking at disgusting scenes...

The danger of porn is to turn the sexual relationship into something ugly, violent, dirty and void of pleasure.

Prostitution, when exerced under bad condition, using industrial methods, low confort and very short time per client can have a disastrous effect on both the client and the worker.
But it will never come as far as the widespread broadcasting of porn.
Even when the relationship between a client and a prostitute is disgusting in its form, and totaly lack friendliness, there is still a minimum of human relationship, a minimum of conversation.

The problem with prostitution is that a woman who start to do it regularly totaly destroy her social life.
She can't have normal husband or friend, fall into a spiral they can't get out of, turn drug addict etc.
Something less dangerous, I think with playing in porn movies, because it's more irregular.
Jerrycoacoara said that a woman would destroy her reputation more with movies. I'm not sure of that.
Prostitution is quite a public job.
The risk to be seen, unless it's in a closed house, is rather high.

The best is occasional prostitution with limited long term moral damage.

Even better would be more girls do it for free.

In answer to Patton's post, I think (a) he has forgotten what it was like to be 15, and (b) he is making certain assumptions about teens. Like I said, I have seen loads of porn, but not the really hard core, disgusting stuff (it doesn't interest me like hot looking chicks do), and like Biker Dude's son, I don't think it has made me into any sort of monster. I do OK at school, and most people seem to think I'm 'a nice boy'. 

And really, I think once guys my age get a regular gf (and some regular sex  ) we will be less interested in looking at pix of sex. Like the real thing is better than a photo and a wank. (Oh! Did I say that?    )

Don't know what makes you say that or what would make it even relevant.

My generation did not have unfettored/unrestricted access to hardcore pornography 24/7/365 at will...........


Do they not teach reading comprehension in junior high anymore?

How much of what I said was in the form of a question?

What "assumption" am I making by asking a question and stating that I WONDER what the effects will be?