Food for Thought

[L. Adrian Griffis]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Jim Herrmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 November 2002 01:11 pm, Jason Clinton wrote:
> > What would prevent kids from accessing alt.sex.* via NNTP for pics and
> > stories or the likes of http://www.nifty.org via a publicly accessible
> > telnet Lynx terminal? What's next? Are we to revert to chastity belts to
> > which a child must ask for his parent's key to go the restroom? Will you
> > hire public servants to listen for the sounds of masturbation in public
> > bathrooms or follow your 12 - 18 year olds to and from the bathroom
> > yourself? How 'bout morning 'sheet checks' and those X-10 cameras installed
> > in their bedroom?
> >
> > For every wall there is an equally greater ladder. If a child is actively
> > seeking pornography, it's time for them to see it. They're going to
> > masterbate one way or another.
> 
> I think this is a really important point.  If the child is raised by moral 
> parents, rather than expecting an education system to also instill morals, 
> then the child will a) not look for nude pictures, b) be embarrased when they 
> stumble across them, and/or c) be able to handle the pschological "damage" 
> that might occur.  It's not the state's place to determine right and wrong.

I'm sure this remark was well intended, Jim, but it seems contrary to
everything I know about children and human nature.  If you teach a
child that these pictures are bad and that the child is not allowed
to see them, you will simply elevate the child's fascination with
these forbidden pictures.  One might argue that a good moral education
will take hold as the child grows older, but I think it is a very rare
teenager who is more willing to follow the rules in his teens than he
was when he was a younger child.

<rant>
Further, teaching a child that all nude pictures are bad is at
best a thoughtless act, and at worst is an act of moral cowardice.
Like all other animals on this planet, we are endowed a sex drive.
Part of learning to live with this sex drive should be learning
the difference between healthy and unhealthy manifestations of
that sex drive.  When you teach a child that all manifestations
of one's sex drive are dirty and sinful, you are failing to teach
the child the differences between a healthy and an unhealthy
attitude about sex.  There nothing dirty or unhealthy about mere
nudity (Are we really the only species who's offspring are
damaged, somehow, by the sight of our own form?  Such an idea is
silly, superstitious nonsense).  But there is something wrong with
a picture that is clearly designed to reduce a human being to a
depersonalized thing.  A parent who fails to teach his or her
child the difference is NOT giving that child a good moral
education.
</rant>

Adrian