Skip to main content

The Incompatibility of Porn & Healthy Sexual Behavior

'Another thing the state needs to do is to encourage the dissemination of pornography. Ideally, it would introduce sex education in schools since the data indicate that reduces pathological sexual behaviour. But this is politically impossible since a broad spectrum of leaders believe formal sex education is incompatible with Indian culture.

Hence, pornography is pretty much the only way for Indian youngsters to learn what goes where. The government not only needs to decriminalise the distribution of porn, it should set up channels to distribute the right kind of porn.

Yes, some pornography is violent. No, banning porn, as a recent petition to the Supreme Court demands, will not work because such a ban would be utterly unenforceable and a waste of resources. What may work (in the absence of sex on the syllabus) is the government selecting, grading and promoting porn that encourages healthy sexual behaviour. Much suitable content is already readily available and free to use. So it would actually be cheaper than commissioning textbooks.

It would be easy to implement such an initiative through the proper channels. A "Blue Department" could be set up by the health and family welfare ministry and headed by the joint secretary (Pornography). Officers could be deputed from the IT ministry and the Films Division of India to review technical details. A "Pornography Promotion Board" (PPB) could be formed to review and recommend suitable content. Political consensus on this could surely be reached by forming a joint parliamentary committee for an in-depth analysis of the issues.'


The idiocy just keeps rolling in, non-stop.

FYI, the 'porn in the classroom' method is Devangshu's answer to encouraging 'healthy sexual behavior'. 

Unbelievable! 

Turning the world into one big deviant madhouse is the liberal's answer to social problems!

Unbelievable.

Tell you what, if the liberals have their way, we will all be riding a death-wish. Here's how, courtesy Melanie Phillips.

'A group of sex education ‘experts’ has suggested that pupils should be taught in school about pornography, on the grounds that it is not ‘all bad’ and can even be ‘helpful’ to them.

Yes, you read that right.

The Sex Education Forum says in a new publication for schools that pornography should be taught in terms of ‘media literacy and representation, gender, sexual behaviour and body image’.

Behind the gobbledegook, this seems to be at least in part a confused attempt to deal with the fact that children are now accessing all manner of dubious or harmful material on the internet.

Accordingly, this publication warns that the sex and bodies in pornography ‘are mostly unrealistic’, and that it may involve coercing participants into performing sex acts.

But it also suggests showing such images to children at age 14. Moreover, it states that they might find some of the positions in such porn films ‘helpful’, while being made aware that ‘the so-called pleasure ‘they see ‘may be anything but’.

So schoolchildren are to be taught sexual positions from pornography -- with a pious health warning that they may not get much pleasure out of them!

Pinch yourself -- we’re talking 14 year-olds here. Whatever happened to childhood innocence? Whatever happened to teaching?

The Forum says that this will equip children with ‘filters in their head’ to apply to the disturbing or damaging media images available to them.

What an amazing argument, that for children to handle situations that are harmful to them they must be exposed to that harm! What next -- teaching them how to smoke a crack pipe?

There is no such thing as harmless porn, let alone porn that is actually helpful to children.

This is because, even at its least extreme, porn invariably turns the human body into a dehumanised sexual object and degrades the people involved, particularly women.

Yet the Forum’s publication suggests that pornography may not in fact lead people to view women with contempt or disgust.

Whatever happened to feminism, and its fierce campaigns against pornography for putting women in danger by representing them as sexual objects?

These dangers move onto a different plane altogether when children are exposed to porn. Some will see these images before they are old enough fully to understand human sexuality. Indeed, porn may shape their whole view of sexuality, doing untold harm as a result.

It also inescapably makes the viewer complicit in a voyeuristic exercise which uses sex as a salacious peep-show. Exposing children to these disgusting images is therefore itself a type of child abuse.

Lucy Emmerson, co-ordinator of the Forum, has said the magazine aims to help teachers ‘offer factually correct information and an opportunity for safe discussion that matches the maturity of the child’.

But it is never safe to subject a child to pornographic images. At 14 a child is not yet mature enough to handle all the implications of healthy sexuality, let alone its perversions.

Among these ‘sexperts’, there is a shocking confusion between adults and children. Exposing children to pornography in this way is to treat them wholly inappropriately as quasi-adults, supposedly able to apply adult values and considerations to behaviour which would trouble many adults themselves.

The Forum’s publication also contains some all-too telling details: a hypothetical correspondence with parents who would be horrified to hear that their children are to be exposed to porn in school.

To these imagined (but all-too realistic) parents protesting that they are trying to keep their children away from such images, this document replies with patronising idiocy that avoiding such things gives children the impression that it is wrong to talk about sex in any context.

How extraordinary to imply that there is nothing between ignorance and porn! And how revealing to dismiss such all-too proper parental concern as damaging!

A teacher named Boo Spurgeon writes that, since children start accessing porn at around the age of 11, teachers need then to start talking to them about it.

This is the argument that says if you can’t beat them, join them: innocence is already being abused, so teachers might as well finish the job.

What an abandonment of adult responsibility. The adult world needs to set boundaries for children by saying that certain things are simply wrong -- and only talking about matters that belong to the adult world when children are fully able to understand that world.

Indeed, destroy the innocence of a child and you destroy what it is tobe a child -- and as a result, damage the adult into whom the child then grows.

In any event, children almost instinctively filter out from their minds much information that is too grown-up for them to understand.

No chance of that, however, in many of today’s sex education lessons and teaching materials which introduce even pre-pubescent children to the full range of sexual practices, positions and perversions.

Indeed, since many such lessons are themselves a kind of pornography, it is perhaps not really surprising that teachers are now being advised to go the whole hog and introduce their pupils to the real stuff.

An adult world which thinks some pornography is acceptable fare for 14 year-olds can no longer can grasp the difference between children and adults, nor between sexuality and pornography. It can no longer make the essential distinction between healthy and harmful behaviour.

A quite different campaign illustrates this terrible confusion. Brecon Cathedral has joined forces with a number of children’s charities in a campaign to end what they call ‘legalised violence against children’ -- which in the real world is called sometimes giving a child a smack.

The Dean of Brecon, Geoffrey Marshall, says ‘resorting to violence and smacking is not effective and should no longer be seen as acceptable behaviour or reasonable punishment’.

Such language elides the acceptable and the intolerable. Beating a child is wrong; a one-off smack is not in the same league. To call that ‘violence’ is to minimise, and thus effectively deny, what real violence actually is.

It fails to draw the proper distinction between loving discipline, without which a child cannot flourish, and child abuse.

What has our society come to when it treats as a war criminal anyone who admits to giving their child an occasional smack, and yet advocates exposing children to pornography?

The answer is that, for several decades now, a small number of determined zealots have wormed their way into influential positions from where they have set about undermining traditional moral precepts and replacing parental authority with their own, in order to brainwash children with the doctrine of ‘anything goes’ and ‘the right to choose’.

The Sex Education Forum, which describes itself as ‘the national authority on sex and relationships education’, is actually a bunch of activists with a ‘lifestyle choice’ agenda who have been busy thus undermining parental authority and traditional moral values for the past quarter of a century.

Lo and behold, the organisations supporting the Brecon campaign against smacking include Barnardo’s, the National Children’s Bureau and Relate -- which are also listed as members of the Sex Education Forum.

Is it any wonder, therefore, that parental discipline is treated as child abuse while children are force-fed pornography in the classroom -- and anyone who dares protest faces instant vilification, ostracism and scorn.

But don’t worry. Children may have their innocence corrupted and become brutalised and degraded as a result -- but they won’t be smacked. So that’s ok then.

There’s a name for this. It’s society’s death wish.'

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Situational Involvement of Consumers

There are two types of involvement that consumers have with products and services, Situational and Enduring. Situational involvement as the term suggests, occurs only in specificsituations whereas Enduring involvement is continuous and is more permanent in nature.

Decisions to buy umbrellas in India are driven by the onset of Indian monsoon. Monsoon rains arrived in India over the South Andaman Sea on May 10 and over the Kerala coast on May 28, three days ahead of schedule. But then, after a few days of rain, South India is witnessing a spate of dry weather. Temperatures are soaring in the north of India. The Umbrella companies in the state of Kerala are wishing for the skies to open up. So is the farming community and manufacturers of rural consumer products whose product sales depend totally on the farming community. The Met. department has deemed this dry spell as 'not unusual'.

India's monsoon rains have been static over the southern coast since last Tuesday because of a…

Prior Hypothesis Bias

Prior Hypothesis bias refers to the fact that decision makers who have strong prior beliefs about the relationship between two variables tend to make decisions on the basis of those beliefs, even when presented with the evidence that their beliefs are wrong. Moreover, they tend to use and seek information that is consistent with their prior beliefs, while ignoring information that contradicts these beliefs.

From a strategic perspective, a CEO who has a strong prior belief that a certain strategy makes sense might continue to pursue that strategy, despite evidence that it is inappropriate or failing.


Ref : Strategic Management : An Integrated Approach, 6e, Charles W L Hill, Gareth R Jones

Wearing Cuba means Walking Cuba

There's something ethereal about wearing 'Cuba'. Suddenly its the streets of Havana, smoke filled and lit by the groovin', more than the lights. The bars are packed to hilt and dreamy women seem to glide by. The feeling's beyond magical.

How did I get there?

Before I explain, I gotta tell you about the power of brands to take you places. Brands bring with them an ability to prompt you to conjure up the unreal. They can transform your reality into fantasy. And consumers are more than willing partners to brands as the drudgery they face in everyday life begs an injection of fantasy. Brands that operate in a zone of the unreal do the conjuring act as there's nothing else that consumers can call for, while making judgements. For instance, what should I be judging the lip paint on? Its colour and tone or its ability to turn me into a diva?

Cuba's a perfume. The moment I wear it, I am traipsing the streets of Havana. Its smoke filled bars I see. Its music I hear and…