backtop

Print 33 comment(s) - last by Steve Guilliot.. on Feb 7 at 7:25 PM
Next time you surf the internet, you could get a sneak peak at what your mother would not want you looking at

It seems that more and more ads pop up while surfing the internet.  A report published in the February issue of Pediatrics showed that 4 in every 10 American youths between the ages of 10 and 17 say they have seen pornography on the internet.

Reuters reports that many of the experiences teens had with online porn are from file sharing programs to download images.  The study said that most teens are not effected by viewing the material, but it could have a negative impact on some youth that unintentionally come across the material.

The report is based on a telephone interview of 1,500 U.S. youths.  Of the 44 percent of the youths that came across the content, 66 percent claimed that they stumbled across it unintentionally.  The interviewed youth claimed they came across it simply by misspelling a web address or from pop-up windows.

The researchers claim that even though it is natural that teens come across or look for porn on the internet, this could lead to the wrong behavior.  They say that these images could give teens the wrong ideas about sex and undermine social values or attitudes about sexual behavior and lead them to be promiscuous.

The study concludes that parents and teachers should just assume that most teen internet users will be exposed to porn at some point, especially in their high school years.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Only?
By smaddox on 2/6/2007 2:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A report published in the February issue of Pediatrics showed that 4 in every 10 American youths between the ages of 10 and 17 have say they have seen pornography on the internet.


Ignoring the grammatical errors in that sentence - only 4 out of 10?

That number seems low to me. I would guess it is actually more like 9 out of 10.

I'll leave you to decide if that means the moral foundation of our society is crumbling.




RE: Only?
By Jedi2155 on 2/6/2007 2:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
That number doesn't seem surprisingly to me. I still know a number of people who haven't mainly because they are Christian .


RE: Only?
By TomZ on 2/6/2007 2:42:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and we all know Christians don't look at porn. :o)


RE: Only?
By Oregonian2 on 2/6/2007 8:01:49 PM , Rating: 3
Particularly with the "begatting" that goes on in the Bible so much. There was a History channel (or one of those) programs about Sex in the Bible, with Ruth whats-her-name.

Questions like how Cain and Abel had children, with their mother Eve being the only female on earth, and things like that also could lead toward such searches on the internet for answers. :-)



RE: Only?
By rushfan2006 on 2/7/2007 11:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
True..;)

I think it's funny the preception people have that you can't "believe" or have core values, morales or such - and generally lead a good and decent life and eeeeeegasp!! You have also watched porn, omg! You have also cursed and dropped "f-bombs"....etc.

I'm a Christian -- and all that said above applies to me. Porn, in the context of mature adults (no pre-18 year olds, no animals involved, no pain inflicted (S&M is just messed up IMHO), no one forced to do it against their will, etc.) is reality...we are flesh and blood -- its natural to have interest in sex and sexuality. It is shameful because we as humans cast that shame on it.

Now...since I said all that....(OMFG and this guy dares says he's Christian......*thud* as your heart explodes)...if you are obsessed/adicted with porn, if you like the pre-18 y/o porn, or such acts like S&M, beastiality and most certainly if you think its ok for non-mature adults to view it....THEN that is what I disagree with in terms of porn.

Everything in moderation, everything must first be thought about from a core believes POV...then decide what is right for you or if you are a parent of a young child -- what is right for him/her/them.



RE: Only?
By vortmax on 2/7/2007 12:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately the term 'Christian' has totally lost it's original meaning. I know plenty of people that call themselves 'Christians' that live their lives opposite to what Christ desires. How about we use the term 'Bible Believing Christian' (aka BBC) instead? Oh rats, that acronym will be confused with BBC news...lol.

Regardless, for everyone that reads this, porn, from Jesus Christ's perspective is bad. Sex within the confines of marriage (1 man, 1 woman) is good. Anyone that calls themselves a Christian and states that porn is OK in moderation has an incorrect perspective of Biblical Christianity.


RE: Only?
By BrassMonkey on 2/6/2007 9:04:24 PM , Rating: 2
You mean you know a number of people who haven't admitted it mainly because they are christian.


RE: Only?
By leidegre on 2/7/2007 5:00:05 AM , Rating: 2
Ofcourse.

Talk to them, spend time with them, their like us, they just tend to not want to talk about it. It obvious, and at the same time a bit childish.

Anyone seem the documentary film "This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated"? It brings up some intresting issues about how censorship is handled in the US in comparsion to EU, (it's realated to this topic).


RE: Only?
By Polynikes on 2/7/2007 9:10:45 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly.


RE: Only?
By Whedonic on 2/6/2007 2:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'd think the number would go up dramatically at around 12 years old... could be that accounts for the low "4 out of 10".


RE: Only?
By Polynikes on 2/7/2007 9:13:04 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, that's right about the time I found my uncle's Playboy stash, and I sure as shit wasn't gonna turn away. How could you? When you're told it's "wrong," the curiosity is too strong.

Or I'm an evil sinner who should burn for all eternity.


RE: Only?
By vortmax on 2/7/2007 12:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, Jesus desires that we all go to heaven, not hell. He doesn't want anyone to choose the latter...

So Polynikes, you still have a chance!! :)


RE: Only?
By Whedonic on 2/6/2007 2:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'd think the number would go up dramatically at around 12 years old... could be that accounts for the low "4 out of 10".


RE: Only?
By ChugokuOtaku on 2/6/2007 2:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
lol... I was about to say...
as if these numbers were supposed to be surprising?


RE: Only?
By ChugokuOtaku on 2/6/2007 2:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
lol... I was about to say...
as if these numbers were supposed to be surprising?


RE: Only?
By AsianIndian on 2/7/2007 7:22:51 AM , Rating: 2
Well, 4 out of 10 youths isn't entirely impossible if you calculate that half of youths on the internet are girls, and girls obviously don't watch porn.

That would mean 4/5 males and the other 1/5 is err.. either incapable of finding such material, or ignorant of existence of such material, etc.


RE: Only?
By Aborted on 2/7/2007 3:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I read 4/10 and I can't believe that. Even when I was in grade 10 let's say (which was 5 years ago). It was impossible to find anyone girl or guy who had not at one point intentionally looked at porn or had stumbled on to it. Even the most religious people I knew had accidentaly stumbled on to it at one point or another. Especially with how wide spread internet usage is.

The comment about girls not watching porn either. Just because she hasnt admitted it to you doesn't mean she doesn't do it. High school girls are more reserved in who they talk about sex with. But they are just as interested in it as the guys are. It's human nature.

I see this article and all I can say I think is happening is that a number of people they interviewed lied about whether they have or have not. A lot of them I wouldn't doubt being girls, because of their more reserved nature to talk about sex openly at that age. 10 might be a bit on the young side as well, so those people 10-14 are probably adding to this less than majority. By 15 I wouldn't doubt that it is 9/10.


This can't be good
By jmunjr on 2/6/2007 10:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
I've been telling people for years that youngsters are now exposed to far more crap than ever, which is understandable, but the Internet has multiplied this exposure by a significant amount, not only in how much but in the type of crap as well.

Simply put, parents have to strictly police what their kids do online, and this means not only on their own computers, but on their friend's computers as well. They have to talk to those friend's parents to make sure they have similar rules etc. If they don't your kids don't get to visit.

This may sound extreme to some but this isn't MTV we're talking about. This is hardcore pornography. To the younger crowd here who thinks this might be too much, I suppose it is all about perspective. In my opinion allowing your children to get exposed to porn isn't going to be good, especially if it is a regular thing. Heck, if the porn were at least depicting "normal" sexual activity it wouldn't be quite as bad, but the stuff they show is pretty much the skankiest stuff there is. Believe it or not that's not really how most people used to have sex(nor hopefully do now). I won't get into details but you know what I mean. There isn't a spec of romance in those flicks. As much of a stud I'd like my future son to become, I don't want him learning from porn.





RE: This can't be good
By hergieburbur on 2/6/2007 11:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This may sound extreme to some but this isn't MTV we're talking about. This is hardcore pornography.


I think you may be over-reacting just a little bit. The article does not classify what type of pornography these children are seeing. Based on the text, we can assume that they are classifying naked pictures as pornography along with some of the more hard-core stuff. On the other hand, I think the study grossly underestimates the level of exposure kids have.

I DO agree that parents need to be aware and protective of what their kids are exposed to, within limits. I think one of the biggest disservices you can do to your kids is trying to hard to shelter them from the real world. No matter what you do, they will eventually be exposed to the harsh realities of the world, and I think preparing them is far more important than sheltering them. I don't think its a coincidence that most of the people I know who were "protected" as children are now the once who are the least well-adjusted, or into the skanky stuff you refer to.

I also have to wonder about the fact that it is ok for a 16 year old to see someone decapitated, shot, or disemboweled on TV, but one shot of Janet Jackson's nipple is a national outrage. Especially when you compare our violent crime rates to those of many other countries that have the opposite standards...


RE: This can't be good
By vortmax on 2/7/2007 12:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
Your point about perspective in the last paragraph is spot on. Violence is relatively OK, but nudity is a no-no...

Unfortunately that's what we get living in a world with perceived relative truth.


RE: This can't be good
By Aborted on 2/7/2007 3:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
I think what is more important then that kind of censorship is proper education. Parents need to make sure they are teaching their kids about the unrealistic expectations of sex hardcore pornography puts in people's minds. Also, the need for safe sex and the importance of waiting until you are really ready. I think that the sexual education presented in school today is good but it's up to parents to guide their children in the right direction. Teaching kids right from wrong and explaning why is a much more appropriate method of parenting then strong arm censorship. The world has changed since a lot of you were this age. You need to adjust or you risk sending children the wrong message.


Exposed?
By Soviet Robot on 2/6/2007 5:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
"Exposed"? I think you mean "successfully found".




RE: Exposed?
By lemonadesoda on 2/6/2007 5:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
Nirav Sanghani has obviously been exposed to too much over 18 sensationalisation. LOL


.
By Cygni on 2/6/2007 7:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
so really what this study tells us is that kids 10-17 will still lie 44% of the time in an anonymous survey.

They have all seen pron. And if they tell you otherwise, they are lieing. ;)




RE: .
By Oregonian2 on 2/6/2007 8:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
Or 56% of those surveyed were 10~11 years old, and the other 44% were 13~17.


porn popups
By l3ored on 2/6/2007 6:50:02 PM , Rating: 3
i can think of two ways to get a porn popup.

1. sites that host cracks.
2. computers that have picked up spyware from porn sites.

so basically if you get a porn popup, either you have more important things to do at the moment, or its your dad's fault.




WTF? did they get paid for this?
By otispunkmeyer on 2/6/07, Rating: 0
By Sebec on 2/6/2007 6:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
What is not obvious are the conclusions drawn from the study, which Daily Tech didn't completely explain, and can be found if one clicks and reads the link to the abstract in Pediatrics. The extent of exposure was not the only goal of the study; they also looked at associated risk factors.

"Given the high rate of exposure, the fact that much exposure is unwanted, and the fact that youth with certain vulnerabilities, such as depression, interpersonal victimization, and delinquent tendencies, have more exposure."


wrong ideas?!
By thejez on 2/6/2007 5:36:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They say that these images could give teens the wrong ideas about sex


you mean real girls arent wanting crazy sex all the time like that?? rofl... the poor women in our society are going to be inceasingly pressured into conforming more and more like the "internet girls" in order to get "love" from all these pron addict kids....

parenting is becoming so crucial these days and unfortunately they are all at work making extra money instead of investing time into their kids...




half of teens watch porn
By l3ored on 2/6/2007 5:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
when i first read this, i thought "exposed to porn" meant "looked at pornography". and said to myself half of teens... all the boys, lol thats about right. but then they said just ads and people are complaining and stuff so wtf.....




By hergieburbur on 2/6/2007 6:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
Wow,

Welcome to the 90's. This may have been news then.

quote:
...showed that 4 in every 10 American youths between the ages of 10 and 17 say they have seen pornography on the internet
And another 4 out of every ten lied about it. I am not that far out my teenage years, and I know when I was there, it was hard to find anyone who hadn't at least "stumbled" across it. If the study said nearly half actively tried to find it, then that may be believable (accounting for the pubescent males and curious females). But only 45% stumbled across it in one form or another? I know its slightly more difficult now that there are less pop-ups out there, but on the other hand, google image and other such image hosting sites make it pretty easy.

As for providing an unrealistic image of sex, I can see where their concern comes from, but what sets up a unrealistic expectation, kids seeing pictures/vids of naked people, possibly in sexual acts, or our society's complete repression of anything nude or sexual and raising children to think that seeing a breast is evil or dirty?




To much noise for what?
By crystal clear on 2/7/2007 3:06:02 AM , Rating: 2
Porno existed from ages in various forms,from PRINT to VHS to DVDs to Cable TV to Internet.etc.Just the medium changed
of viewing it.

Just anybody in some way or the other at sometime had exposure to this material.This is nothing new & nobody can deny it.
We are all human being-it existed centuries ago-the KAMA SUTRA & the sex temple in India called Khajarou(if I spelt right) in sculpture form.

So what so shocking about this article-The statistics are there just to put an schock element to the article.

Quote-

"Next time you surf the internet, you could get a sneak peak at what your mother would not want you looking at"

Unquote-

You dont have be a expert to use/handle computers-Every parent is aware of the exposure to porn on computers.
Softwares like Internet Security,Anti spware,Anti virus,
& ofcourse the firewall & many more are WELL KNOWN to ALL.
Some can be purchased & some can be downloaded for FREE.
There is something called Parental control,thats also extensively used.

So with this fact well known & used ,the probability of
"sneak peak" is low ,unless you specificall want to get one.

In short dont make so much noise about this-part of life.

SEX EDUCATION in schools is a must -thats solves the problem
of atttitudes to sex.




Actually
By Steve Guilliot on 2/7/2007 7:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
The data really means that 4 in 10 teenagers *admit* to seeing porn. More like 9 in 10 have actually seen it.

In fact, I'm getting exposed right now!




"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki