[Bryan]

DMN Investigates blog: Texas law lets parents show porn to their kids 11:13 AM CT | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Latest News

as much as I don't think children should be watching porn, I'm not sure it is the state's job to tell them how to raise their kids.

thoughts?

[rock_show_host]

That's disgusting.

I agree, though, that from a legal standpoint it's a bit complicated. I know that there are laws deeming some material "harmful to minors," as when pedophiles online send naked pictures of themselves to 14-year-old girls. Shouldn't those laws still apply regardless of who's exhibiting the material, even if it's the child's father?

[tlj009]

That's disgusting.

I agree, though, that from a legal standpoint it's a bit complicated. I know that there are laws deeming some material "harmful to minors," as when pedophiles online send naked pictures of themselves to 14-year-old girls. Shouldn't those laws still apply regardless of who's exhibiting the material, even if it's the child's father?

Yes, it should. I have often wondered about laws like contributing to the delinquency of a minor. An adult can't buy a minor alcohol, but a parent can? It doesn't make much sense. If something is harmful to a child, then it is harmful whether or not the adult is a relative.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Yes, it should. I have often wondered about laws like contributing to the delinquency of a minor. An adult can't buy a minor alcohol, but a parent can? It doesn't make much sense. If something is harmful to a child, then it is harmful whether or not the adult is a relative.

I can almost understand the logic to the extent that ideally, the parent has the child's long-term and best interests in mind in a way that an adult outside the family probably wouldn't, but that's still assuming a lot. I can definitely see the double standard. And in the case of pornography, I can't help agreeing with the person in the article who suggested that it actually constitutes a form of sexual abuse.

[OiBoyz]

Originally Posted by tlj009

An adult can't buy a minor alcohol, but a parent can? It doesn't make much sense. If something is harmful to a child, then it is harmful whether or not the adult is a relative.

Porn? No.

Alcohol? Maybe. When I was a kid, my folks didn't drink very much, but there was usually some kind of alcohol in the house. Usually a six pack of beer in the fridge. My dad would let me have a little bit if I wanted it. I grew up with alcohol not being a big deal. I could have it if I wanted, I didn't have to hide anything, and as an adult? I just hardly ever drink. There's no real challenge or mystery to it. I have a beer if I want one, but I probably only have 3 or so a year, if that.

Alcohol widely available in other cultures, and children drink it with their families. I guess I don't see it as being the same thing as some unrelated adult furnishing beer for the kid's party.

[tlj009]

Porn? No.

Alcohol? Maybe. When I was a kid, my folks didn't drink very much, but there was usually some kind of alcohol in the house. Usually a six pack of beer in the fridge. My dad would let me have a little bit if I wanted it. I grew up with alcohol not being a big deal. I could have it if I wanted, I didn't have to hide anything, and as an adult? I just hardly ever drink. There's no real challenge or mystery to it. I have a beer if I want one, but I probably only have 3 or so a year, if that.

Alcohol widely available in other cultures, and children drink it with their families. I guess I don't see it as being the same thing as some unrelated adult furnishing beer for the kid's party.

Actually, my point was that if it is illegal because it is "harmful", then it is "harmful" no matter who does it. If it is not "harmful" in some way, then I question why it is illegal in the first place.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

I agree, though, that from a legal standpoint it's a bit complicated. I know that there are laws deeming some material "harmful to minors," as when pedophiles online send naked pictures of themselves to 14-year-old girls. Shouldn't those laws still apply regardless of who's exhibiting the material, even if it's the child's father?

So a flasher is the same as a nude model, and a pedophile sending a photo is the same as a biology text book?

Isn't it possible that context is part of the harm?

[Folk_guy]

The type of porn described in the article "three ways", etc. in my mind has no valid educational value for a young child. They said the father was drunk at the time, and I certainly would question his motives in showing this material to his children. If I was the mother of these children I would immediately be filing to have his unsupervised visiting rights revoked. Secretively showing children pornography is an obvious sign of sexual abuse to come. I think with the nature of the pornography, the fact that the father was under the influence of Alcohol, and that he asked the children to keep it secret that would be enough to warrant the prosecutor getting a search warrant for the father's computer, and checking his home to ensure it was a safe and healthy place for his children to be. Should they throw the book at him, and lock him up for eons probably not, but they should find out if this person should be around young impressionable children. No one has the right to show or do things with a child that could corrupt them or do them mental harm in the future. There are moral standards that are accepted as appropriate or in this case inappropriate based on the age of a child, just because someone does something in the privacy of their home, with their own children doesn't make it legal. I think in this case the best interest of the children should take precedence over the privacy rights of the father, what he did was criminal, and certainly not in the best interest of his children.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Folk_guy

There are moral standards that are accepted as appropriate or in this case inappropriate based on the age of a child, just because someone does something in the privacy of their home, with their own children doesn't make it legal. I think in this case the best interest of the children should take precedence over the privacy rights of the father, what he did was criminal, and certainly not in the best interest of his children.

I hate being devil's advocate in this case but, well. Is teaching a child that medicine is thwarting God's will in the best interests of the child? So then members of the Church of Christian Science loose their children.

And does our "best interest" assume God (in which case atheists loose their children for teachings that condemn them to hell) or assume no God (in which case certainly YECs loose theirs and possibly all theists).

Perhaps "moral" is not a word we should toss around in deciding laws.

[roscoestring]

My sister and I took different approaches to raising our children. My sister is very salacious. Everything to her revolves around sex. She taught her children that sex was ok - from the time they were in diapers, babies. I took the other road. I taught mine to abstain until the time was right. I now have two sons that are in their 20's. One is married. Neither have children. My sister's oldest daughter is the recepient of herpes. Contracted when she was 17.

No, I don't believe that children should watch porn. I also don't think that parents should eat boogers with their children.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by roscoestring

My sister and I took different approaches to raising our children. My sister is very salacious. Everything to her revolves around sex. She taught her children that sex was ok - from the time they were in diapers, babies. I took the other road. I taught mine to abstain until the time was right. I now have two sons that are in their 20's. One is married. Neither have children. My sister's oldest daughter is the recepient of herpes. Contracted when she was 17.

My entire family, even those encouraged to abstain till marriage, was taught that sex was a good thing. For many of us (myself, my sister and 6 cousins) "where did I come from" was our first book.

No VDs. 8 marraiges, 6 still going strong (one ended because the man she married ran off, the other I ended because the bi-polar became to much). The three couples that raised us are all still together, as is the uncle/aunt with no kids. The newest of those marriages is more than 35 years old. There are no divorces in that entire group. My grandfather died earlier this year, still married to his first wife.

So do you really want to trade anticdotes? Because you won't like the statics any better: things like VD being higher in absitance-only areas than in sex-ed areas.

I've not read the article in the OP, and I don't think there's any relationship at all between that and what we are discussing now... but you'd better check your facts before you get on your soapbox about how others should raise their children.

No, I don't believe that children should watch porn. I also don't think that parents should eat boogers with their children.

For me you'd have to define "children" and "porn". The 13-year-old turned on skinimax and saw 9-1/2 weeks? I'm ok with that. The instance in the OP sounds long past the point of reasonableness; but I think it's wrong for you to juxtipose that with healthy sex-ed.

[roscoestring]

Sorry to ruffle your feathers Jerry. I'm on no soapbox. I'm just stating my belief. Yours may be different. That doesn't make it wrong. Nor does it make mine wrong.

I think that children should be taught the difference between right and wrong and to do the right. The problem lies in the deffinition of right and wrong. We all think differently.

I was just stating my own personal experiences. There are many other factors that I did not mention that would factor into the outcome. I didn't really want to tell my life story. I was just giving others something to think about.

Sex (in my opinion) is a good thing. But it is only good if it is done right and at the right time and for the right reasons.

Reread my last line. Eating boogers may not be wrong to some people. To others it is.

[rock_show_host]

If more people associated sex with eating boogers, maybe we could do away with premarital sex altogether.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Bryan

DMN Investigates blog: Texas law lets parents show porn to their kids 11:13 AM CT | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Latest News

as much as I don't think children should be watching porn, I'm not sure it is the state's job to tell them how to raise their kids.

thoughts?

The article points out that showing pr0n to children is part of the grooming process towards molestation or, in this case, incest. It may be that the child's father showed it, but that doesn't rule out grooming or a future intent to molest. And eve at that, showing exposing sexual activities to a child who is underage and is underequipped to process it is sexual abuse.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by roscoestring

Sorry to ruffle your feathers Jerry. I'm on no soapbox. I'm just stating my belief. Yours may be different. That doesn't make it wrong. Nor does it make mine wrong.

Please don't patronize. You attempted to form a link between sex ed and venerial disease. That's not a statement of opinion.