Posted on 05/14/2014 10:36:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Thirty years ago Congress passed protective measures regarding pornography. On May 21, 1984, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Child Protection Act, which was supposed to protect persons younger than 18 from exploitation by pornographers. (Other measures were designed to keep those under 18 from accessing pornography.) Two months later President Reagan signed into law the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, designed to keep persons below age 21 from purchasing alcoholic beverages.
Now, visualize this scene: Herbie, 13, walks into his local tavern and asks for a vodka martini—shaken, not stirred. Tex the barkeep asks, “Are you at least 21 years old?” Herbie says, “Sure.” Tex serves him. As he sips, Herbie pulls out his iPhone and watches a pornographic scene. I suspect most of you know what’s wrong with that picture: In all 50 states Herbie would not get his martini. Tex or anyone else would card him, demanding a driver’s license or other official proof that Herbie is at least 21. But the porn? No one would interfere.
The poet Ogden Nash (1902-1971) wrote, “Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.” Today, I’d add another line with a different rhyme scheme: “Porn’s even faster but it leaves you forlorn.” I won’t go into detail here, but relatively few porn sites electronically card users. Some require use of a credit card to access much of their content, but even they are like bars at which persons of any age can get drunk.
And yet, pornography is a huge problem not only among adults but among children and teenagers as well. If you’re sending your very well-mannered children to college and the dorm Wi-Fi has no filtering mechanism, they are likely to be exposed early and often to hard-core porn—and some become addicted. Even if it does have a filter, your son and perhaps your daughter will probably see porn at some point.
Why the difference between alcohol and pornography, both products that sideswipe many teens? Thirty years ago President Reagan at the signing ceremony said he would appoint a commission to investigate pornography, and he did. Attorney General Ed Meese headed it up, citizens including James Dobson served on it—and the press ridiculed its serious conclusions. The U.S. Supreme Court also failed to take pornography seriously enough to change the almost-anything-goes attitude it had pioneered during the 1960s.
Now, as the group Enough Is Enough reports, porn makes up more than one-third of the internet industry and earns its purveyors more than $3,000 per second. Porn sites get more visitors each month than Twitter, Netflix, and Amazon combined. Most teens view pornography online, and one survey of 16- to 20-year-olds found nearly one out of four young men and one out of 10 young women admitting they tried to kick the habit but could not. Many young men expect dates and wives to perform as do actresses in the 11,000 porn films shot each year.
Need other dire stats? Witherspoon Institute conference research (proceedings published as “The Social Costs of Pornography”) showed that two-thirds of 18-to-34-year-old men visit porn sites regularly. (My hunch is that many of them go to church less often in part because they marry less often, and they marry less often in part because they access pornography more often.) Many men find it harder to relate to real women. Most divorces involve one partner compulsively using pornography.
Does this evidence mean legislators should act? Here’s the problem: A push to restrict pornography can play into the hands of those who hate Christian truth-telling. Now that influential atheists and secularists hope to restrict evangelistic efforts, our legal protection is the First Amendment proclamation of freedom for religion, speech, and the press—but since pornographers also rely on that amendment (as mistakenly interpreted), limits on it will rain on the innocent as well as the guilty.
A hard truth: Christians are a minority in America, and minorities should oppose increases in majoritarian power. A hard question: If we now should be quiescent on one issue to lessen the likelihood of a spillover to another, what hope do we have for constructive change? Not much, except what Christians have learned throughout the ages: Our hope is in the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth. He changes hearts and viewing patterns.
You realize vetoes can be overwritten, don’t you?
Most divorces involve one partner compulsively using pornography making up crap about the other partner.
There, fixed it.
"Your honor, he is a bad man. A very, very bad man! Take him away!"
Bhatt v Bhatt.
It’s not difficult to get a divorce, and divorced men don’t go to prison because of a divorce. No need to panic.
See, that’s what I’m talking about. If you read the comments, you will know know that the well mannered college children discussed, was in the title thread. It’s not something I started.
If you don’t have anything better to do than just argue, address your comments to the originator of the thread. Your attempts at manipulating the conversation are just pathetic.
Yeah yeah just being facetious with the Babu Bhatt meme.
But the author does pull statistics out of, well, out of the air. Most divorces involve far more allegations of bad stuff than actual commissions of bad stuff. Divorce pleadings are probative of nothing.
“BTW, the more I read the Bible, the more amazed I am at just how good it really is. It is, at the barest minimum, an excellent guide to a healthy and happy life. It’s much more than that of course, but it’s also good advice for how to live well in this world.”
Many years ago I was going through a particularly tough time and turned to The Bible for guidance. It helped a lot, and I shared that with my sister, and I’ll never forget her describing The Bible as the “Master, Master Mechanic’s Manual.”
:) Here in the great state of Massachusetts, a divorce requires little. It’s my impression that it is when the custody of children is involved that things really get ugly.
The original post was at #28, and it’s been pulled. I read it before it was pulled, and what’s being claimed the poster said is a is not what was in that post.
Oh absolutely.
And if one went by child custody pleadings, one might (erroneously) aver that “most child custody cases involve one parent seriously abusing the children.” That logical lapse is apparent in the author’s suggestion that “most divorces involve one partner compulsively using pornography” without one iota of objective supporting data.
But yes, you are correct.
one survey of 16- to 20-year-olds found nearly one out of four young men and one out of 10 young women admitting they tried to kick the habit but could not.
Does "breaking the habit" mean not spending hours upon hours on porn sites, or does it mean never, ever looking at a naked chick again? The author doesn't elaborate (and I understand that the author doesn't have endless column space) but without more, there just isn't much upon which to assess the extent of the problem, if any.
Thanks, I searched it since you said that and found this, “World-proof your kids, don’t childproof their world: Lenore Skenazy” from 2012, and I seem to remember reading this, maybe FR, or maybe the mind is leaving the station. LOL
Whew. Thank you. :)
That wasn't my comment. My comment was that my 4-year old briefly stumbled across a porn site and since you clearly seem to be a subject matter expert on the damage porn causes children, I asked you if my son should seek counseling or if I should write him off as irreparably damaged?
Why this comment was removed, I have no idea.
*******************************
I could not agree more. At one time, it is my understanding that many of our forefathers used the Bible as their elementary method of education and literature.
My last post was awkwardly worded, but I hope that you understood my point.
Appropriately credited now. Thanks FRiend.
Your scornful words about the dangers of porn when children see it is duly noted.
Obviously it means viewing and using for sexual gratification, because that’s what people do with porn, on a regular basis, and even when wanting to stop, having a hard time not doing it.
It is unclear whether “looking at a naked chick” means having a personal relationship with a real woman, or using porn but not habitually.
The pulled post was sarcastic and scornful and making light of the dangers of children seeing porn. The poster claimed that his 4 yr old happening to see a porn site would cause the child no harm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.