Reply to post: Re: Sex Education

Utah declares 'war on smut'

P. Lee Silver badge

Re: Sex Education

>Pornography, in itself, isn't a public health hazard. Not educating teenagers about the realities of sex is the health hazard.

And there's the, er, rub.

Porn is fake relationships and fake sex, but it isn't just video like other films. It is designed to provoke and link to a very real, very strong physical reaction in the viewer. It is anti-education. It works really (ahem) hard to undermine what might be learnt intellectually about it, by tapping into strong hormonal reactions. As the age of sexual maturity/puberty has dropped, but the age of intellectual maturation has not dropped in sync with it, we have a few years where children become sexually mature before their thought processes have the maturity to deal with it. Why in general do people think that its ok to have sex once puberty hits, but getting married at that age would be foolish?

If you look at most of the motivations listed in the bill the concerns are actually quite valid to one degree or another, and the resolutions basically amount to, "do more research and try to limit its spread if you can." Perhaps the high-usage rates in Utah make it more of an issue there than it is elsewhere.

The commercialisation of sexual satisfaction, where it becomes a transaction with a vendor and a customer with demands which should be fulfilled in order to warrant payment seems to me to be one of the most tragic mindset-outcome, especially as increased availability makes that the norm during formative years. Even if its non-commercial porn, there is a sense of "I go and get/download it and she becomes part of my collection. I like her." The self-centred nature of it works against what makes a stable relationship, which is putting the other person first and yes, the breakdown in the relationships and support networks has health impacts - it is a public health issue. If legislators step aside while commercial interests attack the mindset-glue which holds relationships together, is that a good thing or not?

This is not prohibition, this is just suggesting that maybe we've let commercial pimps have a little too much freedom to put their goods front and centre in society. Maybe we should think about whether the top shelf is a better place for it.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019