I read an article about Billie Eilish. She is a young musician. She claims that she started watching adult content when she was eleven and it “destroyed my mind.”
Wow. That spurs me to re-evaluate what I think I think about adult materials.
Perspective #1: I believe that intimate content created by and for consenting adults is a legitimate artform that should be protected as free speech.
Perspective #2: I hate it when private companies censor their customer’s content based upon loosely defined and inconsistently enforced "community standards." I’m sure they have that right from a legal perspective, but it still feels like a betrayal. This practice reinforces the premise that corporations cannot be trusted to safeguard our right to free expression.
Perspective #3: Government censorship is worse. They have more responsibility and greater ability to suppress speech and repress speakers. We definitely don’t want politicians deciding which kinds of speech are permitted.
Perspective #4: Government has a legitimate interest in protecting children from exploitation.
Perspective #5: Age verification services designed to prevent children from accessing adult services create serious privacy concerns for legitimate consumers.
Perspective #6: Consumers favor social media that is easy to use. They will eventually move to less restrictive services and jurisdictions.
Perspective #7: Vibrant online communities require acceptance of anonymity.
Perspective #8: Arbitrary standards of what is and is not acceptable content will inevitably advance one parochial viewpoint at the expense of alternative preferences.
Perspective #9: Parents are the ideal control point for protecting children from inappropriate materials. Especially with younger children, parents and caregivers have a responsibility to monitor and guide them in their online travels. But this is difficult when every kid has an internet-enabled phone. Kids have a natural curiosity about anything forbidden and the ingenuity to defeat many blocking schemes.
Perspective #10: At the end of the day, the best solution, and maybe the only effective one, has little to do with technology or community standards or legislation or customer preferences. Conversations between parents and kids can emphasize sensible choices, model healthy relationships, and reinforce positive human values. Open communication is no silver bullet, but it may be the best tool we have.
That’s what I think.
9 comments :
Maybe we just need smarter age verification processes, stuff that an adult would know but a kid wouldn't:
How many pins are in a new shirt?
Describe the most efficient way to work the kinks from the curled cord of a telephone handset.
Which of these images shows the perforated edge from a dot matrix printer?
Describe how to bleed a radiator. When should this be done?
Joking aside, you're absolutely right. Kids will always find out about this stuff; I had some exposure to sexual stuff way too early on and it fucked me up for years and years; I can't watch mainstream porn to this day; who knows how bad actual hardcore porn would have damaged me at eleven. Then again, there are kids experimenting with actual sex at that age. We need parents, teachers, role models, any sort of care giver, to be open and honest about this shit and how it can be fine and fun if consensual and safe, but can also have terrible repercussions both mental and physical, and there's no 100% method from protecting yourself from this until you have responsible partners you can trust, and unfortunately that wisdom only comes from age.
A really great thoughtful and thought-provoking post, thank you!
The online world and keeping our kids safe is a minefield. I was nodding at No 10.
Hugs
Roz
I'm not sure what Billie Eilish meant by it destroying her mind. However, there was a study in the mid-Eighties under President Reagan by a commission headed by Edwin Meese. The study did not establish that children viewing pornography was harmful to them, although it apparently claimed some types of harm from pornography. Most children were simply uninterested.
I think society should destigmatize sex. Yes, there are things of a sexual nature that can be harmful, but the harm comes from the way sex is used. For example, if there is coercion, then people are harmed, but I'd say the harm comes from the coercion, not the sex.
If society establishes the norm that consensual sex is good, I think that would result in less harm. Rather than trying to police everything, I think that's a better solution.
So, to the degree we create safe spaces, like this one, to discuss sex and "related matters", I think that makes this a better world.
There are 2 themes here (I think) one is protecting children and the other is censorship. I know Fetlife has gone through some pretty tough changes due to censorship... and they came out the other side with (in my opinion) the best solution possible. BUT it does worry me how much the government wants to get involved in my private time on the internet.
As for children - well truthfully I do believe that parents are the best front line protectors IF they take their responsibility seriously. In our lives - the lil one pretty much has free run of the net when she is with her mother... BUT we have all sorts of "nanny protect' programs on her computer (she doesn't have a phone) and we talk about appropriate behaviours etc ALL the time.
Honestly not sure if there is any answer to these problems...
These are all interesting proposals, but first let's re-examine the thing that prompted this: "Billie Eilish claims..."
1: what does that mean? If she is so damaged perhaps she should abandon her music career....whose accompanying fame and money at an early age can't be helping her mental health...in favor of strengthening her destroyed mind?
2: Is it true? She could have a lot of motives for saying such a thing. But if true, isn't there a certain logic to thinking: well if you yourself say your mind has been destroyed, then just how much of what you say can I trust?
3: Also if true, is it true for everyone? I personally was exposed to porn at an early age too. It did not destroy my mind. So is porn then in and of itself the problem? In fact, I was kinky early on in my thoughts and when I looked up kink in books I was confronted with being told I was an aberration. That messed me up for a little while. Who is protecting people from misinformation then?
4: A lot of things can mess up a kid's head besides mere misinformation. Hell, just look at religion. For me and others, that was worse than porn, but where are the protections against that? Perhaps religion should be banned until a kid is 18? What about commercialism? How about no commercials for kids' shows? Can anyone see THAT happening? LOL
5: Censorship of any kind works as well for porn as prohibition did for booze.
6: Parents. Hmmmm, that could take a 3 page essay. Certainly parents should be the ones to monitor these things, but aren't parents also the ones who introduce other things into a kids mind that might not be healthy? What about indoctrinating kids into false realities? Who protects kids from that? And given our beliefs on personal freedoms, should we? How much protecting is good? Isn't an open-eyed training about the world and the dangers in it better than just banning something?
The bottom line is that we can legislate all we want and the only thing it will do is serve as a talking point to get someone elected. Porn has been around forever. It will never go away. If stricter measures are taken it will just go underground and still be available to kids just like drugs are for kids. And we all grew up with it being around. How old were you when you first saw a porn photo? Or a drawn erection on a wall? Or heard other kids discussing sex?
The key to anything is education, but that requires accurate information and dedicated parents......something that today is hit or miss. It seems that's where you were going with #10....which while I agree with it, I have little hope in seeing happen. Just look at how adults "parent". I think porn CAN be a problem, but all things considered, it may be something a bit far down on the list of things we should be concerned about.
My views are in-line with those of several of the commenters above, particularly Rich Person and KD.
"Is it true?" It might have been for Ms. Elish, but I have no way of knowing what she means by that. Moreover, similar to K.D.'s observations about his childhood, I was at least very sexually aware and interested (I'm not sure it would have qualified as kinky) at a very young age. And, I don't think it was because I was exposed to porn at that age. In fact, it was the reverse. I recall being interested in sex very early, and I also recall sneaking through my parents drawers one day when they were gone and finding a couple of "sex books," one by Xaviera Hollander who was, at that time, an advice columnist for Penthouse, along with an illustrated Kama Sutra. I recall being fascinated by both books, but it is very clear in my mind that my interest preceded that discovery
"Does it have a negative impact?" As Rich Person notes, the proof seems pretty skimpy that many kids are harmed in the way Billy Elish seems to be alluding to. If anything, the anecdotal evidence seems to go in the opposite direction. Thanks to the internet, porn is readily available to any kid with an internet connection and parents who aren't watching very closely. It is available to an extent that far, far exceeds anything previous generations had at their disposal. Yet, are kids out having lots of irresponsible sex at earlier and earlier ages? Quit the opposite. They are delaying having sex until much later ages than was the case 20 or 30 years ago, and teenage pregnancy rates are way down.
"What about the parents?" As noted above, my parents were the ones who inadvertently gave me my first exposure to porn or explicit sexual material and, as KD notes, parents are often the ones who introduce kids to all sorts of things that ultimately may fuck them up. Also, I do think that the demands for on-line censorship can be an excuse by parents for not setting their own standards and using the tools available to them. I recall Britney Spears setting of a firestorm of criticism on the Christian right after they criticized her for her sexualized performances and she dared to respond that she wasn't responsible for being the "babysitter" for these conservative parents.
Wow, thank you all for your excellent comments.
TTL - As a mother and grandmother, I agree that there can be harm from exposing children to sexual content before they possess the context to comprehend what they are seeing.
People have devised all manner of age verification schemes, some about as goofy as your examples. I've never seen one that effectively restricts kid access without sacrificing the legitimate rights and privacy of adults. That was the thought process that led to the need for a different solution.
Roz - You are so right.
RP - That's a great point about de-stigmatizing sex. If it wasn't forbidden content, as is the case in some countries, kids wouldn't spend their time figuring out how to gain access.
MS - You make an interesting observation about the two topics - Protecting kids and Censorship. They are connected (wrongly, I think) in the public mind because people think that the latter is a answer for the former. Splitting them apart seems a necessary prerequisite for any true solution.
KD - I can't judge the validity of Ms. Ellish's story. It was just the spark that drove me down this course. If there are some kids who need to be protected (and I find this plausible), how should we protect those kids? As I said, the public mind offers censorship again and again. I reject that conclusion. My intent was to offer a more sensible alternative.
I think we took two paths to a similar conclusion.
Dan - I am open to the possibility that there may be harm in some cases. Adults develop porn addictions. Presumably kids could as well and they have fewer resources to cope. Regardless of how we assess the risk, I think we can agree that there are no simple solutions.
One thing nobody's mentioned is that there's a huge range of porn out there. Would I have a problem with my (hypocritical) eleven year old watching non-nude jerk off instruction videos? Not especially. Photos of a naked woman posing for a camera? A little more, because that begs the question of who's holding the camera and consent/coercion. Are the photos from a legitimate studio or are they so called "revenge porn," which is misnamed and evil. If the photos are legit, then I guess I wouldn't be especially upset as long as my kid knew to respect other people and not to share the material.
There are BDSM sites with videos that essentially replicate torture, and I would have a big problem with an eleven year old watching that stuff; I could barely stomach watching it myself. My fear is that it's the more extreme stuff that'll be passed around on a phone in a classroom, the same way in the early days of the internet becoming mainstream we had goatse, tubgirl, lemon party, cakefarts, 2 girls 1 cup and the rest. It's easy to picture some of that stuff destroying someone's mind.
TTL - I agree that there are many gradients of potential harm depending upon the age, maturity, and history of the child, and the nature of the content. In some cases, the harm can be sufficiently significant to warrant our concern. These were the scenarios that started me thinking.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.