Teacher Distributes Sex Tape of Herself

[FireSky86]

Only because society decided it is culturally unacceptable.

Exaclty.

 

[Pupil]

I should say I do not agree that the situations can be compared. There is physical, a medical, let me say a scientific reason why children should be preserved from being exposed to adult private activities : on many levels they are not ready. And if you do not buy that argument, I can attack from the other side. Historically (just a few decades ago again) it has been tried to drop this cultural prejudice altogether, and even involve children themselves in those activities. For some reason, society eventually re-installs the "cultural prejudice".

Please provide evidence for the statement: "There is physical, a medical, let me say a scientific reason why children should be preserved from being exposed to adult private activities."

Reinstating a cultural prejudice doesn't make that prejudice right.

 

[humanino]

Please provide evidence for the statement: "There is physical, a medical, let me say a scientific reason why children should be preserved from being exposed to adult private activities."

A five year old girl does not menstruate and does not even even have the physical attribute I enjoy. Give me a break honestly.

 

[lisab]

Please provide evidence for the statement: "There is physical, a medical, let me say a scientific reason why children should be preserved from being exposed to adult private activities."

Reinstating a cultural prejudice doesn't make that prejudice right.

I find it to be profoundly self-evident that children not be exposed to porn...so much so, in fact, that I can't even believe I just wrote that.

 

[Pupil]

A five year old girl does not menstruate and does not even even have the physical attribute I enjoy. Give me a break honestly.

And what does that have to do with the mental capacity she has for being exposed to adult activities? I don't menstruate and have no idea what physical attributes I share with you, but I can handle seeing an organism copulate. I still need you to clarify what the problem is to understand where you're coming from.

When I was 5 I saw a pornographic film (that my stupid father left in the VCR), and I like to think I turned out alright. Physically I didn't break out in seizures, medically my brain turned out fine and I passed high school, and scientifically I was a small bipedal organism who saw how evolution worked on tape. Where's the problem?

 

[lisab]

And what does that have to do with the mental capacity she has for being exposed to adult activities? I don't menstruate and have no idea what physical attributes I share with you, but I can handle seeing an organism copulate. I still need you to clarify what the problem is to understand where you're coming from.

When I was 5 I saw a pornographic film (that my stupid father left in the VCR), and I like to think I turned out alright. Physically I didn't break out in seizures, medically my brain turned out fine and I passed high school, and scientifically I was a small bipedal organism who saw how evolution worked on tape. Where's the problem?

Well if it made you believe that it's OK for very young children to watch porn, perhaps it had a bigger effect on you than you realize.

It's not OK.

 

[Pupil]

It's not OK.

Again: why?

 

[humanino]

When I was 5 I saw a pornographic film (that my stupid father left in the VCR), and I like to think I turned out alright. Physically I didn't break out in seizures, medically my brain turned out fine and I passed high school, and scientifically I was a small bipedal organism who saw how evolution worked on tape. Where's the problem?

Thank you for openly clarifying your problem.

 

[Pupil]

Thank you for openly clarifying your problem.

I suppose I'm not understanding the point of this statement. Could you clarify?

 

[lisab]

Again: why?

Exposing children to porn http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn.html" (that article seems to focus on teens' exposure to online porn, not very young children).

Pupil, you do recognize that your beliefs on this subject are way, way out of the social norm, correct?

 

[Pupil]

Exposing children to porn http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn.html" (that article seems to focus on teens' exposure to online porn, not very young children).

Pupil, you do recognize that your beliefs on this subject are way, way out of the social norm, correct?

Thanks for the link. I've been reading over it, but I don't see any of the studies showing a negative impact of teenagers viewing pornographic material. I think the worst outcome that article talks of is more porn = more viewing of women as sexual objects. There are a lot of things wrong with this correlation (and some of the other correlations found), but I'll expound upon that statement only if you disagree.

I don't hold beliefs because they are widely accepted, I hold them because they are correct or reject them because they aren't correct. Most people disagree with me (except for the rising number of anti-censorship organizations and some friends), but that doesn't matter to me. If I am wrong, I want you to explain why I'm wrong, and if your reasoning is sound, I will change my views.

The way I see it, people support censorship based on religious reasons, because everyone else thinks so, or because it harms children. I reject the first two, and see no evidence for the third. I recommend reading this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0809073994/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Here's a very short summary: http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v54/no3/Grossberg.pdf

 

[rootX]

Pupil, you do recognize that your beliefs on this subject are way, way out of the social norm, correct?

Social norms are time dependent as already pointed out earlier (edit: and humanino pointed out that sex exposure have negative effects on children even when we drop these social norms as I understand).

I could have asked a similar question some decades ago:
Would it be cool watching a movie with your whole family where a black many costars as a hero and white as a bad guy and in the end the hero marries a white lady and kills the villain?

 

[rootX]

Some have been to jail for that. Some politicians rooted in the 70s still have to face this kind reference publicly. I do not care searching for references to prove my point, I believe it is well known.

That's "some" not all. Earlier you claimed that

And if you do not buy that argument, I can attack from the other side. Historically (just a few decades ago again) it has been tried to drop this cultural prejudice altogether, and even involve children themselves in those activities. For some reason, society eventually re-installs the "cultural prejudice".

from which I understand that everyone dropped the cultural prejudice.I think it is hard to evaluate the effect of sex exposure to the children when the social norms feel that it is unhealthy for the children. For accurate effect, all the society/people need to drop the current norms about children being exposed to the sexual content.

 

[humanino]

all the society/people need to drop the current norms about children being exposed to the sexual content.

Well I do not see that happening anytime.

 

[junglebeast]

Exposing children to porn http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn.html" (that article seems to focus on teens' exposure to online porn, not very young children).

Pupil, you do recognize that your beliefs on this subject are way, way out of the social norm, correct?

Lisa,

Did you actually read the article you linked?

I'm not here to argue any particular side. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. I'm not really sure what the facts are...but this article is not actually arguing your case very strongly.

They openly admit that, "only a handful of investigators have examined the validity of these concerns" and "We need a lot more research", and even goes so far as to point out studies "between 1996 and 2005—and found that teens are actually displaying healthier behaviors in domains that might be negatively influenced by greater access to Internet porn."

Specifically, "There have been drops in crime, drops in teen pregnancy, increases in the number of kids who say they're virgins, declines in various kinds of victimization and less running away," Finkelhor says."

Also, according to this article "about 40 percent of teens and preteens visit sexually explicit sites"...which is a very significant portion of the population.

"Because all published studies about the influence of Internet porn on teen attitudes are correlational, researchers can't say for sure whether access to Internet porn causes certain attitudes and behaviors"

"In one study surveying 471 Dutch teens ages 13 to 18, the researchers found that the more often young people sought out online porn, the more likely they were to have a "recreational" attitude toward sex"

Is there something wrong with having a recreational attitude towards sex? Is not sex designed to be recreational?

"It's too early to say what these findings mean—or even what to do if clearer results are shown."

Ok...anyway...you see my point that this article is not actually supporting your argument?

If if does have an effect (which it probably does), what exactly is that effect? And if we did exactly know what the effect was, can we really say that it is "unhealthy" or wrong? Historically just about everything imaginable has been tried, sexually. I'm sure cavemen were also doing it "backwards" so to speak, just as people are today.

Many cultures in different places and times have had different customs than us currently. Look at ancient greece. Many places still do. Perhaps the culture towards sex in US is slowly changing. Can we really say it is "unhealthy" if that is the case? Who decided that?

 

[Pupil]

Well I do not see that happening anytime.

No one disagrees with that, for sure.

This discussion reminds me of Lewis Black's routine about Janet Jackson's nipple slip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbL1KVaGH3I&feature=related

Listen at least beginning at 6:25 minutes or 6:00 minutes on.

 

[lisab]

Thanks for the link. I've been reading over it, but I don't see any of the studies showing a negative impact of teenagers viewing pornographic material. I think the worst outcome that article talks of is more porn = more viewing of women as sexual objects. There are a lot of things wrong with this correlation (and some of the other correlations found), but I'll expound upon that statement only if you disagree.

I don't hold beliefs because they are widely accepted, I hold them because they are correct or reject them because they aren't correct. Most people disagree with me (except for the rising number of anti-censorship organizations and some friends), but that doesn't matter to me. If I am wrong, I want you to explain why I'm wrong, and if your reasoning is sound, I will change my views.

The way I see it, people support censorship based on religious reasons, because everyone else thinks so, or because it harms children. I reject the first two, and see no evidence for the third. I recommend reading this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0809073994/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Here's a very short summary: http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v54/no3/Grossberg.pdf

Looks like a great read...as an avowed atheist I, too, am against basing censorship on religious beliefs.

My objection to exposing children to porn has nothing at all to do with religion, though. Upon reflection, I have to admit my strong reaction is really directed more at exposing young girls to porn. I could be very wrong, but I think it's more damaging to girls than it is to boys. Let me explain.

Most porn is shot by men, for men. It is sexuallity from the male perspective. Nothing wrong with that, as a hetero woman I must admit I love men and their sexuality. But it's not the same as female sexuality...not even close.

You can't take your average porn flick, reverse the parity of the genders involved, and arrive at female sexuality.

So let's consider a very young girl, who has not even begun to develop her sexuallity. I *don't* want that girl to think that what she's seeing in a porn flick is anything close to female sexuality.

I think such exposures would heighten the chance that she would end up making a living dancing on a pole, rather than being a NASA engineer. But that's the opinion of the mom in me.

 

[junglebeast]

I think such exposures would heighten the chance that she would end up making a living dancing on a pole, rather than being a NASA engineer. But that's the opinion of the mom in me.

I don't think a person's sexuality is something that really affects their major life goals like that. I can't see someone ditching their desire to do something great simply because they liked having sex..because that's never a choice anyone is forced to make. You are free to mix and match any sexual lifestyle with any professional lifestyle. Except perhaps presidency.

 

[Pupil]

I agree with junglebeast, but I think you're getting at another point here, too. Are you saying that pornography is heavily biased toward treating women as sexual objects, which could influence the young females to view themselves that way?

If that is your point, I would say that's not caused by pornography (or the other things we censor), but a lack of understanding in society of the rights and abilities of women. We should educate, not censor. One only has to turn to BET to see the mistreatment of "b****es and hoes," as it's often put.

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Could you clarify?

 

[Moonbear]

Okay, given the direction this discussion has headed, I think it's important to make a distinction between porn and intercourse.

Porn certainly includes intercourse, but it also includes more than that, such as portrayals of subjugation of members of one sex or the other, and aspects of sexuality beyond that of intercourse, which I'm not going to describe here in order to keep this PG-13.

I do not think a child is going to be harmed by witnessing intercourse, such as by walking in on their parents when the door to the bedroom didn't lock right, or even by observing animals copulating if they grow up on a farm. Certainly by the time they are in 5th grade, they are aware of what intercourse is (sex education even when I was in school began in the 4th grade, because girls can start menstruating by then, and even those who aren't do start experiencing some of the early stages of puberty by then), so simply seeing a penis entering a vagina is nothing they don't already know happens.

Frankly, if that's all that porn showed, I think people would grow bored of watching it. Porn goes beyond showing the act of intercourse and includes a story line (as flimsy as it may be) that creates a context that goes beyond that of consensual intercourse between two people in a long-term relationship. Some porn also portrays acts that are not standard intercourse either. While adults understand that these are options available that some but not all people enjoy, I don't think that children are prepared to understand these variations in sexuality. I also don't think children are prepared to understand that porn portrays fantasies that may not reflect healthy relationships.

I don't know what was filmed by this teacher. It may have been nothing more than traditional intercourse. I doubt it would have any really harmful effects if any children did see it, more likely it would result in them exclaiming "Eeeew, Gross!" I think (I could be wrong) that 5th grade is still a bit young for students to have crushes on teachers to think of a teacher having intercourse as anything other than "gross."

What are the societal taboos that lead to this "ick factor?" Yes, society generally considers intercourse among people to be something intimate, not public. But, even knowing it happens, and what all the body parts look like, and enjoying it for oneself, intercourse happens when people are physically attracted to one another. For the same reasons we might reject someone as a potential partner for being unattractive to us, I think we also find it distasteful to think about them having intercourse with anyone else either.

 

[lisab]

I agree with junglebeast, but I think you're getting at another point here, too. Are you saying that pornography is heavily biased toward treating women as sexual objects, which could influence the young females to view themselves that way?

If that is your point, I would say that's not caused by pornography (or the other things we censor), but a lack of understanding in society of the rights and abilities of women. We should educate, not censor. One only has to turn to BET to see the mistreatment of "b****es and hoes," as it's often put.

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Could you clarify?

You just reiterated my point. If a young girl's first exposure to her own sexuallity is through an adult a male filter, and that she's objectified as a "b**** and a hoe," how the hell does she get to NASA engineer from there?

 

[junglebeast]

You just reiterated my point. If a young girl's first exposure to her own sexuallity is through an adult a male filter, and that she's objectified as a "b**** and a hoe," how the hell does she get to NASA engineer from there?

Well I don't think any of us can really say for sure...but like you, I wouldn't be subjecting my daughter to the test (if I had one).

 

[Pupil]

You just reiterated my point. If a young girl's first exposure to her own sexuallity is through an adult a male filter, and that she's objectified as a "b**** and a hoe," how the hell does she get to NASA engineer from there?

Her parents, society, and the people around her educate her that she shouldn't believe everything she hears on television, and that she is as worthy an individual to be a NASA engineer as any other person. I think pulling the wool over a person's eyes (censoring) isn't the solution - education is.

 

[lisab]

Well I don't think any of us can really say for sure...but like you, I wouldn't be subjecting my daughter to the test (if I had one).

I guess that's the real litmus test...if you're really sure that porn won't affect kids negatively, will you expose your own children to it?

Somehow the idea of "family porn night," cuddling up together in front of the TV with popcorn and soda pop, doesn't strike me as an idea that will catch on any time soon...haha...

 

[Pupil]

I guess that's the real litmus test...if you're really sure that porn won't affect kids negatively, will you expose your own children to it?

Somehow the idea of "family porn night," cuddling up together in front of the TV with popcorn and soda pop, doesn't strike me as an idea that will catch on any time soon...haha...

If that test were performed in our society the parents would probably be thrown in jail or the children taken by a social worker (or both).

One of the biggest troubles when taking about censorship is how dogmatically people believe we should censor people (mostly teenagers and children) from certain things without any basis for believing so. Many of them won't even think about it. As Aristotle once said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Perhaps one day in the far off future we will see a kid ask about a his mother about a late night sex film that aired uncensored and she will reply that it's actors making love to one another in what is known as 'sex'. The mother would say it matter-of-factly. The child's spine won't curl and he wouldn't go into shock. He'll shrug, uninterested by the nontaboo act that 'grown ups' do, and go watch the best show in the world: Spongebob Squarepants.

 

[humanino]

...

I was 5 years old when I explained my older brother what menstruating means, and I already had had quite many talks with my mother, together with biology books. She never pushed me into that, I just found questions myself, and I was lucky enough to have a mother answering them appropriately. That has nothing to do with X-rating videos.

 

[Pupil]

I was 5 years old when I explained my older brother what menstruating means, and I already had had quite many talks with my mother, together with biology books. She never pushed me into that, I just found questions myself, and I was lucky enough to have a mother answering them appropriately. That has nothing to do with X-rating videos.

Sounds like you had a nice mum. Did you have a follow up question or statement on that or something? I'm not sure I see your point.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You just reiterated my point. If a young girl's first exposure to her own sexuallity is through an adult a male filter, and that she's objectified as a "b**** and a hoe," how the hell does she get to NASA engineer from there?

Do you think that perhaps young women might be turned off by such things rather than thinking that is the way they ought to be? Perhaps seeing the way some men think of them may make them more cautious about sex?

I've found in personal experience that more 'sheltered' females tend to be more submissive and have a greater feeling that they ought to do what is expected of them by males while less 'sheltered' females tend to be more dominating and/or independent. One female I know who watches and enjoys pornography, is rather well adjusted, and hopes to run for congress someday. One female I know that was raised a strict christian and who thinks that pornography is evil also happens to be a sex addict who has prostituted herself for drug money.

This is anecdotal of course but it goes to show that sometimes what we have come to believe as likely responses to certain sorts of environmental stimuli are not necessarily accurate.

 

[humanino]

Did you have a follow up statement ?

Yes actually I do. The point above that I was stressing is a twofold split between the knowledge of biology and reproduction as you were mentioning earlier, of which I indeed have never been depraved, and the particular event this discussion started with, which I believe is much closer to X-rated videos. Now I do not have much to say about the latter, since I am fairly ignorant in that field and I also do not have much interest in it. I hope it is clear by now that this thread is not conveying that children should be kept in ignorance of biology. They should be protected from adult fantasies which they are too young to understand. If you doubt that they are too young to understand, please at least leave them time to grow up and enjoy their own discoveries. They have plenty of time to let their own imagination grow.

 

[NeoDevin]

Somehow the idea of "family porn night," cuddling up together in front of the TV with popcorn and soda pop, doesn't strike me as an idea that will catch on any time soon...haha...

False dichotomy much? The two options aren't "complete censorship" vs. "family porn night".

I am opposed to the censorship of almost every subject, but that doesn't mean I have "family hate literature night". Throwing up such an argument clearly shows that you are arguing from emotion, rather than reason.

For example: If my son has any questions about the subject, at any age, I will answer them as completely and honestly as I can. If that involves letting him see a video, so be it, I'll show him a video and explain it to him. If he ever walks in on my wife and I, and asks what we're doing, I'll explain that to him as well.

Just because someone is opposed to censorship, doesn't mean that they think "family porn night" should be held, or that children should be encouraged to watch porn.