Vivid says no to porn

[pornlaw]

Dismissing things like filtering all together cause you assume it's gonna be draconian does the industry no favors.

Assuming that exposure to sexual explicit images turns kids into sex maniacs and dysfunctional members of society is also somewhat draconian.

As an undergrad, I was a psyche and criminal justice double major, I researched and wrote a 185 page thesis page on the developmental occurrences in the childhood of 5 serial killers.

The mere exposure to sex was not a factor in developmental problems. What was -- watching their mothers - get sexually abused and used was.

Children have through-out time been exposed to sex and society has survived. For the most part many early homes/tee-pees/cave dwellings were 1 room dwellings. And being one room dwellings kids were exposed to their parents and other adults having sex. And we survived.

Granted Im not sure what exposure to violent pornography will do to a child and there are no studies on such, but seeing naked bodies and naked bodies in passionate embraces doesnt result in a breakdown in societal norms, customs and laws.

I say that with filtering will come censorship. Filters are not perfect. They catch all kinds of info - like teaching kids to wear condoms to avoid STDs if they are going to have sex. Perhaps a topic they might feel a little funny discussing with their moms and prefer to search Google for.

Michael

http://www.AdultBizLaw.com