I have a question for you older and wiser playgrounders (please, no young-uns)

[Stormthorn]

Ok, so i have a younger relative who i noticed today was looking at porn. Im not sure if i should ignore it or do something.
They are too young to be looking at porn legally so part of me has a duty to stop them.
But at the same time i know that exporing ones sexuality is normal during a certain age window (heck, im still in that gap, just on the opposite side) and i feel that i might just leave them to their devices.
But a third option occured to me where i could try to guide them so they dont end up in any creepy chatsites or getting into trouble (in this situation i would be the one taking the flak) but i dont know if i have the knowledge to steer them correctly if i try that.

So i come to you for help.

What do i do?

[Innis Cabal]

Honestly? Leave it be. Its really not any of your business. He's not hurting anyone and unless he's looking at it to know how to go out and do it, he's not hurting himself either.\

If he is trying to go out and get tail...put a stop to that. Thats fair. Just looking at naked pictures of people? Eh

[Kjata]

If he is trying to go out and get tail...put a stop to that. Thats fair. Just looking at naked pictures of people? Eh

What the hell? Why?

And I would just let him be, if you try to put a stop for it they will never forgive you. If I had a cousin(or some other relative) tell my parents, I know wouldn't anyway...

[Innis Cabal]

Because honestly looking at pictures of naked people isn't destructive in the slightest if they are of legal age, the ones in picture. If your 10 and looking at a picture of a naked person the real point will more then likely be lost on them. If they are old enough to get it, let em get it and mind your own business.

My point is, the kid isn't out doing anything to hurt others or himself, so why do you care? Its just porn. There seems to be a heavy focus of porn=bad on this board all of a sudden

[Boo]

Huh...

Well, I'd say to leave him be unless he's "trying to go out and get tail". Really that's all there is to it. Wisdom has nothing to do with this beyond making sure he's either had the talk, or knows what the talk consists of. Though, frankly, that would be awkward. EDIT: Actually, never mind about this part.

Not sure if this will help, but if he hasn't had the talk, refer him to this website (http://wontgetweird.com/). If you can't view it, I guess... well, it doesn't matter. It's a child friendly website to talk about sex.

...that's an oxymoron, isn't it?

If anything, just make sure they know not to get into any long-distance relationships, or join any webcam sites. At that age those things can get a bit... yeah.

[Zeb The Troll]

From a parent's perspective, it depends on the age and maturity of the youngster doing the looking and, to a lesser extent, the medium.

If you're talking about someone who's not yet hit puberty, you should tell the parents. Hopefully your cousin won't find out because the parents will "catch him" on on their own without implicating you.

On the other hand, if, as I suspect is the case, we're talking about someone in the 13-16 year old range, leave him to his own devices. It's a natural thing. In my view stifling that curiosity does no one any good. Least of all him.

About the medium, pornography on the internet is inherently harmful. Far too much of it is only hook for more nefarious purposes like viruses and bots. So, if it were me in your shoes, rather than ratting him out, I'd procure for him some old fashioned magazines to peruse and encourage him to be curious offline. Preferably without actually talking to him about it because that would be painfully embarrassing for both of you, I'd imagine.

my 2c

~Grandpa Zeb

[Stormthorn]

About the medium, pornography on the internet is inherently harmful. Far too much of it is only hook for more nefarious purposes like viruses and bots. So, if it were me in your shoes, rather than ratting him out, I'd procure for him some old fashioned magazines to peruse and encourage him to be curious offline. Preferably without actually talking to him about it because that would be painfully embarrassing for both of you, I'd imagine.

Thats what i was strongly considering. I used the internet and now im a fetishist and a misanthropic shut-in.

Also, this person is female. Which makes me worry because a lot of porn objectified women.

Of course, i would feel really aweckward buying a porn magazine for a girl, assuming i could even find such a thing where i live.

I the only printed porn i ever bought was for a psychology class.

[arguskos]

I used the internet and now im a fetishist and a misanthropic shut-in.
Nothing personal, but this sounds like something I'd hear on FOX News: "I used the interwnet, and now I'm a crack head." :smallannoyed:

On topic, I'll agree with the idea of "if you do something, don't stop them, give them some good old fashioned mags".

[Stormthorn]

Nothing personal, but this sounds like something I'd hear on FOX News: "I used the interwnet, and now I'm a crack head." :smallannoyed:

On topic, I'll agree with the idea of "if you do something, don't stop them, give them some good old fashioned mags".

I wasnt being fully serious in blaming the internet. For one i might not be very social but im not a shut-in and my fetish actualy dates back to before me ever owning a computer (or being able to read, i think). I cant believe i just said that. Well, at least now i dont sound like part of a FOX news broadcast on the evils of media.


The Eternal Question: Guacamole, Y/N?
Yes?

[Coidzor]

Well, it's not really your place beyond informing the actual owners of said female-relative.

With a girl things get even more problematic as far as any specific examples to draw upon for reference, but I would just like to echo the sentiment that the most that should be done is tactfully contacting said parents, and if that is unworkable due to various possible (but to me, improbable) scenarios, make sure they're safe and that they're not so obvious about it that someone as distant as you from them was able to discover them, since no one wants to be walked in on or walk in on someone else.... Well, not usually anyway.

Ah...girls... hard enough for them to have any remotely healthy idea of their own sexual selves as it is, so you have my condolences for getting to the place where you're actually worried about such a delicate issue.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Such items are what they are, something most people peruse, and is, in and of itself, not a big deal.

I'd, personally, attempt to be more discreet in the future, and, if you 'catch' said underage relative perusing the same media you were, politely mention that she may also want to be more discreet in the future, warn her about the computer virus dangers of internet porn, and move on.

[Zeb The Troll]

Also, this person is female. Which makes me worry because a lot of porn objectified women.Oh! I naturally assumed it was a boy. In that case, you don't need to buy magazines at all. Get her a box of trashy romance novels. :smallbiggrin:

[Icewalker]

Yeah, I'll toss in another vote for 'leave her alone', with the optional addition of the offhand comment on the computer-related dangers of internet porn. Anything else will just end up REALLY awkward for somebody, either her, you, her parents, or all of the above, and nobody really needs that, and there isn't really any advantage to bringing it out.

[Innis Cabal]

Oh! I naturally assumed it was a boy. In that case, you don't need to buy magazines at all. Get her a box of trashy romance novels. :smallbiggrin:

Ugh no. Don't do this. Ever. It objectifies men just as bad as you seem to think porn objectifies women.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Leave her alone. While it's true that it might screw her sex life, so to speak, there isn't really anything you or her parents can do about it.

Seriously. About the only thing that will come of it is her parents yelling at her. Maybe putting parental blocks on the computer. Not like it's going to do anything, any kind of filters filter more normal, useful sites than actual porn. Nor it's going to prevent her from looking at porn at, say, a friends house or an internet cafe. Maybe it won't be the same experience as privately in her room, but the consequences could be much worse if she's looking at porn at, say, a male friend's house.

The downside? She might model her behaviour on porn movies. However just as well she might not - she could only be watching it because she's curious or because it turns her on. Also, if she's predisposed to naturally acting like women in porn movies, she's more likely than not to act that way whether she watches porn or not. And the other way around - if she's not predisposed to be like that, she won't be like that.

Oh! I naturally assumed it was a boy. In that case, you don't need to buy magazines at all. Get her a box of trashy romance novels.
:biggrin: I still give my ex I barely talk to anymore a hard time after finding a few of these lying around her house. And just to think she's making fun of me for liking hockey...

[...]politely mention that she may also want to be more discreet in the future, warn her about the computer virus dangers of internet porn, and move on.
+1.

[skywalker]

Stormthorn, how old are the playgrounders you're asking for?


Ugh no. Don't do this. Ever. It objectifies men just as bad as you seem to think porn objectifies women.

That's ok, we like being objects, right?

According to a friend, if a romance novel is old enough, you can stand it on it's spine and it will fall open to the sex scenes. I mean, it makes sense.

I say don't do anything. Definitely don't mention the dangers of internet porn, that could very easily get you into a "cousin stormthorn was talking about internet porn" situation, which can go bad in two primary ways: A. She tells her parents that you were talking about porn and are now a bad influence, or B. When they do find out, she says she heard about it from you.

I don't think a lot of yelling or whatnot is good for anybody. When my parents caught my sister doing the same (and I know it wasn't my stuff, because it wasn't to my taste), there was a ton of yelling and computer blocking and now my sister probably has a very warped view of the whole thing anyway. So what they were trying to prevent wasn't prevented, sadly. :smallfrown:

[Coidzor]

I don't think a lot of yelling or whatnot is good for anybody. When my parents caught my sister doing the same (and I know it wasn't my stuff, because it wasn't to my taste), there was a ton of yelling and computer blocking and now my sister probably has a very warped view of the whole thing anyway. So what they were trying to prevent wasn't prevented, sadly. :smallfrown:

More like they caused something different, but probably equally bad or worse by being typical idiots towards female sexuality. *sigh* Sometimes I wonder at parents, I really do.



OP: So how crazy are her parents about all of this, anyway? Can you actually talk to them without them trying to burn her at the stake?

[Serpentine]

How old, exactly, is she? And was she looking looking at porn, or just checking it out?
I think that it would be worth sitting down with her and talking about internet porn. Try to tell her what to look out for, maybe, if it's not too weird, get her to show you where she's going and see whether you think it looks safe enough, maybe guide her towards more trustworthy sites. Also recommend a search for "porn for women" :wink:
Other than that... eh. As long as she's not, say, 10, and she's not doing anything unsafe, whatever.

[skywalker]

More like they caused something different, but probably equally bad or worse by being typical idiots towards female sexuality. *sigh* Sometimes I wonder at parents, I really do.

To be fair, it's towards sexuality in general. I never got caught, but if I had, I'm sure the same would've resulted.

Sometimes I think I was born with a little Felix Felicis in my blood, as many close shaves as I've had...

[xPANCAKEx]

if she's that young shes probably beginning to just explore so unless shes looking at some of the more harmful porn sights out there, leave her to it.

It also depends why shes looking at them - some people look at porn to laugh rather than to get off (lets face it, some of it is so rediculous you can't help but laugh)

If you've got to say anything, keep it as brief as possible (especially if you are of the opposite gender) as any talk which has the opening gambit along the lines "so i see you've been watching porno on ye olde interwebe" is going to immediately dump a heep of shame on it, and she may shut off to anything you've got to say, so keep it ultra brief, like preferably under 30 seconds. Cover the basics "i know. i don't care. i know talking to mum n dad sucks so you can talk to me instead if easier. Looking at anything too gross is unhealthy. Don't let men treat you like that. lets not make eye contact for a few days mmmkay?"

also - sorry if i've missed this - how are you two related, and whats the age gap - those are two things you have to consider as they may increase the creepy/shame factor

[Zeb The Troll]

Ugh no. Don't do this. Ever. It objectifies men just as bad as you seem to think porn objectifies women.... as I seem to think?

Anyway, it's true. It works both ways. Porn (potentially) teaches men to expect that women could or should behave in ways that women normally don't. Likewise, romance novels (potentially) teach women to have unreasonable expectations about the way men should behave. Sure. I think closer to the truth, however, is that hardly anyone actually expects these behaviors outside of content specifically designed to be arousing for the target audience. It just gets blood flowing to the right areas using typically effective methods.

Short version - it's no worse for women to read romance novels than it is for men to look at nudie pictures.

Side note - I find it odd that you used the word "claim" when talking about pornography objectifying women. I thought it was generally accepted that this is true. :smallconfused:

[Innis Cabal]

Side note - I find it odd that you used the word "claim" when talking about pornography objectifying women. I thought it was generally accepted that this is true. :smallconfused:


And I'm saying that I think that theory is widely untrue and is only used to further deepen the stigma placed on pornography. Especially when we are talking about the industry as a whole. How is it any different then the Miss U.S.A pagents, the various other beauty pagents, hollywood and movies in general. Just because sex is added in there? Or is it because of what the women often do to get money that makes it some terrible thing? Because either way its hyopcritical to cast pornography in a negative light without even mentioning rap musiv videos, reality TV shows like Rock of Love, and your basic every day rated R movie staring Collen Ferrel.


Are their forms of....well call them secondary media that objectifies and makes women look a certain way? Yes. Absolultly. You'll get no argument from me. Is there such for men as well? Yes. Again, no argument here. Saying that pornography as a whole is this? Ya i'll fight you to the last man, woman and child and thats no lie. Misinformed/misguided/or otherwise glossed over views on a lifestyle of people is something i'm against. You have to remember that some women enter into this business willingly, in fact most of them do, and I doubt -highly- that they would agree with you. I in fact know several personally that would call you flat wrong, and argue that it empowers women. Though that argument might be lost on you.


What I find odd is that you split both men and women up when discussing both the "romance novels" or what could easily be dubbed erotic fiction and pornography...its not impossible for women to enjoy porno while a young man enjoys his mothers latest book in the "Chronicles of a Houswife" series. In your own post you've brought up gender...maybe not on purpose, but it might be wise to take a look at how you yourself set things up when trying to perpetuate a negative and frankly silly sterotype.

And for the record, I never said claim.

[Zeb The Troll]

And I'm saying that I think that theory is widely untrue and is only used to further deepen the stigma placed on pornography. Especially when we are talking about the industry as a whole. How is it any different then the Miss U.S.A pagents, the various other beauty pagents, hollywood and movies in general. Just because sex is added in there? Or is it because of what the women often do to get money that makes it some terrible thing? Because either way its hyopcritical to cast pornography in a negative light without even mentioning rap musiv videos, reality TV shows like Rock of Love, and your basic every day rated R movie staring Collen Ferrel.I don't think any of these things are different. I agree that each of these things objectify women. I never declared otherwise.


What I find odd is that you split both men and women up when discussing both the "romance novels" or what could easily be dubbed erotic fiction and pornography...its not impossible for women to enjoy porno while a young man enjoys his mothers latest book in the "Chronicles of a Houswife" series. In your own post you've brought up gender...maybe not on purpose, but it might be wise to take a look at how you yourself set things up when trying to perpetuate a negative and frankly silly sterotype.Only because I was speaking in generalities. I did talk about "the target audience".

I'm not sure why you're attacking me for bringing up gender. I stated that I agree that romance novels were on par with pornography as it pertains to objectifying the subject. In fact, I never disagreed with you one iota except to say that in spite of this objectification, I find no issue with either practice in most circumstances.


And for the record, I never said claim.Ooops! No you didn't. I must have subconciously read that in there. :smallcool:

EDIT since you added this in while I was crafting my response...

Are their forms of....well call them secondary media that objectifies and makes women look a certain way? Yes. Absolultly. You'll get no argument from me. Is there such for men as well? Yes. Again, no argument here. Saying that pornography as a whole is this? Ya i'll fight you to the last man, woman and child and thats no lie. Misinformed/misguided/or otherwise glossed over views on a lifestyle of people is something i'm against. You have to remember that some women enter into this business willingly, in fact most of them do, and I doubt -highly- that they would agree with you. I in fact know several personally that would call you flat wrong, and argue that it empowers women. Though that argument might be lost on you.Again, I have no idea why you're assaulting me. At no point, anywhere, did I say that these things are "bad". I did not declare that women (or men) who do this are bad people. I didn't make any kind of judgement whatsoever about them. You appear to be drawing conclusions from my statements that I did not, and would not, make.

[SilverSheriff]

Put a parental lock on his computer: if the young one can bypass it then he's earned his explicit material...

[Quincunx]

One problem would be if she's scanning these to figure out "what guys like". That idea needs to be quashed, instantly if not sooner. Doesn't matter if it's simple misjudgment of thinking all guys think with their penises or crafting a slutty internet persona to snare them--quash it.

[Eldariel]

Entirely depends on her age and your role with regards to her. Parent? Have the "sex talk". Big brother? Just make sure she's not doing anything stupid. Otherwise related? I wouldn't do much; maybe bring it up in a discussion at some point, but sexual education very much falls to parents' responsibility. Of course, if you think they'll understand, you might want to mention it to her parents.

Of course, age matters too; since she's a girl, if she's 13+, it might be "that time" already. That said, I'm not sure if internet is the healthiest place to go for sexual education. But yeah, the biggest danger is her getting wrong ideas about sex and its meaning (or rather, a perceived lack there-of) and trying to "earn a social standing" with her body or similar.

[Gitman00]

I think pornography is inherently degrading and damaging, and I would put a stop to it as soon as possible... were I a parent. I'd point out that I don't want my child to look at their fellow human beings that way, and that sex's proper place is within a monogamous relationship. If I weren't the parent, I'd inform the parents immediately. It's their place to have that talk.

[KnightDisciple]

Pretty much what he said.
It's not your place to sit down and have "the talk", or any version of "the talk" with your relative. Unless they're 18 or older (at which point they're an "adult"), you should inform the parent. I'd say inform the parent in such a way that they'll have time to calm down/cool off a bit before speaking with the child.

[The Rose Dragon]

...and that sex's proper place is within a monogamous relationship.

Don't make assumptions on how other people view or choose to live their lives. It can be insulting.

[Nevrmore]

Leave people to their own business. It's not your place to ask, tell, judge, or do anything else. Making a big deal out of it doesn't help anyone, it just makes you look like a jackass.

Of course, considering the fact that you even started this thread in the first place, I have the distinct feeling that you're going to ignore all advice and go with your own gut, which is probably "tell someone," so good luck with that.

[Stormthorn]

How old, exactly, is she? And was she looking looking at porn, or just checking it out?
I think that it would be worth sitting down with her and talking about internet porn. Try to tell her what to look out for, maybe, if it's not too weird, get her to show you where she's going and see whether you think it looks safe enough, maybe guide her towards more trustworthy sites. Also recommend a search for "porn for women"
Other than that... eh. As long as she's not, say, 10, and she's not doing anything unsafe, whatever.

Shes 15 but up until now has had a grand total of 1 boyfriend who she quickly realized was more of just of a friend.

And i noticed this walking past a window while i was in the backyard doing chores. 10 minutes later coming back after having finished she was doing the same thing although the site was different.

[Canadian]

Nobody should learn about porn or sex from a relative. That's sick and disturbing.

Everyone should learn about sex from the internet, magazines, or on the street like every normal person does.

Who cares if they check out porn? That never hurt anyone.

Do care if they start having sex and get a disease. Buy a jumbo box of condoms, the good kind, and throw them at her and yell - don't get AIDS!

That's good enough.

[KnightDisciple]

Nobody should learn about porn or sex from a relative. That's sick and disturbing.

Everyone should learn about sex from the internet, magazines, or on the street like every normal person does.

Who cares if they check out porn? That never hurt anyone.

Do care if they start having sex and get a disease. Buy a jumbo box of condoms, the good kind, and throw them at her and yell - don't get AIDS!

That's good enough.

No. NO. NO.

It's not "sick and disturbing" for a parent to discuss this with a child, unless by that you mean detailed description of technique.

Explicitly or no, parents often set the bar of expectation for relationship. Porn could warp that. More than that, parents not being willing to even address the issue makes it seem dirty. If instead they sit down calmly and maturely, and gently broach the topic, it can be a positive experience. More than mechanics, the parent should discuss attitudes. They should communicate their values and views, and typically encourage the child to hold to similar/the same, and give reasons why.

The worst thing that can happen is for a child to think sex is nothing but mechanics and hormones.

I'm really, really hoping this is a sarcastic post or something.

[Trog]

Well I think putting some more security safeguards on the computer is a good idea. This is not different than, say, your old man finding a better hiding place for the girly mags once he has discovered that you have discovered them, so to speak. On the other hand stuff that one can easily find on the internet far surpasses stuff that one could probably find 10 years ago so there is a lot more potential for exposure to some really bizarre stuff that definitely wouldn't be healthy at a very young age. Upping the safeguards limits the access while not having to confront them about it.

Also while we are on the subject, my best friend's mom has long had a part time job of professionally reviewing pornography to grade it in regards to whether or not it is degrading towards women. She is a licensed sex and family therapist. So I think the real answer is that not -all- porn is degrading towards women (if it was, why would she ever have that job) but a heck of a lot of it is, frankly... to one degree or another. =/

[The Rose Dragon]

Well, knowing Canadian, it possibly can't be taken at face value. There is probably a hidden message in there saying "don't do drugs".

@Trog: There is female-oriented porn online and offline, which is much classier than the male-oriented porn, but much less available.

Why can't guy porn be more artsy?

[Hadrian_Emrys]

As a warning, I have some pretty strong opinions on sexuality. That said:

In your position (as opposed to what I think you should do), I'd just talk about it like it was no big deal (because it's not). Out of the gate, I'd make sure she knew the basics of how to avoid adware/spyware/viruses (since most adult sites tend to be crawling with them). I would also make sure she knows that porn is mindless escapism rather than a "how-to" guide. (The Guide to Getting It On (http://sexuality.about.com/b/2007/12/12/book-review-the-guide-to-getting-it-on.htm) is a fantastic resource for that sort of thing, which I'd happily order for her if interest is expressed.) Hell, depending on my mood, I might even ask what she's looking for in order to find safe sites for her computer that will accommodate her interests.

Most (typically older) people treat the mating game as if it were something vile and wrong. As a result, most young people are too ashamed or embarrassed to ask about it and tend to be woefully misinformed when they start experimenting. Sex has been around as long as humanity (if not longer, depending on your faith or lack thereof) and is no more shameful than breathing or expelling waste.

[Kara Kuro]

I feel like I should jump in here. I think there's only been maybe, one, two other females who made any comments on this thread?

I discovered the all the internet entails somewhere in middle school, around thirteen or whatever, and I can say now that personally I'm completely fine and I haven't suffered any social/sexual/relationship-based stigmata because of it. On a lighter note - discovering Dan Savage's podcast probably helped quite a bit. Then again, I hate making vast generalizations and I know nothing about this girl in particular.

So here's what I'm going to say, feel free to listen to my advice or throw it out the window. I won't be offended. Assuming that you're fairly close with her if you discovered this.

One, if you're really worried about this porn thing affecting her outlook on sex or relationships - keep on eye on her. Don't stalk her and tell her everything she's doing is wrong, just be that little guardian who checks in on her every once in a while. Because honestly, whether porn makes you a more open person or it forces you to adhere to the "common" social paradigm of female oppression depends largely on what porn you're looking at and the person in question. If she gets in a healthy relationship with someone great. If she starts a relationship with some boy who doesn't respect her at all, that might be a little red flag for you to tell someone or do something. Considering, THAT is definitely not something you want (side effect or porn or not).

Two, if there's a way to reccomend to her anything, I suggest both the Midwest Teen Sex Show and Dan Savage's Podcast 'Savage Love'. They are both definitely racey enough to perhaps partly satisfy her want to go look at porn on the internet. And they are also full of really good information, and professional outlooks on the subject.

[Canadian]

Shes 15 but up until now has had a grand total of 1 boyfriend who she quickly realized was more of just of a friend.

And i noticed this walking past a window while i was in the backyard doing chores. 10 minutes later coming back after having finished she was doing the same thing although the site was different.

First of all quit spying on her. The fact that you went and "peeped" in the window is proof that you're invading her privacy. Don't go looking into the room to see what she's doing. A considerate person would respect the other person's privacy. At the very most I'd tell her to close her blinds. Same with messing with her browser. Tacky and wrong. Way to alienate your family. Do that stuff and she'll never trust you again.

Also I wasn't being sarcastic. Sex is a physical activity and a pretty basic one at that. Discussing the physical activity of sex with a relative is just gross and awkward. As long as she knows the consequences of unprotected sex and uses protection she's fine. The box of condoms does come with instructions. You can just leave the box in the room anonymously with a note that says "be safe."

Honestly, just leave her alone. It's not your place to meddle in someone else's sex life. Especially if that person is a minor. Do you really want her to hold you responsible later on for the consequences of any advice you give her? What if something goes wrong and it ruins her life. Want to be blamed for that?

Sex has consequences and whoever does it should only share the blame for the outcome with their sex partner. That's it. Dude do not get involved in this beyond promoting safe sex. Handing off some condoms should be the full extent of things.

Everyone here is confusing sex with relationships. If you want to talk to a relative about how sex "in general" relates to relationships that's fine. A political or sociological discussion is fine. Getting involved in a discussion of their porn viewing habits is gross.

She has no worries about having good relationships and a healthy normal sex life if she's observed the people around her being loving, caring, and having healthy relationships themselves.

Be a role model. Encourage everyone around her to be a good role model and exhibit a healthy attitude towards everything in life and she'll be fine.

Spy on her and hack her comp and what are you teaching her about the level of trust her so called "loved ones" have for her? You'll do more harm than good. This is how the whole trust thing goes out the window and parents drive their kids into isolation.

Leave her alone and everything will be just fine.

[The Rose Dragon]

Discussing the physical activity of sex with a relative is just gross and awkward.

Except that it's totally not?

Hell, I initiated all my own sex talks (I had several), so I can't find anything gross and awkward about it at all.

[Canadian]

Except that it's totally not?

Hell, I initiated all my own sex talks (I had several), so I can't find anything gross and awkward about it at all.

So what was your mom's opinion on giving a "Rusty Trombone?"

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Canadian: :smallconfused: Are you TRYING to be offensive?

[Trog]

Trog Comment Addendum:
Oh she's 15?! (just noticed that bit) Well nevermind then. Here I was thinking she was like 10 or something. I think curiousity at that age is gonna happen no matter what. You are as likely to put a stop to it as you are to get the sun to stop rising.

That said, say something to her like "next time you are looking at porn please be more discreet, kkthnx." if you are uncomfortable about it. After that, drop it. Enforcing anything is really a decision for her parents... until she is past the age of 18, or moves out of the house, or pays for the internet service and computer herself... or however the "rules" work in her particular family. And informing her parents is probably not a good idea.

[Canadian]

Canadian: :smallconfused: Are you TRYING to be offensive?

Are you saying you find discussing sex offensive? That's all I'm doing here. :smallsmile:

BTW Dan Savage's Savage Love writing is awesome. He always gives fun and hilarious advice.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

More that I am put off by the tactic of dragging someone's mother into a conversation. It comes off as being a rudely targeted remark under the guise of following the parental discussion > mother connection.

[Deathslayer7]

back on topic, I would suggest just not talking to her at all. As long as she understands the dangers and whatnot, I think it is fine.

If you do choose to talk to her, keep it less then a minute. Long talks just will get her embarrased and whatnot. Don't go into specifics, keep it general. You don't mind what she's doing, but just be careful. Stuff like that.

And don't tell her parents. It's better if they just catch her something. Might be more akward, but I don't think it is your place to tell them that.

[Quincunx]

Canadian: :smallconfused: Are you TRYING to be offensive?

Frequently, yes. In this case, though, the useful viewpoint : forum-compliant offensiveness ratio is in his favor. There were several "didn't. . .need. . .to know!" moments in my formative years, and it was only well after stumbling onto such acts myself that I made the connection and the aversion.

[wadledo]

I don't count as older and wiser, but I second the "Be a little more discreet next time."
My little brother is going through the same thing right now, and before leaving the house after I noticed some viruses on the computer and some files that shouldn't be there, I just told him that it might be a good idea to clear his browser history and not actually download anything when he's looking at porn.
He got the message pretty quick.

[Telonius]

Shes 15 but up until now has had a grand total of 1 boyfriend who she quickly realized was more of just of a friend.

And i noticed this walking past a window while i was in the backyard doing chores. 10 minutes later coming back after having finished she was doing the same thing although the site was different.

She's 15? Ignore it. In most states the legal age of consent is 15 or 16 anyway, and if she doesn't know the dangers of computer viruses by then, it'll take some harsh experience to teach her.

[TheBST]

What do i do?

Yeah, just leave it be. It's illegal but harmless. Besides, at that age you're relative's just begun to explore their sexuality, and porn can be a part of that. Calling attention to it will just mortify them- and that damage to their self-esteem is probably worse than anything pornography can do to them. Although you may want to have a conservation with them about virus proetection and the like, but make it sound as if it's apropos of nothing.

[Stormthorn]

She's 15? Ignore it. In most states the legal age of consent is 15 or 16 anyway, and if she doesn't know the dangers of computer viruses by then, it'll take some harsh experience to teach her.

I should point out that im in California where the age of consent is 18.



Same with messing with her browser. Tacky and wrong.

Wait, what? I didnt say anything about messing with her browser. And i wasnt spying on her the first time since the blinds where open and the door is right next to the window. I just noticed a suspicously familiar bouncing motion in my peripheral and when i turned it was a CGI woman on the computer. The second time past i did intentionaly check, however.


that damage to their self-esteem is probably worse than anything pornography can do to them.
This is true. Im worried partly because the adults all across our family know from my father (electronic technician) how to look through histroy, cookies, you-name-it and see where she might have gone.
And i know for a fact that she has ruined a computer before with her habit of downloading anything that strikes her fancy.

[GoC]

Just make sure she knows that pornography's connection with reality is as tenuous as James Bond's connection with real spying.

[Adlan]

I went through somthing similar with my little sister, who recently had her first 'serious' boyfriend. Fortunately, while I was away at university, friends and gamers who knew me, warned him of his girlfriends older brother, with swords, knives, bow's and a Protective instinct. ;)

In seriousness, if you feel upto handling it, and want to help her, I would suggest an open and frank discussion. I talked to my little sister, made sure that if she did have sex that it was safe sex, if she was too embaressed to get contraception I would do so for her. My little sister is 16, which is past the age of consent in the UK, but, I would have done the same had she been younger. I also offered to talk about my own experiances, but this was a little too close to the bone.

Had she been more than two or so years younger, or in my feeling, less emotionaly mature, I would have made the same offer. If people want to have sex, they will have sex, if we could tap into the libedo of teenage virgin's, the energy crisis would be solved. I would also warned her of the emotional consequences of sex, as well as the physical risks.

In your specific situation, I would advise something similar. Talk to her. At the very least you should tell her what you saw, and that she should take more care of her privacy. Were I in your shoe's, I'd mention.
1. Porn isn't realistic
2. If she's interested in sex, or sexualy active, she should be using protection (Ideally condom's and another form of contraception.)
3. someplace she can go, that is not you, for candid advice.

depending on her parents, would be weather or not I would tell them. I don't think you have a duty to tell them, but then, I view a 15 year old as an independant person, not, as one fellow playgrounder comments earlier 'Property'.
If I thought her parents would over react, punish their child, or such, I wouldn't tell them.
If I thought they would responsibly do roughly the actions I outlined, I might well tell them, espeically if I were not comfortable talking to the girl myself.

[Canadian]

More that I am put off by the tactic of dragging someone's mother into a conversation. It comes off as being a rudely targeted remark under the guise of following the parental discussion > mother connection.

If you talk with a mother about sex you're already dragging someone's mother into it.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Since when did talking about the birds and the bees involve asking one's mother how they feel about blowing smoke up the hersey canal?

[Coidzor]

...Buy her some new blinds as a hint not to be ...getting off with the windows open while people are doing yardwork...

...That's... just damned strange. Who doesn't think about the windows? :smallconfused:

Edit: Seriously though, that lack of tact in ensuring her privacy, well, it's partially a courtesy thing. Um, not really sure how to phrase it and all, but... If she's that obvious again, then that would definitely be grounds for words (possibly all but separate from any actual sex-talk) even for the more laizzez-faire conceptions of all this.

[Mr. Mud]

If I were you, I'd talk to her parents if possible (it really depends on how down to earth they are.) but if not, you're going to have to have a semi-awkward but important talk with her, in my opinion. Just make sure she doesn't idolize the women in that and start down a slippery slope... I mean its a one in a million chance, but let that become close to happening.

Make sure she isn't getting into any weird stuff though... But don't be to much of a third parent. She has to see you as somewhere between and equal or a friend, and a parent, and if you are constantly over her back she'll begin to get angry...

My two cents :smalltongue:.

[afroakuma]

One problem would be if she's scanning these to figure out "what guys like". That idea needs to be quashed, instantly if not sooner. Doesn't matter if it's simple misjudgment of thinking all guys think with their penises or crafting a slutty internet persona to snare them--quash it.

This. So very much this. Enough popular media is doing this these days (I think the media blew the "sexting" thing out of proportion, but I believe that it did happen, and with discernable prevalence to raise eyebrows).

And too much of it is targeted at girls. One thing I read on MSNBC, just today, was a list of five tips for women to get guys more frequently. Number four was, "Don't dress up in clothes you like, dress up in clothes that show your curves and flaunt 'the girls.'"

It was the first part that really got to me, because it read as "your individuality is less important in the mating game than selling yourself with sex appeal." As long as this is the message preached to young women, it's not going to go away.

Personally, I'd hand her a USB stick with several top-notch antivirus and anti-malware applications and mention that she should start using them routinely. If she's not spending money, infecting her computer or inflicting dramatic horrors upon her psyche, but rather just getting her 15-year old rocks (rockettes?) off...

urgh.

Well, you get my point.

[Trog]

just getting her 15-year old rocks (rockettes?) off...
*has a vision of a chorus line of Rockettes kicking their way through the discussion now* >.< :smalltongue:

[Don Julio Anejo]

And too much of it is targeted at girls. One thing I read on MSNBC, just today, was a list of five tips for women to get guys more frequently. Number four was, "Don't dress up in clothes you like, dress up in clothes that show your curves and flaunt 'the girls.'"

It was the first part that really got to me, because it read as "your individuality is less important in the mating game than selling yourself with sex appeal."
Like it or not, MSNBC is right and you're not. If you look more attractive, you're more likely to get a mate, pure and simple. See, some people may not care whether their partner is attractive and only care about personality. But some other people may also care about attractiveness (by the way, not necessarily because they themselves want a hot girl/boyfriend but simply because they don't want to be seen in public with Rosie O'Donnel or somesuch).

By being attractive you now have two groups being potentially interested in you instead of just one. After all, taking care of how you look doesn't suddenly make you any less of an interesting person. Hell, psychological research shows that attractive people are on average perceived as smarter, nicer, funnier, more friendly and more successful, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy of a sort.

PS: I'd also like to point out that there's a difference between dressing to be more attractive and dressing slutty. Most people won't find greasy unkept hair, a hoodies 2 sizes too big and baggy jeans attractive on women. Most people will find normal (not necessarily tight) jeans, a sweater that curves with the skin, nicely combed hair with bangs and some lipstick/mascara attractive yet they won't find it slutty. It's the miniskirts and tight black tshirts with no bra where you would normally draw the line (unless it's a frat party or a nightclub).

[Quincunx]

Don Julio Anejo: . . .

You and I are going to leave this conversation now, you because you can't distinguish MSNBC's sluttish advice from attractiveness advice, and me to make sure you understand that difference before returning. You are the kind of people we are trying to get our surrogate little sister to avoid.

Now. The good advice should not go into the P.S. The good advice should be the body of the message, with the snarky remark (clearly labeled as snarky if you can't 'do' sarcasm, and your normal tone is not sarcastic, Don Julio Anejo) relegated to the postscript.

Dressing sensuously for the sake of looking at porn is strange enough that the topic of dressing sensuously does not need to be covered during this conversation. If it does come up, though, attractive dress involves fit and mystery, not squashing the terrible twins together to make a second vaginal slit out of the cleavage. It's still wearing the comfy oversized sweatshirt but taking two tiny vertical darts in the front (one under each nipple) and one horizontal out of the back (at/near the waist) so the sweatshirt's extra room is still there but it hangs off of the breast and hip curve, thus driving the observer bananas as he tries to figure out the dimensions under it.

[THAC0]

She's 15. You're not her parent. Porn alone is not cause for concern. If you have other causes for concern, the situation might be different, but from what I've seen here, I wouldn't do a thing.

[Serpentine]

I just noticed a suspicously familiar bouncing motion in my peripheral and when i turned it was a CGI woman on the computer.Wait. CGI? Does that even count as "true" pornography? :smallconfused:

Self-contradiction: Yes it does, because "pornographic material" is pretty much anything of a sexual nature designed to cause arousal. But I was thinking "porn" as opposed to "arty sex-scene", in that the main difference seems to be that in porn the actors are actually doing the deed.

I'm gonna emphasise again the need to talk to her, or direct her to information on, the technology rather than so much the material (though it could still be worth scoping out her attitudes to the sex act, the human body and relationships, but I think this is generally less of an impact than tends to be supposed). I wish my friends and I had known on my 15th or 16th birthday about the ability of some porn sites to automatically bill one's phone line. Would've resulted in a lot less awkwardness, and a phone bill smaller by several hundred dollars :sigh:
Also, I didn't think about the issue of her privacy. I think that, too, is very worth mentioning to her - not to deceive her parents, but to, hindeed, protect her privacy.
I do think, as well, that the nature of this conversation will depend on your relationship - I don't mean familial, though that is likely to play a part. I mean your personal relationship. I consider most of my cousins, for example, to be my friends, and I would have little problem with discussing this sort of issue with just about any of them. If it had come up when I was about 15, I would've been fine with talking about it with one of my older cousins (though which specific one/s could matter - there's a couple who I suspect would be more inclined to condemn it as the work of a certain cthonic counter-deity figure than give me any useful advice). So, what sort of a relationship do you have? If it's not one in which friendship or possibly mentor...ship? is involved, then it might be worth mentioning it to someone else more able to have a less-awkard conversation with her about it.

Don: Afroakuma's point was absolutely not that the article was wrong in its advice "for women to get guys more frequently", his point was that it "read as "your individuality is less important in the mating game than selling yourself with sex appeal."" That is, you getting sex is more important than you, yourself. Its advice probably would get you laid, but at the expense of your own soul - or, if you prefer, at the expense of your dignity, self-worth and personality. Yes, someone who took that advice most likely would get laid more often. They'd also end up - or appear to be - a mindless, vapid village bicycle, collecting penises that happen to have men attached.

[SilverSheriff]

I'm gonna emphasise again the need to talk to her, or direct her to information on, the technology rather than so much the material (though it could still be worth scoping out her attitudes to the sex act, the human body and relationships, but I think this is generally less of an impact than tends to be supposed). I wish my friends and I had known on my 15th or 16th birthday about the ability of some porn sites to automatically bill one's phone line. Would've resulted in a lot less awkwardness, and a phone bill smaller by several hundred dollars :sigh:

Never would have thought you were the type to look at Porn Serp, this has me shocked and aroused.:smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

o.O

We were being silly on my birthday:smalltongue: It started with just looking up sex positions or something. Most of us actually got bored and left pretty quickly - it was after that, I think, that the suspect site was looked at.
Other than that... I've read a few of the Wulf Archive stories, and a few erotic manga sites, but that's about it :smalltongue:

[SilverSheriff]

Yeah, I kind of went through the same thing when I was about 12...which was 1st year of High school one of my friends older brothers had left porn on his Laptop so we all started looking at it, by the end of the year we were all addicted though and that went on for a few years until about last year, where I kind of got bored and stopped, preferring to read more Romance based Erotic Literature.

[Ceska]

It was the first part that really got to me, because it read as "your individuality is less important in the mating game than selling yourself with sex appeal." As long as this is the message preached to young women, it's not going to go away.
Even more important to me is that you have to feel comfortable in your clothes, increasing your self esteem, which is a lot more attractive than just flashing your goods, so to say.

For the rest, I agree with Serpy. Honestly, a fifteen year old looking at porn is rather normal, the only real problem would be either bills or viruses infecting the computer in question.

[Berserk Monk]

Question: how old? Keep in mind your idea of too young may not be the same as ours. We talking under ten, cause yeah, that is kind of odd for someone that young to be looking at porn (but kind of awesome speaking from an immature teenager view point). Tell one of their parents.

If they're around age twelve, then I'd go with the third option: guiding them to make the right decisions (maybe tell one of their parents (the parent that's the same gender as them)).

If their 14-15, then don't really bother telling their parents. Guide them along and make sure they don't end up nobody's bitch.

As just a final closing statement, just let me say some words of wisdom from Alan Moore:

Sexually progressive cultures gave us mathematics, literature, philosophy, civilization and the rest, while sexually restrictive cultures gave us the Dark Ages and the Holocaust. Not that I’m trying to load my argument, of course.

Life isn’t divided into genres. It’s a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel … with a bit of pornography if you're lucky.

[Brewdude]

First, Canadian is right. Those who disagree or are offended by his points here are on their way to becoming hopeless Luddites.

Second, A FAR more important discussion is about best practices in protecting one's privacy: Blinds, password protection, virus avoidance. If you are going to make a pitch about avoiding porn sites, make it in this context, while also suggesting avoiding torrent and piracy sites.

Lastly:
(not a porn link, just a youtube clip that relates to this discussion)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-TA57L0kuc

I can't believe I'm the first one to post this link. Seriously, EVERYONE gets their porn off the internet, and 99% of the population has looked at porn in the last year.

[KnightDisciple]

As just a final closing statement, just let me say some words of wisdom from Alan Moore:

Sexually progressive cultures gave us mathematics, literature, philosophy, civilization and the rest, while sexually restrictive cultures gave us the Dark Ages and the Holocaust. Not that I’m trying to load my argument, of course.


That culture that "gave us the Dark Ages"?
It also preserved the arts of reading and writing, as well as vast swaths of knowledge.
Unless he's more rightly blaming the barbarian hordes of Europe for the Dark Ages. :smallamused:

On article mentioned by Afrokuma: Bleh. I'd rather a girl not dress where her clothes are barely covering the, ah, "critical bits", as it were.
Yes, a large part of this is due to my personal worldview and such.
But honestly, it's more attractive to me, mentally and long term, if the girl doesn't mind covering up a bit more. It's less distracting, tells me she's not just trying to "flaunt it", and tells me she's (at least potentially) saving that sight for the right person (her husband).
Yes, my automatic reaction system "likes" the "flaunt it" stuff more. But I think with my brain, thank you kindly. :smalltongue:

[GoC]

Most guys are more likely to go out with (and treat well) a girl who dresses fashionably, is pretty and has good conversation skills. Slutty detracts/distracts from all three things on that list.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

That advice is both accurate and misleading because wearing less, or tighter fitting, clothes WILL appeal to a lower common denominator. Sure, there are still good guys within the newly expanded target audiance, but there are a LOT more of the less savory type that are added too. It's flattering to be hit on a lot, though in this case you'd just have to ignore the fact that you had to reduce yourself to an object in order to make that happen. Details, right?

[Syka]

She is 15. Porn in and of itself is not necessarily bad as long as she has other role models for actual relationships. Everyone I know uses it as a tool to get off when lacking a partner, not as a guide to relationships/sex.

I would be concerned ONLY if she was on chat sites and the like and talking with strangers. I'd merely sit her down and give her the basic "don't give peeps on the internet any identifying information" talk rather than a "pron" talk.

You know how I found out about sex? I read stuff online about it, not porn but stuff many people would question a 15/16 year old reading. My interest as a furry also exposed me to my first pornographic images, yet I am not a furry in the sexual sense nor are my sexual appetites particularly odd.

[afroakuma]

As I said, the important thing is to make sure she uses protection.

Considering the sex act in question is looking at porn on the Internet, I am of course referring to viruses of the technological variety.

Avira and Malwarebytes, as well as any trial version of a powerful and legitimate spyware/cache wiper, was what I gave my cousin when his computer acquired an STI, so to speak.

[Canadian]

Since when did talking about the birds and the bees involve asking one's mother how they feel about blowing smoke up the hersey canal?

The O.P. was talking about a 15 year old girl viewing internet porn. This isn't a 9 year old child asking where "babies come from." This isn't a "birds and bees" conversation. Nobody in internet porn is trying to make a baby or start a family.

How do you have a wholesome, healthy, comfortable, and educational conversation between a parent and a 15 year old girl on the topic of the porn she's been watching?

Have you seen internet porn? What parent could tastefully describe why someone would enjoy a "blumpkin" or a "360 reverse piledriver?" Even the most mild porn on the net is pretty hard core. You don't have to go much further to find the stuff that takes place in a barnyard.

15 Year old Girl: "Hey dad I was on the net and I saw this video with two girls and a cup and..."

Several minutes later:

Dad: Uh.... Ask your mother. (Waits until she leaves and calls a therapist)

It's impossible to have a psychologically healthy conversation with your kids about internet porn. Unless the extent of the conversation is "just don't watch it" or something equally vague or ignorant.

As for a older male relative going back and looking in the window to see if his 15 year old under age cousin is pleasuring herself to internet porn... You do realize that people are sent to jail for that kind of thing. I'd say stop looking in that window. In fact don't look in there ever again.

Close the blinds. Paint over the window or board it up. Stop going in the back yard. Can you imagine what it would do to your relationship with her if she spotted you watching her do what she was doing? If she told a parent it's not out of the question that the police could be called and your reputation ruined forever.

Honestly... If you told somebody's dad you saw a Cleaveland Steamer he'd probably think you saw someone on a minor league football team.

Parents and relatives should just be loving and let kids know they are there for them. That's it. When important things happen the kids will come to you because they trust you. Violate that trust and they won't come to you when they need you most. Pick your battles. Fight the ones that count. The rest don't matter.

For your own good and everyone else's you'd be wise to just leave this alone.

[GoC]

When important things happen the kids will come to you because they trust you.
Social laws say you do not talk about these things so how would she know what's important?

Also, I disagree. There's no way his reputation would be "destroyed forever" if he was caught looking in on a younger cousin. At least not where I come from.

[Canadian]

Social laws say you do not talk about these things so how would she know what's important?

Also, I disagree. There's no way his reputation would be "destroyed forever" if he was caught looking in on a younger cousin. At least not where I come from.

She'll know what's important. Unless she's mentally handicapped in which case no amount of talking will help her with anything. I assume she's an average 15 year old girl of average intelligence.

If that's normal where you come from I bet there's banjo music playing there right now. Perhaps looking through a window at your 15 year old cousin while she watches internet porn would be the first step towards getting married to her in your community.

Yuck. Move out of the swamp!

[GoC]

If that's normal where you come from I bet there's banjo music playing there right now. Perhaps looking through a window at your 15 year old cousin while she watches internet porn would be the first step towards getting married to her in your community.
I don't recall saying it's normal.:smallconfused:
I said it wouldn't result in alienation due to the alternate explanations and the fact that as an older cousin it is his duty to look out for her.
Also, I don't like you insulting my country of upbringing.:smallannoyed:

Also, privacy isn't such a big deal there.

[TheBST]

There's no way his reputation would be "destroyed forever" if he was caught looking in on a younger cousin. At least not where I come from.

Incestishire?

[KnightDisciple]

Yes, because every teenager totally trusts their parents to know better, and never thinks that they're just "stupid old people" or some such.
Also, kids will always overcome any embarrassment in a critical issue/situation. Always.

Seriously though, you're overestimating the willingness of teens to talk to parents, even when they ought to. I'm not saying parents should constantly snoop in their kids' lives, but occasionally trying to see if they need help, everything's alright, etc. is more than within their bounds.

Also, I love how you make parents instructing their kids not to view such things as "ignorant". Heaven forbid a parent try to pass on moral values to their child.

[GoC]

Heaven forbid a parent try to pass on moral values to their child.

Indeed. Such attempts either fail or amount to brainwashing (the extreme cases).

[Mr. Mud]

She'll know what's important. Unless she's mentally handicapped in which case no amount of talking will help her with anything. I assume she's an average 15 year old girl of average intelligence.

If that's normal where you come from I bet there's banjo music playing there right now. Perhaps looking through a window at your 15 year old cousin while she watches internet porn would be the first step towards getting married to her in your community.

Yuck. Move out of the swamp!

I can't begin to express how stereotypical this statement is... And I hope you're being (very overly) sarcastic :smallmad:.

[Canadian]

as an older cousin it is his duty to look out for her.

Also, privacy isn't such a big deal there.

"Looking out for her" does not mean peeping into her bedroom window while she watches porn.

Privacy is a big deal everywhere. Well perhaps not Guantanimo bay prison camp.

[KnightDisciple]

Indeed. Such attempts either fail or amount to brainwashing (the extreme cases).

...No.
No.
And did I mention, NO.

[TheBST]

Heaven forbid a parent try to pass on moral values to their child.

If we're talking about pornography with willing participants, where does morality enter into it?

[Canadian]

Also, I love how you make parents instructing their kids not to view such things as "ignorant". Heaven forbid a parent try to pass on moral values to their child.

Morality involves the idea of choice. Just straight out telling someone not to do something that isn't even harmful in the first place is ignorant.

[KnightDisciple]

If we're talking about pornography with willing participants, where does morality enter into it?

Maybe you view the whole concept as wrong?

[Canadian]

I can't begin to express how stereotypical this statement is... And I hope you're being (very overly) sarcastic :smallmad:.

You saw deliverance right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE

[TheBST]

Maybe you view the whole concept as wrong?

Based on what? (Religious reasons aside)

[Canadian]

Maybe you view the whole concept as wrong?

If there was no sex there would be no human race.

If there was no sex on video there would be no internet.

How can it possibly be wrong?

[The Rose Dragon]

If there was no sex on video there would be no internet.

[CITATION NEEDED]

[GoC]

"Looking out for her" does not mean peeping into her bedroom window while she watches porn.
You're walking by and check to see how she's doing. You don't stand there staring.:smallannoyed:


Privacy is a big deal everywhere.
Nope. Mi casa es tu casa is meant (almost) literally. Bedrooms are not the uber-sanctuaries they are in west Europe and north America.


...No.
No.
And did I mention, NO.
Eloquent.:smalltongue:

[KnightDisciple]

Based on what? (Religious reasons aside)

Well, religion plays a large part, but sure, I've got two big things.

a.)The industry itself is rife with exploitation of the members, especially the women.

b.)It presents wildly inaccurate views on how such things are, and ought to go. Some of that goes back to my religious views, of course. (It's hard to completely divorce myself of them, since it's a worldview and all that. :smallwink:)

Of course, a decent chunk of the reasoning behind a parent instructing their child against it will likely include religious reasoning.

[Mr. Mud]

You saw deliverance right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE

Heh... Amendments made then :smallamused:.

[KnightDisciple]

If there was no sex there would be no human race.
Well, yes, that's true.



If there was no sex on video there would be no internet.

How can it possibly be wrong?

Wait, what? That's...no. That's even worse of a view than what GoC said a couple posts back. That statement has no basis in fact.

And again, a fair part of my/the theoretical parents' objection is a moral/religious basis.

@GoC: No less Eloquent than the statement that precipitated it.

[Canadian]

[CITATION NEEDED]

Sex Industry Statistics

$57.0 billion revenue world-wide

$12.0 billion of this is US revenue, more than all combined revenues of all professional football, baseball and basketball franchises or the combined revenues of ABC, CBS, and NBC (6.2 billion).

$2.5 of the $12 billion is related to internet porn.

Porn on the Web

25% of total search engine requests are porn-related. (Top three searches: sex, mp3 and hotmail.)

8% of total emails are porn-related. Average daily pornographic emails are 4.5 per internet user

12% of total websites are pornographic

http://www.healthymind.com/s-porn-stats.html

[KnightDisciple]

That's wildly different from saying "Without sex on video, there would be no internet."

[Canadian]

You're walking by and check to see how she's doing. You don't stand there staring.:smallannoyed:


Nope. Mi casa es tu casa is meant (almost) literally. Bedrooms are not the uber-sanctuaries they are in west Europe and north America.


Eloquent.:smalltongue:

Well the OP lives in California where privacy is a big deal and the 4th amendment of the constitution guarantees privacy. So since the OP isn't in whatever country you're from peeping on his 15 year old cousin is in fact gross and wrong by American legal and moral standards.

Why don't you try peeping in a few windows in L.A. and then let the police know that it's all just a "cultural misunderstanding" and that a underage girl's privacy means nothing to you.

[The Rose Dragon]

12% of total websites are pornographic

The remaining 88% of the internet do not count, I take it?

[TheBST]

Well, religion plays a large part, but sure, I've got two big things.

a.)The industry itself is rife with exploitation of the members, especially the women.

b.)It presents wildly inaccurate views on how such things are, and ought to go. Some of that goes back to my religious views, of course. (It's hard to completely divorce myself of them, since it's a worldview and all that. :smallwink:)

Of course, a decent chunk of the reasoning behind a parent instructing their child against it will likely include religious reasoning.

Not debating you personally, just the hypothetical opinions:

a) They made their choice to join in and they can make the choice to leave.

b)So do Rom-coms.

c) That or over-protectiveness, as if porn is a gateway drug to teen pregnancy, STDs and miscellaneous acts of sluttery. Or just the desire to keep your children as 'innocent' as possible before they become another disappointed adult.

[Canadian]

That's wildly different from saying "Without sex on video, there would be no internet."

What I'm getting at is everyone on this forum has looked up porn on their computer. All the moral judgement makes no sense coming from a bunch of people who have all seen porn themselves.

Honestly, she's no different that the other billions of people who are part of the 25% of all google searches daily that are for porn.

[Canadian]

The remaining 88% of the internet do not count, I take it?

You know I was just being funny. Besides the hidden message was "don't do drugs."

[GoC]

Why don't you try peeping in a few windows in L.A. and then let the police know that it's all just a "cultural misunderstanding" and that a underage girl's privacy means nothing to you.
:smallsigh:
And I totally said that looking in the windows of random people is ok...:smallsigh:


@GoC: No less Eloquent than the statement that precipitated it.

Touché.:smalltongue:
I'm just speaking from personal experience of course.

[Canadian]

Not debating you personally, just the hypothetical opinions:

a) They made their choice to join in and they can make the choice to leave.

b)So do Rom-coms.

c) That or over-protectiveness, as if porn is a gateway drug to teen pregnancy, STDs and miscellaneous acts of sluttery. Or just the desire to keep your children as 'innocent' as possible before they become another disappointed adult.

Yeah! +1! Woot!

[KnightDisciple]

What I'm getting at is everyone on this forum has looked up porn on their computer. All the moral judgement makes no sense coming from a bunch of people who have all seen porn themselves.

Honestly, she's no different that the other billions of people who are part of the 25% of all google searches daily that are for porn.

And I'm sure everybody's lied at some point. Doesn't make lying right.

"Everybody's doing it" is a poor basis. And you're basically saying that none of us could say "Well, yeah, I looked at one point, but looking back, it was the wrong decision, and I'd like to help you avoid the consequences I experienced."

Edit: responding to TheBST's post separately.

[Canadian]

:smallsigh:
And I totally said that looking in the windows of random people is ok...:smallsigh:

Not if you're in their backyard peeping into their bedroom. That's trespassing.

[GoC]

And I'm sure everybody's lied at some point. Doesn't make lying right.

Lying is morally neutral.:smallsmile:

[TheBST]

@TheBST:What's a "Rom-Com"? Romantic Comedy?

That's the one. They're pretty much emotional pornography.

[Canadian]

And I'm sure everybody's lied at some point. Doesn't make lying right.

"Everybody's doing it" is a poor basis. And you're basically saying that none of us could say "Well, yeah, I looked at one point, but looking back, it was the wrong decision, and I'd like to help you avoid the consequences I experienced."

Edit: responding to TheBST's post separately.

I'm sure you've seen porn. Perhaps you can regale us with some anecdotes on how it was the wrong decision for you and how to avoid the consequences?

Sprained wrist or something?

[Canadian]

Lying is morally neutral.:smallsmile:

Dude that makes no sense. I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

[Canadian]

That's the one. They're pretty much emotional pornography.

Romantic comedies set up such unrealistic expectations for young people. We should ban them and everything else in the world.

[KnightDisciple]

Not debating you personally, just the hypothetical opinions:

a) They made their choice to join in and they can make the choice to leave.
Assuming they can. And even if they do, they're now scarred from the exploitation. Stopping the exploitation from happening in the first place is preferable.


b)So do Rom-coms.
I'm not a big Romantic Comedy fan. Beyond that, I'd make the same caution to kids. I'm not as vehemently against them due to other factors here, but I'm certainly not a big fan of propping crappy "Romantic" movies up either.


c) That or over-protectiveness, as if porn is a gateway drug to teen pregnancy, STDs and miscellaneous acts of sluttery. Or just the desire to keep your children as 'innocent' as possible before they become another disappointed adult.

Porn can lead to actual addiction, along with things like "porn creep". As well, it again warps perceptions of relationships.
It's not "innocence" so much as "sexual purity", per religious views.

[KnightDisciple]

I'm sure you've seen porn. Perhaps you can regale us with some anecdotes on how it was the wrong decision for you and how to avoid the consequences?

Sprained wrist or something?

It was wrong, ultimately, because my eyes, my sexual desire, are meant for my future wife. I highly doubt anyone I may have viewed in such a presentation was said future wife.

First step is to decide not to do it. Next step is to start putting self-blockers up; filters and the like. Third step is to have someone to talk to. Fourth step is not to commit hara kiri if you slip up. Crap happens, admit the mistake again and move on.

My goal in life is to control my impulses, not have them control me.

[Canadian]

Porn can lead to actual addiction, along with things like "porn creep". As well, it again warps perceptions of relationships.
It's not "innocence" so much as "sexual purity", per religious views.

Eating can lead to an addiction to food. So people can get addicted to sex. Big deal. They are both activities that the human race can't survive without.

[GoC]

Dude that makes no sense.
:smallconfused:
Why does it make no sense? Most philosophers think lying needs context for it's moral worth to be determined. Lying to save someone's life is regarded as a good act. Lying about someone raping you (to use a biblical story) is regarded as an evil act.

[Canadian]

It was wrong, ultimately, because my eyes, my sexual desire, are meant for my future wife. I highly doubt anyone I may have viewed in such a presentation was said future wife.

First step is to decide not to do it. Next step is to start putting self-blockers up; filters and the like. Third step is to have someone to talk to. Fourth step is not to commit hara kiri if you slip up. Crap happens, admit the mistake again and move on.

My goal in life is to control my impulses, not have them control me.

With any luck you'll find a woman who has the same point of view on sex and same lack of sexual experience as you. By the way there's a 50% chance that this future wife will divorce you in spite of your awesome purity.

[KnightDisciple]

Eating can lead to an addiction to food. So people can get addicted to sex. Big deal. They are both activities that the human race can't survive without.

There's a vast gulf between "sex" and "porn".

Both eating and sex require self control, incidentally.:smallwink:

[Canadian]

There's a vast

Both eating and sex require self control, incidentally.:smallwink:

They also require an appetite and are meant to be enjoyed.

[Canadian]

There's a vast gulf between "sex" and "porn".



The gulf between sex and porn is turning on a camera.

[TheBST]

Assuming they can. And even if they do, they're now scarred from the exploitation. Stopping the exploitation from happening in the first place is preferable.

Porn can lead to actual addiction, along with things like "porn creep". As well, it again warps perceptions of relationships.

It's not "innocence" so much as "sexual purity", per religious views.

a) Of course they can. Are they being held hostage? Also, I imagine porn stars are receiving better pay for their 'services' than, say, McDonalds employees. Doesn't sound like exploitation to me if you chose to do it and are being comparatively well-paid.

b) Having self-control is the real issue, then? Plus, porn doesn't do 'relationships' at all- it's a parade of random screwing.

c) Never understood the modern religious emphasis on 'sexual purity' since the major religious texts were written before the advent of affordable and practical contraception, but Religious Talk is verboten here, so I'll leave it at that.

[Canadian]

It seems like the only thing that turns sex into porn is the presence of a camera.

Why is it okay to photograph the grand canyon, a baby being born, a waterfall, a family vacation, a delicious dinner, and every other miracle of human experience except sex?

Why is it the one natural thing that becomes evil as soon as you take a picture of it?

It's natural and fun and the presence or absence of a camera from any of the above stated activities does not have any effect on the innate goodness of any of them. Including sex.

[Canadian]

a) Of course they can. Are they being held hostage? Also, I imagine porn stars are receiving better pay for their 'services' than, say, McDonalds employees. Doesn't sound like exploitation to me if you chose to do it and are being comparatively well-paid.

b) Having self-control is the real issue, then? Plus, porn doesn't do 'relationships' at all- it's a parade of random screwing.

c) Never understood the modern religious emphasis on 'sexual purity' since the major religious texts were written before the advent of affordable and practical contraception, but Religious Talk is verboten here, so I'll leave it at that.

Dude you make your points so well. Liverpool represent!!! :smallbiggrin:

[GoC]

KnightDisciple is harcore religious.:smalleek:
You can take that as a compliment btw.:smallbiggrin:

[Canadian]

It was wrong, ultimately, because my eyes, my sexual desire, are meant for my future wife.

Actually your FUTURE sexual desire is meant for your FUTURE wife.

Your attitude towards sex turns you PRESENT sexual desire into a problem instead of a normal and healthy part of being a human being.

What are you doing to keep your sexuality healthy TODAY?

[Canadian]

...No.
No.
And did I mention, NO.

If someone tries to touch you in a bad place.

Say No!

Go!

And Tell!

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/entertainment/watch/v859949pYbqeRR6

[TheBST]

KnightDisciple is hardcore religious.:smalleek:
You can take that as a compliment btw.:smallbiggrin:

Don't say 'hardcore' around him!


Liverpool represent!!! :smallbiggrin:

Is right, la'.



It was wrong, ultimately, because my eyes, my sexual desire, are meant for my future wife.

I can understand saving sexual activity for your hypothetical wife, but what's wrong with desire? It only takes place in the mind, and I'm sure your God of Choice won't begrudge you that. Also- Can't site sources off the top of my head- but isn't sexual repression, especially of onanism, linked to a whole vista of psychological problems?

[Canadian]

I can understand saving sexual activity for your hypothetical wife, but what's wrong with desire?

The problem is if he decides to be totally non sexual he's surrounded by millions of guys who are sexual.

Although he intends to give his sexual desire to his future wife there's a huge chance that his future wife will end up getting some other guys sexuality first.

I know you'd like to get married but repressing your sexual desire until after marriage pretty much eliminates 95% of the female population.

77% of all people have had sex by age 20. Less than 5% of brides are virgins on their wedding day.

This means you'll have to date 20 times more women than the average man in order to just find a virgin. That does not mean she'll even agree to go out with you much less marry you. You're really wrecking your odds for happiness in life.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121901274.html

[Canadian]

Hey, I find myself in agreement with Canadian. The world is to end tomorrow (give or take a couple billion years).

It really must be the end of the world...

[TheBST]

This means you'll have to date 20 times more women than the average man in order to just find a virgin. That does not mean she'll even agree to go out with you much less marry you. You're really wrecking your odds for happiness in life.


Don't think he said anything about said future wife having to be a virgin, but fair point. If I had odds like that against my finding a woman, I'd need pornography more than anyone.

[Canadian]

Perhaps he can become a male nun. If there is such a thing.

[Dallas-Dakota]

You mean a monk?

[Canadian]

You mean a monk?

No... a male nun. Me love cookie!

Have you seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN0XWcj_L6o

It's you on the subway in NYC!

[GoC]

I don't think it's fair to make fun of KnightDisciple. He is keeping the morals his parents taught him and we should respect him for that.

[KnightDisciple]

You know what, forget this. I tried to bring a different perspective in. I even tried really hard to stick to board rules.
But forget it. If this kind of lack of respect, and casually citing statistics at me is all that's going to happen, my opinion of the maturity and such of these boards was obviously overrated.
I'll do myself a favor and leave this conversation now. It's gone widely off-topic anyways.:smallannoyed:

TheBST, you've been somewhat respectful, so I'm willing to discuss stuff over PM if you'd like.

[Lyesmith]

Man-nuns!
Like regular nuns, but with beards.

[Canadian]

Man-nuns!
Like regular nuns, but with beards.

I laughed so hard when I read that. You rock! :smallbiggrin:

[Canadian]

my opinion of the maturity and such of these boards was obviously overrated.
[/spoiler]

The title of the forum does say "playground." I think that automatically puts the whole thing in a less serious mode. I'm not saying it makes the place immature. I'm just saying it's a playground.

Actually a playground would not be a great place to discuss porn in the first place. Just saying.

[Canadian]

I don't think it's fair to make fun of KnightDisciple. He is keeping the morals his parents taught him.

Not really. He admitted to watching porn. Check his posts.

[The Rose Dragon]

I don't think it's fair to make fun of KnightDisciple. He is keeping the morals his parents taught him and we should respect him for that.

Well, it's one thing to make fun of him, it's another thing to disagree with him and tell him why we disagree. Most of us were doing the latter.

I think the rest of us went with the male nun joke, which was rather distasteful.

[Canadian]

I think the rest of us went with the male nun joke, which was rather distasteful.

Personally I feel dirty and ashamed. Not in an I just watched porn on the internet sense. More of a Man-nun joke sense.

That low blow was beneath even me.

I apologize. Sorry dude! No disrespect intended. I just wanted a 15 year old California girl to be able to browse in peace.

I edited the offending post.

Now if you all don't mind I'm off to the gentlemen's club to eat a steak and help some girls pay for their college tuition on their way to becoming rocket scientists. :smallwink:

[KnightDisciple]

Well, it's one thing to make fun of him, it's another thing to disagree with him and tell him why we disagree. Most of us were doing the latter.

I think the rest of us went with the male nun joke, which was rather distasteful.

You disagree, that's fine. But understand first off that I was working under much heavier restrictions when it comes to explaining my viewpoint. And beyond that, I took things like the "male nun" stuff as, well, teasing.

Also, I never once claimed to be perfect, or to not have messed up. I did claim to be trying to hold myself to certain standards. If you didn't notice, one of my earlier posts explicitly said "realize you'll mess up, don't dwell too much on the mistake, learn to move on and learn from it".

Maybe I got too cheesed off with my post a bit up, maybe not.

But the whole "you've got a 50% chance of divorce!" and "you've got a horrible chance of getting married!" were out of line and taste. Plus, they're assuming I'm working from the total pool of all women, rather than a subset (specifically, those who share my beliefs/worldview). That's going to alter those statistics. Potentially by a huge margin.

And to think, my first post basically said "you should talk to their parents, who should talk to their kid". :smallsigh:

[The Rose Dragon]

But understand first off that I was working under much heavier restrictions when it comes to explaining my viewpoint.

So am I when it comes to explaining why I disagree.

To think this conversation would be a lot more civil if we could discuss the religious aspects freely (something I learned during debate classes) is sad, really.

I do apologize if I offended you or anything. However, we can also get offended by what you had to say. So it goes both ways.

[GoC]

So am I when it comes to explaining why I disagree.

To think this conversation would be a lot more civil if we could discuss the religious aspects freely (something I learned during debate classes) is sad, really.

I do apologize if I offended you or anything. However, we can also get offended by what you had to say. So it goes both ways.

We need an alternate place to discuss it...
#Quantum_Mechanics on irc.rizon.net?

[afroakuma]

Having just read through the last two pages:

A) Can we try to get back on topic? Advice for Stormthorn instead of a debate on the morality of pornography?

B) Canadian: Seriously, go introduce yourself to the Edit button.

[Coidzor]

"Looking out for her" does not mean peeping into her bedroom window while she watches porn.

Privacy is a big deal everywhere. Well perhaps not Guantanimo bay prison camp.

Honestly, someone watching porn without even trying to get out of view of said window or closing the blinds pretty much is asking for the fallout of someone inadvertently seeing them... especially if it's daytime and yardwork season... If you're busy gardening against the wall of the house where said window is and such activities are taking place there's a fair chance that you'd notice and have a legitimate grievance against the offending party.

Telling your 15 year old relative not to masturbate with the window open =/= wanting or trying to get into her pants. I believe it also =/= violation of privacy rights due to the fact that you had a perfectly valid, sanctioned reason to be where you were.

Now the fact that he went back to double check was stupid, but, there you go, humans being dumb panicky animals as they are. I'm not sure what the appropriate immediate response to seeing such a thing would be, actually.

[Don Julio Anejo]

I apologize about my previous post which came off as a bit of... abrasive, to say the least. In my defence it was 4 AM, I just got home from work and I went through half a mickey of whiskey mixed with coke while at work.

What I meant was that you shouldn't be sluttying it up (although it may have come across that way). What I meant was that by making the effort to look nice (instead of just relying on your personality and ignoring the looks completely) you'll have much more success in relationships.

Making your hair look nice does not make you any more of a mindless drone. It does, however, make it that much more likely that cute girl/boy you've been pining over for a month will ask you out (agree to go out). That's all I wanted to say.

@ pornography: a discussion of morality (itP): KnightDisciple: you personally may believe in a certain deity(s), however other posters may not necessarily believe in the same deity(s). Therefore, you can't use your religions standards to get your point of view across. It's like a pirate telling a land-lubbing ninja that you shouldn't rock the boat because you can tip it over. It doesn't work simply because the ninja has never seen a boat in real life (okay, just bear with me, this analogy is more fun than a fisherman and an apple farmer).

@ actual topic: if the girl in question is doing it 5 times a day, yes, it's an addiction. If she's avoiding boys but still looks at porn, yes, it's also an addiction (probably coupled with social anxiety). Doesn't seem like she's doing either, so she's most likely not addicted.

There's no other real harm from porn (moral reasons notwithstanding). So just leave it at that. She's still going to watch it no matter what you do except now you've caused a family drama.

[thubby]

i would be inclined to just tell her to be more careful about the when and where she does it. and maybe install better antivirus on the computer.

just my 2 copper.

[Serpentine]

While I do disagree with KnightDisciple's view of pornography* the tone of the responses to his overall polite posts (looking at you, Canadian) was absolutely shameful.
Canadian, he didn't stand there staring in her window jacking off. He happened to glance into an open window and notice it, and then had a quick glance in later to confirm it. I'd probably be a bit offended at the second glance, but I'm not exactly gonna call the police on him or even do anything like call him a pervert. You are slandering him with absolutely no justification, and are distorting the issue horribly. Also, there's an "edit" key in the corner of your posts, and it is possible to copy-paste quotes into a different window.
Don, I think you put the problems with Knight's argument very eloquently. Well, maybe the metaphore could use some work... :smalltongue:

Hey, OP, what'd you end up doing?

*Regarding the sex industry as a whole being exploitative, I think it depends, as much as any industry: If the people - male and female - are doing the work because they want to, are getting paid fairly, are treated right and not abused, got into it because they chose to, are safe and keeping healthy - and are taking steps to ensure that others are safe - and are able to choose to leave it whenever they like, then it is not exploitative. That is, if they have the same working conditions as any other free employee, then they are just another employee. However, the sex industry is, I think, more at risk of violating these conditions. On the other hand, the manufacturing industry was just as bad until recent times, and in some places still is.

[Gitman00]

Don't make assumptions on how other people view or choose to live their lives. It can be insulting.

I made no assumptions. The OP asked for advice, and I offered it, based on my own worldview. If that worldview disagrees with your own, that's on you. I refuse to withhold my opinion just because someone else might be offended. If I did that, I'd never be able to talk. :smallbiggrin:

[Canadian]

But the whole "you've got a 50% chance of divorce!" and "you've got a horrible chance of getting married!" were out of line and taste. Plus, they're assuming I'm working from the total pool of all women, rather than a subset (specifically, those who share my beliefs/worldview). That's going to alter those statistics. Potentially by a huge margin.

You can say I was out of line but the 50% statistic is true. You're forgetting that 95% of those women like pre marital sex and you don't. Sorry but they'll get fed up with the lack of sex long before they'd even consider getting married to you.


Having just read through the last two pages:

B) Canadian: Seriously, go introduce yourself to the Edit button.

Done.



Now the fact that he went back to double check was stupid, but, there you go, humans being dumb panicky animals as they are. I'm not sure what the appropriate immediate response to seeing such a thing would be, actually.

The proper and least creepy response would be to not look in the window a second time.



There's no other real harm from porn (moral reasons notwithstanding). So just leave it at that. She's still going to watch it no matter what you do except now you've caused a family drama.

I agree.


While I do disagree with KnightDisciple's view of pornography* the tone of the responses to his overall polite posts (looking at you, Canadian) was absolutely shameful.
Canadian, he didn't stand there staring in her window jacking off. He happened to glance into an open window and notice it, and then had a quick glance in later to confirm it. I'd probably be a bit offended at the second glance, but I'm not exactly gonna call the police on him or even do anything like call him a pervert.

Give me your home address. I'll come to your window and peek in on you. I know you won't call the police or think I'm a pervert for doing it.

Peeping into a 15 year old under age girl's bedroom while she watches porn on the internet is sooooo normal. That fact that she's your cousin makes it even more normal.

I don't see how yard work is an excuse for doing this. I also don't see how forgetting to close the blinds means you're "asking for it" in terms of having your privacy invaded.

That's like saying if a girl dresses sexy she's asking to be raped. Or if you leave your front door unlocked you're asking to be burglarized.

[Serpentine]

You can say I was out of line but the 50% statistic is true. You're forgetting that 95% of those women like pre marital sex and you don't. Sorry but they'll get fed up with the lack of sex long before they'd even consider getting married to you.In that case, why would he want to marry them anyway?
You know those horribly annoying and sometimes offensive people who have particular beliefs and views on right and wrong and who try to shove these beliefs and views down your throat and make you feel bad for thinking and living the way you do? Yeah, it's not the religious one in this case.

Give me your home address. I'll come to your window and peek in on you. I know you won't call the police or think I'm a pervert for doing it.

Peeping into a 15 year old under age girl's bedroom while she watches porn on the internet is sooooo normal. That fact that she's your cousin makes it even more normal.

I don't see how yard work is an excuse for doing this. I also don't see how forgetting to close the blinds means you're "asking for it" in terms of having your privacy invaded.

That's like saying if a girl dresses sexy she's asking to be raped. Or if you leave your front door unlocked you're asking to be burglarized.This is nonsense. The first look was an accident - should I call you a pervert when you accidently glance at my exposed bosom? The second one, while possibly not respecting her privacy was only to confirm what he thought he'd seen. He didn't peep, he wasn't getting off on it, he didn't get aroused, he didn't masturbate into the bushes. He had a quick look at what she had on the computer. If you come to my house and peer in my window for no other reason than to get your jollies, yes, I will call the police on you. THIS IS NOT WHAT HE DID. No, she wasn't "asking for it", but nor did he go out of his way to spy on her. Stop trying to demonise him, and stop using ludicrious analogies.

[Canadian]

In that case, why would he want to marry them anyway?


Here's why...


Plus, they're assuming I'm working from the total pool of all women, rather than a subset (specifically, those who share my beliefs/worldview). That's going to alter those statistics. Potentially by a huge margin.


He's targeting a group so small that his chances of getting married are almost impossible. If he lived in a city of 100,000 people only 5,000 of them would be planning on being virgins until marriage. Only half of them would be female. That's 2,500 of which only 20% will be within ten years of his current age so that's 500 women. That assumes that they are all single. About 60% of americans are married so that leaves only 200 women.

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/sps/1998/reports/01married.pdf

Just because they are not married does not mean they are not in a relationship. Another 60% will be in a long term relationship so that leaves 80 women. Plus there's no guarantee that they'll even like him in spite of their common beliefs. That's if he even meets one of the 80 out of 100,000.

He's pretty much screwed.

[Serpentine]

And it's your place to judge, criticise and/or ridicule him for his decision, how?

[afroakuma]

You know those horribly annoying and sometimes offensive people who have particular beliefs and views on right and wrong and who try to shove these beliefs and views down your throat and make you feel bad for thinking and living the way you do? Yeah, it's not the religious one in this case.

Canadian:

This is not a thread for religious debate, nor for moral debate. A question was asked. You're straying along the line of outright attacking someone (and indirectly, multiple someones) for their religious beliefs. Cut it out.

Seriously.

[Canadian]

Canadian:

This is not a thread for religious debate, nor for moral debate. A question was asked. You're straying along the line of outright attacking someone (and indirectly, multiple someones) for their religious beliefs. Cut it out.

Seriously.

It takes two people to have an argument. Besides I've redirected the conversation back to the OP's topic several times. As for confronting a younger relative on the topic of porn: that's a moral debate.


And it's your place to judge, criticise and/or ridicule him for his decision, how?

He judges us for doing the opposite of what he does. Seems fair.

[afroakuma]

It takes two people to have an argument.

Yes, but you've been on the inciting side the whole time. I found more than one of your remarks to be notably crude or distasteful, and I do not happen to share his paradigm.

And if it takes two people, then one of you has to step down. Take the initiative! Be the "bigger man," as it were, if you prefer that phrasing.

[Xapi]

I don't have time to read the entire thread, but I'd like to live some important piece of advice:

If you noticed somehow that this person was into porn, then her parents probably could too.

I'd talk to her to ask her to be more careful and private about such things.

It's what I'd do if it was my sister or something like that.

[Canadian]

Yes, but you've been on the inciting side the whole time. I found more than one of your remarks to be notably crude or distasteful, and I do not happen to share his paradigm.

And if it takes two people, then one of you has to step down. Take the initiative! Be the "bigger man," as it were, if you prefer that phrasing.

I'll be polite and let him have the opportunity to be the "bigger man." After all if he's as pure and good as he claims he'll love the opportunity to step down and be the as you say "bigger man."

Just curious. Do you agree with me on what the O.P. should do?

[GoC]

The proper and least creepy response would be to not look in the window a second time.
I'd like to point out that this is advice for this specific case and in other cultures what is "proper" and "creepy" may be different.

Also, Canadian fails logic forever.

[Don Julio Anejo]

All I see for the last two pages is people attacking Canadian for points he's making that are actually RIGHT.
Example:

Also, Canadian fails logic forever.
I rest my case.

[Canadian]

I'd like to point out that this is advice for this specific case and in other cultures what is "proper" and "creepy" may be different.

Also, Canadian fails logic forever.

The specific case is in California where the 4th amendment to the constitution guarantees privacy and where state and municipal laws regarding privacy also apply. Also a girl under the age of 18 is not of legal age in the state of California.

As I pointed out in a previous post the laws and morals of the U.S. and the state of California and all municipal by laws apply to this situation. In other cultures things may be different but those cultures do not apply to the situation stated by the OP.

You fail logic.


All I see for the last two pages is people attacking Canadian for points he's making that are actually RIGHT.


Thanks!


The first look was an accident - should I call you a pervert when you accidently glance at my exposed bosom? The second one, while possibly not respecting her privacy was only to confirm what he thought he'd seen.

It was not "possibly" violating her privacy. It was 100% violating her privacy.

It does not matter why a person invades another person's privacy. It is a violation of that person's privacy and it is against the law. This is a violation of her constitutional rights.

The only thing that would make it okay was if she give him permission to look in the window ahead of time or if she told him it was okay after he told her what he did.

You can't apply constitutional rights selectively. They ALWAYS apply. That's why they exist and are the foundation for the American way of life.

[Trog]

It was not "possibly" violating her privacy. It was 100% violating her privacy.

It does not matter why a person invades another person's privacy. It is a violation of that person's privacy and it is against the law. This is a violation of her constitutional rights.

The only thing that would make it okay was if she give him permission to look in the window ahead of time or if she told him it was okay after he told her what he did.

You can't apply constitutional rights selectively. They ALWAYS apply. That's why they exist and are the foundation for the American way of life.
Yes an individual has the right to privacy. That's what the shades are for. :smalltongue:

If you leave the shades up and, say, wander around naked there is the remote possibility of someone happening to pass by and innocently (whilst walking their dog and taking a gander around the neighborhood, say) look in the direction of the window and accidentally seeing you. You might be all offended at this and declare it a violation of your privacy but maybe you should have closed the damn shades eh?

Confirming it with a second look could have happened for any number of reasons. Both the ones given by Canadian and by others. Attacking him and disparaging his character in this thread isn't really nice though. Really only the OP can say why he did so. So perhaps before this goes on too much longer he can explain why and that can be the end of it.

[afroakuma]

All I see for the last two pages is people attacking Canadian for points he's making that are actually RIGHT.

That's funny, because what I see is Canadian attacking people:

]
After all if he's as pure and good as he claims he'll love the opportunity to step down and be the as you say "bigger man."


He's pretty much screwed.

In regards to the likelihood of this poster getting married, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but is part of an attack on said poster's personal beliefs:


Sorry but they'll get fed up with the lack of sex long before they'd even consider getting married to you.


Not really. He admitted to watching porn. Check his posts.


Perhaps he can become a male nun. If there is such a thing.


You're really wrecking your odds for happiness in life.


By the way there's a 50% chance that this future wife will divorce you in spite of your awesome purity.


Perhaps you can regale us with some anecdotes on how it was the wrong decision for you and how to avoid the consequences?

Sprained wrist or something?


If that's normal where you come from I bet there's banjo music playing there right now. Perhaps looking through a window at your 15 year old cousin while she watches internet porn would be the first step towards getting married to her in your community.

Yuck. Move out of the swamp!

In regards to discussing sex with one's parents:


So what was your mom's opinion on giving a "Rusty Trombone?"

I am by no means attacking Canadian for his points nor for his opinion; I am asking that he stop knowingly and deliberately goading other posters and taking barely veiled jabs at their religious beliefs. As has been pointed out, he is being consciously offensive and unrepentant despite being asked to cool it more than once.

[Canadian]

I am by no means attacking Canadian for his points nor for his opinion; I am asking that he stop knowingly and deliberately goading other posters and taking barely veiled jabs at their religious beliefs. As has been pointed out, he is being consciously offensive and unrepentant despite being asked to cool it more than once.

From the forum rules

Inappropriate Topics
The following topics are always off-limits on these forums, no matter what (hence, Inappropriate Topics). Any posts including these topics will be edited, and any threads started to discuss these topics will be locked. Please note that, as specifically stated below, these topics remain off-limits even where they intersect with gaming or other activities discussed on these forums, and that putting an alert for “Adult” or “Mature” content on the thread does not allow circumvention of this rule.
Real-world religions (including religious reactions to gaming)
Real-world politics (including political reactions to gaming)
Graphic violence
Illegal drugs
Criminal activity
Explicit sexuality

An underage girl viewing porn on the internet falls into the category of criminal activity. Also I'm not the one who started the talk about real world religions. Porn by its very nature is explicit.

If you're that upset PM a moderator and let them decide. If they want to give me an infraction for trolling or flaming that's fine. I'll let them make the call. The religious person in question started the religious aspect of the discussion. The OP posted about an illegal and overtly sexual activity.

Putting an alert for “Adult” or “Mature” content on the thread does not allow circumvention of this rule. Take a look at the title of this thread.

Maybe they can lock the whole thread.

[SilverSheriff]

Canadian just 100% Violated my right to a sane internet.:smallannoyed:

lets get this straight and proper shall we: The Original Poster of this thread came here; To this forum called 'Giant in the Playground', a Civil place full of Intelligent people looking for advice: Not Ridicule and certainly Not insults of Pedophilia. Looking in a Window to check what someone is doing has never been 'an Invasion' of privacy in any sane persons books. It is the Original Posters duty as a responsible adult to make sure that this teen is not getting up to anything that she is not ready for. He wasn't getting his Rocks off; He just had a second check on what someone he knows is doing.

and playing the 'Forum rules' trump card just proves how pathetic you are being; this is not 'Mature' or 'Adult' content, nor is it 'Criminal activity' or 'Explicit sexuality'. this is about what a man should do to protect the frail mind of a child from forming wrong opinions about how the 'Birds and the Bees' work.



Putting an alert for “Adult” or “Mature” content on the thread does not allow circumvention of this rule. Take a look at the title of this thread.


the 'Please no young-uns' is merely stating that this is an Adult conversation where a Child's input would be otherwise un-welcomed or not Emotionally Intelligent enough to meet the criteria.

[GoC]

The specific case is in California where the 4th amendment to the constitution guarantees privacy and where state and municipal laws regarding privacy also apply. Also a girl under the age of 18 is not of legal age in the state of California.

As I pointed out in a previous post the laws and morals of the U.S. and the state of California and all municipal by laws apply to this situation. In other cultures things may be different but those cultures do not apply to the situation stated by the OP.
Why is this addressed to me?
I was adding something to guard against the trend for people to assume ideas of right and wrong are the same across cultures and to show that the "don't look in cousin's window" is not an absolute.


You fail logic.
Here's what you said:

Give me your home address. I'll come to your window and peek in on you. I know you won't call the police or think I'm a pervert for doing it.

Peeping into a 15 year old under age girl's bedroom while she watches porn on the internet is sooooo normal. That fact that she's your cousin makes it even more normal.

I don't see how yard work is an excuse for doing this. I also don't see how forgetting to close the blinds means you're "asking for it" in terms of having your privacy invaded.

That's like saying if a girl dresses sexy she's asking to be raped. Or if you leave your front door unlocked you're asking to be burglarized.
Part A is a strawman and indicates that you fail to understand that there might be a distinction between:
A cousin and a total stranger.
Going to a house on legitimate business and going to a house specifically to look in on someone.

Part B is a strawman. Noone said that "peeking into the rooms of 15 year-old non-cousin girls is normal" <- Logically equivalent to your statement.

Part C is another strawman. Noone said that doing yard work was an excuse to peek into people's bedrooms. Noone said that forgetting to close the blinds means you are requesting people invade your privacy.

Part D is an attempt to continue with the strawman in part C but turns into a non sequitur.


An underage girl viewing porn on the internet falls into the category of criminal activity.
It's illegal but it's not a criminal offense AFAIK. So it's not against forum rules.
Also, murder and stealing are criminal activities but we can still discuss D&D.

You can discuss what to do about explicit sexuality without making a post that contains explicit sexuality.

See why I said you failed logic?

[Canadian]

The title of the forum does say "playground." I think that automatically puts the whole thing in a less serious mode. I'm not saying it makes the place immature. I'm just saying it's a playground.

Actually a playground would not be a great place to discuss porn in the first place. Just saying.



and playing the 'Forum rules' trump card just proves how pathetic you are being;

Calling me pathetic is a direct insult and is a violation of the forum rules too.

I don't know why everyone here is so concerned about defending the OP and all the other people posting here. Isn't anyone concerned about the 15 year old girl who had her privacy violated?

Honestly. If you all think the OP was perfectly justified in doing what he did and that it was healthy and normal then he should do the following:

Tell his 15 year old cousin exactly what he saw and what happened and get her reaction. That will settle once and for all weather or not it was appropriate. I say let her decide. She's the one who should decide how she should feel.

If he can't bring himself to tell her the truth and be honest it pretty much proves the whole thing is creepy, upsetting, and wrong.

All I've been doing is trying to point out that this girl has the right to privacy and the right to live her life the way she wants to. Just like every human being deserves. The OP isn't her parent so he has no legal right to interfere or spy on her.

[SilverSheriff]

I don't know why everyone here is so concerned about defending the OP and all the other people posting here. Isn't anyone concerned about the 15 year old girl who had her privacy violated?

Honestly. If you all think the OP was perfectly justified in doing what he did and that it was healthy and normal then he should do the following:

Tell his 15 year old cousin exactly what he saw and what happened and get her reaction. That will settle once and for all weather or not it was appropriate. I say let her decide. She's the one who should decide how she should feel.

If he can't bring himself to tell her the truth and be honest it pretty much proves the whole thing is creepy, upsetting, and wrong.

All I've been doing is trying to point out that this girl has the right to privacy and the right to live her life the way she wants to. Just like every human being deserves. The OP isn't her parent so he has no legal right to interfere or spy on her.

Straw-man: The OP is (assumed to be) a responsible Adult. the first time he looked in his Cousin's(?) window was by pure accident, the second time was mild curiosity. You've managed to make a law-abiding Family-related adult into some sort of perverted monster who's out there to photograph and video-tape people while their in their house doing whatever they do.


Calling me pathetic is a direct insult and is a violation of the forum rules too.

B'AWWWWWW SOMEONE SAID YOU WERE BEING CHILDISH ON THE INTERNET!!

[Canadian]

Straw-man: The OP is (assumed to be) a responsible Adult. the first time he looked in his Cousin's(?) window was by pure accident, the second time was mild curiosity. You've managed to make a law-abiding Family-related adult into some sort of perverted monster who's out there to photograph and video-tape people while their in their house doing whatever they do.



B'AWWWWWW SOMEONE SAID YOU WERE BEING CHILDISH ON THE INTERNET!!

He looked in a second time. That's not cool or responsible.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Okay... the problem with Canadian's posts is that he uses a lot of exaggeration for effect.
@Afroakuma's taken out of context quotes, for example: all I see is Canadian pointing out logical faults in KD's position using somewhat abrasive language and a little too much hyperbole.

He doesn't actually attack KnightDisciple. He's merely pointing out that it's a very disadvantageous position to be in.

The problems started when KnightDisciple tried to convince everyone of his point of view and then used his religion to justify it. Which, to me at least, came off as imposing your own views on someone else. I'm quite certain it came off this way to a number of other posters.

Yet, surprisingly, it's Canadian who got jumped for it (probably because the language/tone of voice was a bit stronger than KD's).

[Canadian]

Okay... the problem with Canadian's posts is that he uses a lot of exaggeration for effect.
@Afroakuma's taken out of context quotes, for example: all I see is Canadian pointing out logical faults in KD's position using somewhat abrasive language and a little too much hyperbole.

He doesn't actually attack KnightDisciple. He's merely pointing out that it's a very disadvantageous position to be in.

The problems started when KnightDisciple tried to convince everyone of his point of view and then used his religion to justify it. Which, to me at least, came off as imposing your own views on someone else. I'm quite certain it came off this way to a number of other posters.

Yet, surprisingly, it's Canadian who got jumped for it (probably because the language/tone of voice was a bit stronger than KD's).

I do like to add lots of irony, sarcasm, and other stuff into the posts. However, I've backed everything up with stats and facts that can be verified.

Also quoting out of context skews the whole thing. If you read the whole thread in context I may come off as a total jerk but I make my points well and back them up.

The only thing that was directly insulting was the man nun joke. I didn't even make that one. However, I will take credit for the set up to an awesome punch line.


Man-nuns!
Like regular nuns, but with beards.

That guy said it. Hilarious! :smallsmile:

[Don Julio Anejo]

Back on topic. (I'm using a second post so I can get both of my points across).

Looking in someone's window by accident is although technically a violation of privacy, is not a big deal (even twice, since the second time IS mild curiousity - I'm sure 95% of us would have done the same just to make sure it really was what we thought it would be). Trog is right, just close the damn blinds..

The big deal is actually taking it up with the girl in question. Even if you get lucky and there is no big family drama, The Secret Life of the American Teenager style (I admit, I watched one episode. You can now stone me), it's still very very much uncomfortable for the girl. And technically while talking to her about it is not a violation of privacy, it wouldn't make her feel any better.

Plus, it's never been said if she was actually "playing with herself" or just watching porn.

[GoC]

If he can't bring himself to tell her the truth and be honest it pretty much proves the whole thing is creepy, upsetting, and wrong.
Why is [[OP] does not possess property [desire to tell the girl the truth]] equivalent to [[the whole thing] possesses properties: [creepy], [upsetting], [wrong]]?
In fact you sentence is malformed. It should indicate who finds it creepy, upsetting and wrong (the two likely possibilities are: the girl, society).

[afroakuma]

An underage girl viewing porn on the internet falls into the category of criminal activity.

That is not the viewpoint of a majority of respondents to this thread, nor the one you yourself has espoused. Nor is it the kind of criminal activity the rules warn against (they give examples).


Also I'm not the one who started the talk about real world religions.

Neither is he. He mentioned that his religion (left unnamed) factored into how he constructed his opinion. You started flagellating him for it.


Porn by its very nature is explicit.

Yes, I would suppose so. However, neither pornography nor a description thereof actually exists in this thread. There is no explicit material here.

Under your interpretation, we would not be allowed to discuss "Watchmen" as it contains explicit content. But then, I doubt you were using this argument honestly in any event.


If you're that upset PM a moderator and let them decide. If they want to give me an infraction for trolling or flaming that's fine. I'll let them make the call. The religious person in question started the religious aspect of the discussion. The OP posted about an illegal and overtly sexual activity.

And so I shall. I and others asked you to comport yourself with civility, or to let the matter drop, and you have chosen repeatedly to do neither. I frankly don't care what side of the argument you're on, as long as you recall that the Playground is meant for civil discussion. We are in "Friendly Banter," the title of which reinforces those rights and obligations that the Playground extends: that everyone be entitled to enjoy the boards in an assumed environment of courtesy.

[Don Julio Anejo]

For the record,

Porn and the discussion of morality of porn is not explicit.

Discussing how Johny Longfellow put his *bleep* into Ashley Swank's *bleep* and then doing *bleep*, *bleep* and *bleep* and afterwards Ashley finishing of with *bleep* IS explicit.

See the difference?

[Canadian]

Plus, it's never been said if she was actually "playing with herself" or just watching porn.

I guess you'd have to look in the window a third time to figure that out. Which according to everyone here isn't an invasion of privacy or morally or socially wrong. I say set up a deck chair and a cooler too.


For the record,

Porn and the discussion of morality of porn is not explicit.

Discussing how Johny Longfellow put his *bleep* into Ashley Swank's *bleep* and then doing *bleep*, *bleep* and *bleep* and afterwards Ashley finishing of with *bleep* IS explicit.

See the difference?

I think we can agree to disagree. My main point was the words playground and porn don't really seem to be meant to go together. Also discussion of the morality of porn could be seen as real world politics.


I and others asked you to comport yourself with civility, or to let the matter drop, and you have chosen repeatedly to do neither. I frankly don't care what side of the argument you're on, as long as you recall that the Playground is meant for civil discussion. We are in "Friendly Banter," the title of which reinforces those rights and obligations that the Playground extends: that everyone be entitled to enjoy the boards in an assumed environment of courtesy.

It sure is great that you're here to swoop in and save the day. You're my SUPERHERO!!! :smallsmile:

[SilverSheriff]

I guess you'd have to look in the window a third time to figure that out. Which according to everyone here isn't an invasion of privacy or morally or socially wrong. I say set up a deck chair and a cooler too.

I think we can agree to disagree. My main point was the words playground and porn don't really seem to be meant to go together. Also discussion of the morality of porn could be seen as real world politics.

no, I disagree to agreeing to disagree. you are daring to call someone who accidentally looks in a 15 year old girl's room and finds her merely looking at Porn, then comes back later to check what she was doing.

Its not like he sat there and had a long hard jerk over it.

You have corrupted the truths in your mind.

[GoC]

You have corrupted the truths in your mind.

Actually he's probably just posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online discussion forum with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response.

[Canadian]

no, I disagree to agreeing to disagree. you are daring to call someone who accidentally looks in a 15 year old girl's room and finds her merely looking at Porn, then comes back later to check what she was doing.

Its not like he sat there and had a long hard jerk over it.

You have corrupted the truths in your mind.

So as long as he doesn't touch himself down there he can watch her for as long as he wants? Okay... Also it's not an accident if you do it twice.


The second time past i did intentionaly check, however.



See. The OP even says the second look was intentional.




Its not like he sat there and had a long hard jerk over it.



I'd say that's a pretty explicit description of sexual activity. Forum rules?


Actually he's probably just posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response.


I'm not looking for an emotional reaction. I'm more concerned and curious about what the OP is going to do in regards to his 15 year old cousin. I want to know if there's going to be a happy ending. :smallsmile:

[Don Julio Anejo]

I want to know if there's going to be a happy ending. :smallsmile:
This didn't quite sound right considering the context :amused:

[Canadian]

This didn't quite sound right considering the context :amused:

Hey! That wasn't intentional! You can't blame me for that one. If I intended it to be dirty I'd put it in quotes like "dutch oven" or "dutch rudder."

Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to a sorority party where I'll assist young girls of legal drinking and consenting age to drink moderate amounts of alcohol and engage in clothing free and perfectly legal physical activities with me and their cute room mates. I won't bring my camera with me. That would be WRONG!!! :smallsmile:

[GoC]

I'm not looking for an emotional reaction.
...
The evidence is against you.

[SilverSheriff]

So as long as he doesn't touch himself down there he can watch her for as long as he wants? Okay... Also it's not an accident if you do it twice.

Ok, now I can tell that you are just baiting the intelligent users of this forum with your self-righteous crap.

Goodbye.

[Dallas-Dakota]

Hey! That wasn't intentional! You can't blame me for that one. If I intended it to be dirty I'd put it in quotes like "dutch oven" or "dutch rudder."
Now this IS offensive. And discriminating.

I, as a Dutch, person am not comfortable with this being posted on the playground.

[Coidzor]

Now this IS offensive. And discriminating.

I, as a Dutch, person am not comfortable with this being posted on the playground.

Ah, come off of it. Dutch ovens are great for camping as they can be used to replicate nearly all of the kitchen necessities that roughing it causes you to leave behind.

V:
A Dutch oven is a thick-walled iron (usually cast iron) cooking pot with a tight-fitting lid. It is commonly referred to as a 'camp oven' in the Australian bush, cocotte in French, as a 'casserole dish' in British English, and is similar to both the Japanese tetsunabe and the Sač IPA: [satʃ], a traditional Balkan cast-iron oven.
http://www.bisonquest.com/images/eco_dutch_oven.jpg

[Lyesmith]

Ah, come off of it. Dutch ovens are great for camping as they can be used to replicate nearly all of the kitchen necessities that roughing it causes you to leave behind.

What on earth is a dutch oven?
Also, I made your sig! Thanks!:smallbiggrin:

[pendell]

Ok, so i have a younger relative who i noticed today was looking at porn. Im not sure if i should ignore it or do something.
They are too young to be looking at porn legally so part of me has a duty to stop them.
But at the same time i know that exporing ones sexuality is normal during a certain age window (heck, im still in that gap, just on the opposite side) and i feel that i might just leave them to their devices.
But a third option occured to me where i could try to guide them so they dont end up in any creepy chatsites or getting into trouble (in this situation i would be the one taking the flak) but i dont know if i have the knowledge to steer them correctly if i try that.

So i come to you for help.

What do i do?

Responding to original poster. Haven't read the entire thread, sorry.

Porn is a serious business. Not only may your younger relative get some really weird ideas about sex (as a married man of 15 years I will attest to this -- real-life sex and real-life relationships are not often like those portrayed in pornography), but a lot of porn sites have a ton of viruses, spyware, and other nasties on them.

But if you're not his parent, it's not your place to deal with it.

I would recommend telling the parents and having them sort the situation. That's assuming the parents are cool and rational and aren't going to do something stupid. If they ARE stupid, find the nearest relative that isn't but is in authority.

I don't normally like that sort of thing, but the fact that their child is exploring pornography on the internet is something they need to know. It is up to them to decide what is and is not appropriate to view.

If it isn't feasible for one reason or another, I would recommend sitting down with the kid and talking it out with him. Let him do most of the talking. But give him the benefit of your experience, in a non-judgemental worldly-wise, cool-uncle way.

I don't recommend just ignoring it, because if your relative isn't careful your son could find himself in all kinds of trouble. For instance, it's not unknown for young people to send each other naked images of themselves. Unless those kids are above a certain age, an overzealous prosecutor might just bust them for child pornography. It's happened. Then it's into the sexual offenders registry for ever. Not fun.

Sex and kids is fire and gasoline. The younger relative needs to know what the boundaries are, for his own safety not just from online predators but from legal mistakes as well. So it can't be ignored. It's rightfully the parent's job to do it, though, and I would recommend notifying them. I would not do anything myself unless there's no other relative able to take on the burden.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[GoC]

Unless those kids are above a certain age, an overzealous prosecutor might just bust them for child pornography.

Ah yes, one of the clearest cases of a stupid law in the history of democratic civilization.

[Trog]

What on earth is a dutch oven?
A Dutch oven is a thick-walled iron (usually cast iron) cooking pot with a tight-fitting lid. It is commonly referred to as a 'camp oven' in the Australian bush, cocotte in French, as a 'casserole dish' in British English. :smallsmile:

http://campinggearstop.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/dutch-oven-oven-open-fire.jpg

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Ew. This thread has really degenerated since I last looked. So...

Hitler.

[Lyesmith]

A Dutch oven is a thick-walled iron (usually cast iron) cooking pot with a tight-fitting lid. It is commonly referred to as a 'camp oven' in the Australian bush, cocotte in French, as a 'casserole dish' in British English. :smallsmile:

http://campinggearstop.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/dutch-oven-oven-open-fire.jpg

Hey, cool!
Thanks Trog!

[Canadian]

Ok, now I can tell that you are just baiting the intelligent users of this forum with your self-righteous crap.

Goodbye.

Oh you...:smallsmile: Bon voyage!


Now this IS offensive. And discriminating.

I, as a Dutch, person am not comfortable with this being posted on the playground.

Since when are the Dutch offended by their own ovens and rudders? They invented them. If they have a problem with their own inventions they should complain to themselves.

Besides everyone loves a good dutch oven.

Mmm... Smell that home cookin'! :smallbiggrin:


Ah, come off of it. Dutch ovens are great for camping as they can be used to replicate nearly all of the kitchen necessities that roughing it causes you to leave behind.

V:
http://www.bisonquest.com/images/eco_dutch_oven.jpg

Nice! I'm willing to bet you're a bit of a kitchen ninja if you know about the sweet aroma generated by a bubbling Dutch Oven. :smallsmile:

Also the most famous children's story the dutch have is about a little boy who saves the town by putting his finger in a dike!

http://www.thehollandring.com/hans-brinker-story.shtml

A good read. A great bedtime story for your kids.

[Stormthorn]

A Dutch oven is a thick-walled iron (usually cast iron) cooking pot with a tight-fitting lid. It is commonly referred to as a 'camp oven' in the Australian bush, cocotte in French, as a 'casserole dish' in British English. :smallsmile:

http://campinggearstop.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/dutch-oven-oven-open-fire.jpg

See, this is what makes the internet great. Very Rapid Evolution. This was not what the thread was initialy about.



Also, i decided to leave it alone because i checked and she is deleting her history. So i dont have proof either way and i doubt she would admit to looking at it of her own free will. As long as i dont catch her on a chat site. If that happens the gloves come off.

[Groundhog]

Ah, the old "delete the history" trick.

Hopefully this was a one-time thing. If not, here's hoping that you can get it resolved next time you catch her.

[Serpentine]

Simply being on a chat site isn't a bad thing :smallconfused: I met one of my best and longest friends in a Hotmail chatroom in the first half of my teens. You know what else I did around that time? Cybersex!* :eek: BUM BUM BUUUUUUUM. If she's secretly arranging to meet people from the internet in private, then there might be an issue. Presumably, though, she's not an idiot.
I really don't see why it's so serious as to be hopeful that it's "a one-time thing" :smallconfused: I also find it worrying that you went looking for "proof"...



*It was mostly terrible and/or boring.

[Trog]

See, this is what makes the internet great. Very Rapid Evolution.
*puts a filter in his Coffin Nail™ Brand Cigarettes* Trog's evolving! ^(^_^)^

*puffs, drinks, consorts with self*

[Supagoof]

See, this is what makes the internet great. Very Rapid Evolution. This was not what the thread was initialy about.



Also, i decided to leave it alone because i checked and she is deleting her history. So i dont have proof either way and i doubt she would admit to looking at it of her own free will. As long as i dont catch her on a chat site. If that happens the gloves come off.
Well, if the gloves come off, be careful. Last thing a young female will want is to talk with a boy about the curious things that are happening. I'd suggest getting a mature female to talk with her about it if it becomes a problem. More likely for her to listen to someone of her own gender, then put up a barrier of ignorance because the difference.

First reaction is she's curious and looking, and that's fine. If you don't know about something, Google it right? - but she needs to be warned. There are a lot of predators out there. And though the chance of running into them is minimal, there's still that chance.

((Edit: And cue Trog ^ perfect timing! :smalltongue:))

Perhaps maybe the best route would be a different approach or introduction to the dangers, like getting her to watch a few episodes of Law and Order SVU (Special victims unit). That way the TV is warning her of the dangers instead of a direct talking from you.

But it sounds like she's being careful enough to hide it, so whatever she's looking at is probably not a problem until it starts showing up on someone's credit card. :smallwink:

Good luck.

[Trog]

but she needs to be warned. There are a lot of predators out there. And though the chance of running into them is minimal, there's still that chance.

((Edit: And cue Trog ^ perfect timing! :smalltongue:))
Trog's a monster! RAWR! :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

Watching porn =! gonna get raped :sigh:
Watching porn maybe = gonna get compu-raped, by which I mean virused out the wozzle.

[BugFix]

De-lurking to jump on a peeve:


she needs to be warned. There are a lot of predators out there. And though the chance of running into them is minimal, there's still that chance.

Right then. File it with the same warnings you're about to give her about cars, bicycles, airplanes, cracks in the pavement, thin ice, lightning, stroke, heart attack, pestilence, famine, plaque, war, armageddon, apocalypse, and rapture. She must be warned!

This is an attitude I've never understood. The world, at least the places we all frequent, is a very safe place, but bad things happen to some people. Most of those bad things don't register even a raised eyebrow, because they're rare and easy to forget. But goodness forbid our pure daughters LEARN ABOUT SEX! Danger! Danger! Admittedly minimal but non-zero danger! Warn them away, right now.

[Supagoof]

De-lurking to jump on a peeve:



Right then. File it with the same warnings you're about to give her about cars, bicycles, airplanes, cracks in the pavement, thin ice, lightning, stroke, heart attack, pestilence, famine, plaque, war, armageddon, apocalypse, and rapture. She must be warned!

This is an attitude I've never understood. The world, at least the places we all frequent, is a very safe place, but bad things happen to some people. Most of those bad things don't register even a raised eyebrow, because they're rare and easy to forget. But goodness forbid our pure daughters LEARN ABOUT SEX! Danger! Danger! Admittedly minimal but non-zero danger! Warn them away, right now.Have you ever checked your zip-code to see how many violent and or sexual predators live close to you? You probably have a site dedicated to that in your area - google it and see how many. If you live in area where the closest is 100 miles/kilometers away, then lucky you. Go ahead in your area let your children run free. But that's not the same for everywhere else.

And sure, it has the same chance as any of those things you've listed. But unlike those things, knowing about it drops that minimal chance by 95% more. So yeah, let's ignore it because it's a small problem. Cuz that'll solve it. :smallmad: 2 minutes of talk can do that. What's 2 minutes worth to you? I know from friends that have been attacked, those 2 minutes would have been something they'd give a lot to have.

I'm not saying don't let her learn about sex, (quite the opposite) but I am saying it's worth more then you can conceive to drop a few minutes of advice about trolling the internet on it. :smallannoyed:

[Innis Cabal]

Have you ever checked your zip-code to see how many violent and or sexual predators live close to you? You probably have a site dedicated to that in your area - google it and see how many. If you live in area where the closest is 100 miles/kilometers away, then lucky you. Go ahead in your area let your children run free. But that's not the same for everywhere else.

And sure, it has the same chance as any of those things you've listed. But unlike those things, knowing about it drops that minimal chance by 95% more. So yeah, let's ignore it because it's a small problem. Cuz that'll solve it. :smallmad: 2 minutes of talk can do that. What's 2 minutes worth to you? I know from friends that have been attacked, those 2 minutes would have been something they'd give a lot to have.

I'm not saying don't let her learn about sex, (quite the opposite) but I am saying it's worth more then you can conceive to drop a few minutes of advice about trolling the internet on it. :smallannoyed:


I understand what he's saying. And in my area? 0. Not a one. So that dosn't work for everyone.

[Canadian]

i decided to leave it alone

Sanity PREVAILS!!! Woot + 1 for sane decision making. Leaving it alone is the best idea ever. Now keep away from your UNDERAGE cousin's window and everything is fine. :smallwink:

[SilverSheriff]

Sanity PREVAILS!!! Woot + 1 for sane decision making. Leaving it alone is the best idea ever. Now keep away from your UNDERAGE cousin's window and everything is fine. :smallwink:

You vile, cruel little person.:smallannoyed:

[Serpentine]

Supagoof: First of all, I dislike those lists immensely. Do you have no faith whatsoever in your justice system? Those people have "paid their debt to society" or whatever you call it (AND most pedophiles(sp?) only prey on family members or people they're close to, not random kids off the street), and now they're being harassed and stalked. I know about that supposed factoid that few sexual criminals "ever change" or whatever, but that just means that...
Secondly, your children should be versed in how to remain safe. Not panicked, not made to suspect every single person who so much as looks at them. Just understanding that they shouldn't go off with anyone without telling their parents, or not letting people touch them in certain places, and the like. Those lists do jack.
Finally, that has absolutely nothing to do with the internet or staying safe on it. "Don't meet anyone from the internet alone." There, your child is safe, and not needlessly paranoid or afraid. And, of course, looking at porn or talking in chat rooms is not "trolling for it[sex?]".

[BugFix]

And sure, it has the same chance as any of those things you've listed. But unlike those things, knowing about it drops that minimal chance by 95% more.

Uh, what? You have a cite for that number? What you appear to be saying is that the simple act of viewing pornography (the act you want to warn women against) increases the chance of being sexually assaulted by a factor of 20. I don't believe that for a second, sorry. You're just confused, I think, and conflating things that aren't related.

Sure, warn people about sexual assault. That's sane. What does it have to do with porn?

And to be pedantic about things: most of the stuff on my list certainly is preventable. You're delivering simultaneous warnings about seat belts, helmets, cholesterol, etc... right?

[Supagoof]

Whoa! Don't mis-construe my intent.

2 minutes of talk. - Worth it.

Meeting people over the internet is fine. I met my wife via the internet, and am more then happy to show up/organize meetups.

And for giving people second chances... perhaps my view is a bit jaded since the friend who was attacked was done by a repeat offender not related to her. :smallfrown:

And Serp - the justice system is only as good as they can be. I have faith that they police in my area are doing a good job. I don't believe they are going to stop every crime from happening 100% of the time.


What you appear to be saying is that the simple act of viewing pornography (the act you want to warn women against) increases the chance of being sexually assaulted by a factor of 20.No, your confused at what I was saying. Warning women against online predators is what I'm saying.

I am not saying that looking at porn = bad situation happening. Though ignoring the fact that it's a gateway to areas (try to visit a porn site that doesn't lead to "Adult Friend Finder" :smalltongue:) where contacts can be made...is a mistake.

Also what I am not saying...
I am not saying Porn=Getting raped
I am not saying Sex Offender Sites=100% Accuracy of someone whose going to jump you in a back alley!
I am not saying Don't Wear Seatbelts.
I am not saying Eat Fatty Foods
I am not saying Beat the Child Over the Head About Every Danger EVERYWHERE! :smalleek: (I do leave it to commercials to handle the seatbelts/cholesteral/armegeddon issues :smallwink:)

What I am saying...there is a grey area there. Be a boy scout. Be prepared. Take 2 minutes. Because simply, I don't want anyone else to go through the atrocity my friend did. If she had someone give her advice, rather then her keeping it all a secret until they met because meeting via the internet was "taboo", then she could have done things differently/prevented it.

But that's another topic for another thread.

[Trog]

I am not saying Eat Fatty Foods
:smalleek: You...y... you're not? *sniffle, lip quiver, looks at his fast food, now obviously conflicted* :smallfrown:

[DamnedIrishman]

Ah, the old "delete the history" trick.

Hopefully this was a one-time thing. If not, here's hoping that you can get it resolved next time you catch her.

And possibly cookies, autocomplete and temporary internet files, depending on how zealous a search you're trying to avoid.