Is it okay to let kids look at porn? If not, why not? Should we be teaching our kids that sex is okay? If so, how? If not, why the hell not?

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Answers

So Carolyn said, half-jokingly, "Hey, what's wrong with porn?"

I wasn't joking at all about that! :)

the vast majority of mainstream porn shows women in submissive roles, and I don't think that's a particularly good model for kids to have (or for grownups to have, for that matter).

I have to ask, here: what is considered "mainstream porn"? This touches on a point I remember from our aforementioned conversation, in which it was said that "I don't want my little girl thinking that normal sex means four or five women sucking some guy's dick while he spanks their ass." My question here is, what consitutes "normal sex"? To some people, group sex and S&M *is* normal. What is "mainstream porn"? Porn that shows "normal sex"?

I think there's a real danger here in dismissing any activity as "subversive" or "unnatural" or "non-normal." Porn is porn, and while there may be a distinction between "hardcore" and "softcore," I would hesitate to classify *any* porn as "mainstream." Porn won't be mainstream until I can walk into Blockbuster and rent it along with Bambi, but even then, you can bet that they'll only carry, ahem, videos of "normal sex."

I agree that a lot of sexually explicit material, *especially* softcore, shows women in a traditionally submissive role. Many many porn videos that make an attempt at plot tend to follow a "romance novel" scenario, which does tend to assume the female is completely beholden to the man. Jan, you refer to this at the end of your entry, and it's something I'll get back to in a minute. I'd like to talk about hardcore for a second, though. In every hardcore video I've seen, it hasn't been about male dominance. Hardcore shows people encaged in sexual acts, plain and simple. Very little attempt at plot is made, and so the acts are raw and isolated. There is nothing about a simple sexual encounter that says that the woman must be submissive (I'm purposely excepting BDSM videos, for the obvious reason that dominance/submission is the point in those cases). It's an *extremely* unfortunate side-effect of sexuality in our culture that fellatio is used as a symbol of male dominance (i.e. a woman giving a blowjob is seen as submissive, or exisiting solely for his pleasure). Most people who have argued the anti-porn stance to me have used this as a leveraging point: "but look at that! she's going down on him!" well, yes, she is. But how horrible that that's now seen as a social-polical statement, instead of an act of love and/or sex.

Carolyn then made the point that she thinks that the cheap romance novels she read as a kid probably traumatized her a lot more than watching porn ever would have, and furthermore that the psychological impact of watching a porn video is far less than of, say, reading a novel.

Not true. I said that I *know* that the romance novels that I read in grade school were far more emotionally traumatic than the hardcore porn that I *was* looking at during the same time period. I would read romance novels during "reading hour" in fifth grade, and then go home and hide under my bed or in the closet and pore over my stolen copies of "hustler's playmates" and "variations."

Porn taught me that women can -- and DO! -- enjoy sex, are beautiful and sexy and nonchalant and desirable. We have power. We can use it. We can enjoy using it. Romance novels taught me that I was nothing without a man, that men can change their minds about a relationship on a whim and all I could do was cry and pray he came back to me, that someday I might find THE ONE to come along and sweep me off my feet and make everything better in my life.

She also said that she believes that the more children are exposed to non-physical representations of sex, the better, because then they don't run around thinking that sex is bad, icky, and horrible.

Again, before I have the kiddie-porn crusaders after me, I'd like to clarify that I thought that more *people* should be exposed to sexual experiences that don't involve direct physical contact. I do firmly believe, however, that the more that (generally well-meaning) adults attempt to impose a sense of "sin" or "guilt" or "badness" upon sexuality, the more that the children are just going to sneak around to experience it. If sex is shown as a natural, loving, exciting thing, children will be more open to asking questions, and experimenting within their own moral limitations. There is no advantage in hiding sex or treating it as "dirty."

I think that there have got to be better ways to introduce children to sex-positive ways of thinking than to let them watch a bunch of videos wherein women exist solely for the pleasure of men. (Yes, I am aware that there are porn videos in which this is not the case, but I think that they're far outnumbered by the kind I'm talking about.)

Jan, I really respect you, and we think alike on a lot of subjects, but here I really have to question how much porn you've really seen. For every hardcore film that shows a man/men physically or emotionally pressuring/coercing/dominating (again, not in the BDSM sense), there are many many more that show couples/groups enjoying themselves. There's the good chance, though, that I have a different viewpoint on what shows "women existing solely for the pleasure of men" than most people do, though -- I have absolutely no problems whatsoever in the existence of (or even watching it myself!) a pornographic video that shows a woman in a submissive role to a man. Many "normal" people have fetishes and/or fantasies that include BDSM, sexual slavery, and even rape fantasy. I'd much rather someone indulge in these fantasies by watching videos of it, than to go out into the "real world" and attempt to act them out him/herself. There are fetishists for almost everything; I'm personally really glad that enough porn exists to cover almost all of them.

So, in summary: I think kids should have access to sexually explicit materials. I think porn is amazingly wonderful. I think every fetish should have porn associated with it. I think people should have (consenual!!) sex with whoever they want to and have it be classified as "normal." I think our society needs to loosen up its sexual mores. I think people need to love sex more. Send hate mail here.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

When I said "mainstream," I was talking about the stuff you're most likely to find in the more popular porno mags, i.e. Hustler or Penthouse or whatever. I did not intend to equate "mainstream" with "normal," and in fact I think that it is a mistake to do so.

I agree that normal sex is whatever you make it out to be. People who enjoy BDSM, shoe fetishes, or whatever should not think of themselves as abnormal or freakish. However, what they're into is certainly not mainstream. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. But it's also not what you're most likely to see if you do a quick cruise by the magazine shelves at your local bookstore.

That having been said, I admit that I am much less versed in the World o' Porn than you are, Carolyn. I also admit that I was thinking of more softcore porn in which there's more plot and sappy mooning about over men. Hardcore porn isn't symbolic of much more than "Hey baby, let's get it on," and there ain't nothin' wrong with that.

Also, I would like to make it clear that I certainly do NOT think that a woman giving a man a blowjob is a symbol of sexual submission and therefore bad. Is a man giving a woman oral sex a sign that he's submissive and she's controlling him? Of course not (unless that's the fantasy you happen to be acting out). So why should the reverse be true?

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

I would not let my children look at porn. Not openly at least. I'm honest enough to admit that if I came home from work and my children were leafing thru porn magazines or viewing a video.. I'd freak on them. After reading the entry and the previous submissions to the forum, I was trying to think of WHY I have this response. I don't know, honestly. Upbringing? My personal feelings about the use of porn (including romance novels, yes)? My personal sense of right and wrong and appropriateness for children? I'm not sure how I will introduce my children to the idea that sex is normal, and healthy and beautiful.. not dirty and weird.. but I'm pretty convinced it will not be by allowing pornography, in whatever form, to be viewed or experienced in our home. I'm not saying it is bad, or that those who use it are evil. I am just not convinced of it's appropriateness for children, especially mine.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

I'm firmly of the belief that if you freak out because your child stumbles across porn, all you're going to do is make them more interested in looking at it. If you shrug and click away from it, they'll figure it's no big deal. Which it really isn't.

I subscribe to Playboy (for the articles, trust me, I have no interest in seeing plastic women in "artistic" positions, thanks anyway) and my 11 year-old daughter has glanced through it. She's not particularly interested, and she knows if she has any questions, she can ask.

As far as sex, I'd never lay the "Wait 'til your wedding night" thing on her - it's unrealistic. If that were a decision she made on her own, that's fine. I want her to grow up feeling that sex is okay, and knowing that she can talk to me about it at any time.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

My father is an anglican priest, so I was really shocked when he told me plainly not to wait until I was married for sex. He said that it was unrealistic to expect me to wait, and that a girl's first time can be a little painful, so why would you want to have that as a honeymoon memory?

However, my father is a little bit too liberal when it comes to sex. He has the cheeziest porn collection I've ever seen, and he stashes it all over the house. Do I really need to be exposed to this? Ick. I found my first porn book when I was a kid, and it grossed me out-- I'm not too sure why, because the stuff in there wasn't too bad (It had a lot of the stuff Jan was saying, though-- the women in this "novel" were sex slaves), but I don't think I was ready to read that as a child. I think that children just aren't ready for it, and that is the reason I wouldn't want my kids to see it, at least until they were older. Sex isn't bad or immoral, and I don't think kids should be sheltered from it, but some porn is just cheap and disgusting, and I would want to be sure I had control over what my kids saw.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Should we let them look at porn? Hmmmm... kinda depends on the kids and how old they are I guess. i would sort of agree with Robyn, and not totally freak if my kids ever saw porn (which they have, accidentaly), and no i didn't freak on their heads. I want them to feel that sex is normal and enjoyable. THe best way, for my family, is for the children to see that Mom and Dad enjoy each other's company. We kiss and cuddle in front of them a lot, for example. This morning we had to explain that, yes it was okay for Dad's hands to be on Mom's butt.

But i don't think that porn should be one of the examples used.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

I think I'm basically with the "nothing wrong with porn but feel weird about showing it to the kids" camp.

I mean, no, there's nothing wrong with porn. But is that really the best way to introduce to kids to sex? I'm not so sure. There've got to be better ways, y'know?

Although again, if my hypothetical kids came home with a hypothetical porno mag, I definitely would not freak.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

I've always found it weird how hung up people are on sex. In our culture violence is celebrated and sex repressed. Heaven forbid we let our kids see anything to do with sex. On the other hand, we teach them though cartoons that violence is funny. In my mind sex is beautiful, and violence is ugly. Why do we let our kids see all kinds of violence, but nothing to do with sex? It just doesn't add up.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

I agree. The most lauded example of this recently would have to be "American Psycho." Granted, there are a lot of movies more violent than this one, because much of the violence took place offscreen. However, you have images of a man hacking apart a body with an ax, throwing a chainsaw at a woman and cleaving her body in half, storing dozens of dead bodies in closets and freezers, and what had to be cut from the movie in order for it not to get the dreaded NC-17?

Scenes from a sexual threesome. Yeah, that makes sense.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000