Internet Porn

quote:

---

Let me explain. Some guy (this is bad, i have the AP test soon) did a study on violence and kids. So I will grant that this is a little different, but the same concept. He showed videos of adults, doing some sort of task, and then when they got angry, they would do a certain action. On one video, he would punch this body ballon, the other video the guy would strangle it, and the other wouldn't really do anything, might do another activity.

​

The point is, these kids repeated the behavior of that video when they were in that same situation. This shows that BEHAVIOR IS LEARNED

---

Could you find me the reference for this study, it sounds interesting.From what you have said I have some questions:1) Do you know the exposure time/rate of the kids to the videos?
2) Do you know the duration on the effect?
3) Did the kids who punched/strangled exhibit anger whilst doing
it, or operate in a play-mode?
4) Where the kids completely unmoderated in everyday life?
5) Did it have to be the same task as the adults?One of my points is this, it doesn't matter what behaviours one
picks up if your parents or other youngsters (in socialisation
settings) correct it. Especially if these effects are limited
in duration of effect.From what you have told me so far, it sounds more like conditioning,
and deliberate conditioning, than normal learning pattern.

There was an incident in Grand Rapids MI last year where a several young adults were playing one of the extreme violent video games and then went out to "act out" the game. First they tried to drive over a couple at a fast food parking lot. Then they ran over a cyclist, and got out and beat him with fists and a beer bottle, breaking the bottle. They went home and returned with friends and continued the beating. The victim died several days later never recovering from the coma he was in when found by rescue responders.Anecdotal evidence, but pretty compelling. I can find articles on it with a little searching (didn't come up in a quick google) if you are interested.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

The problem, as I see it, is that there is no direct
causative link.The general results of studies on media effects seem to be
that they have little or not effect unless the individuals
are already pre-disposed to the behaviours.In the above example, I would suggest that this is not the
first time that one or more of the group in question had been
involved in violent attacks on others. Even more likely is
that only one, strong personalitied member of the group is
so disposed, and is backed by a number of weaker 'followers'.The question that is raised, for me, is whether 'stimuli' should
be banned, or whether greater effort should be placed on
identification and correction of the personality types.Without the obvious stimuli, such people will invent their own.

As I said it was anecdotal evidence. You can also argue that the "weak followers" were conditioned through the medium of the game to go along with the "strong leader" and that he used it as a tool to mold them.The question is not so much censorship but responsibility -- when do the game companies become liable for being accessories to such despicable actions? I would say that there would have to be a pattern of behavior associated with players of a specific game to show causal relationship ... and liability.Note that there was one in the group that did not participate in the beating even after severe peer pressure was applied, and she testified on the others behavior.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

It sounds like a fractured version of the famous study by Albert Bandura, probably the 1965 study which made it into a lot of school texts. Bandura had children watch adults beating a balloon type punching bag, then observed them when the were left alone with the toy.This was not simply a study of modelling behavior, as it is sometimes presented, but the modelling process. The children watched adults either in real life, on film, or as cartoons. Some of the subjects were praised for the behavior, some admonished, and some not acknowledged at all. There was a positive corelation between hearing the violence praised and behaving with violence when the chance came. So the study actually focused on tuition. But Bandura did find that filmed behavior did have an impact on children.The focus today is more on the total environment, on attitudes, technology, and market forces. And there is more of an understanding that the commentators attitudes play a role--after all, in the days before most people had a television the same claims about modelling were made about comic books. But most research does show some correlation between televised violence and attitudes about violence.It shows the same relationship for violent toys, btw.

I have played many of the bloody and gory computer and console games that have come out. Halo, GTA III, GTA:Vice City, Half-Life, Counter Strike, Resident Evil, Duke Nukem, Wolfensten, Call of Duty, Battle Field 1942, Doom I, Doom II, Quake I, Quake II, Quake III, etc. Yet despite this I am one of the most peaceful people at my school. I have broken up more fights than I care to count. Why is it that after so much exposure to violence and blood I am still a peaceful caring person?There are, and most likely there will always be, kids that act out and do stupid things. Violent games are just a way for these kids to express their feelings. Sure go ahead and take away the violent games and take away the "bad" music. In the long run it will make little difference. But hey, what do I know, I'm only 15.

Hi, everybody! Nice to see you again!Well, this thread is rather long already, so I did not read it all, but I express my opinion about the original question:Porn definitely has some efect on children as well as adults, as any other information, as any other meme we are exposed to. But the exact nature of this influence varies largely between individuals. So there is no general answer.What can be a problem is that lot of porn (that comes, for instance, into my email box everyday - against my wish) is not about "healthy sex". This can have some undirect negative impact.

---

Life has no meaning but itself.

Personally I don't see what the attraction is for playing a game where you run over, beat up and kill people, and the more vicious you are the higher the score. But then again I see no attraction in sucking cancer into my lungs either.As I said it would have to show a pattern of causal relationship. Otherwise it would have to be (a) accidental (which I seriously doubt in this case), (b) induced behavior from a direct link (which I also doubt due to counter evidence), or (c) co-symptomatic: both the actual incident and the game playing are symptoms of the same problem, possibly creating a feedback loop. And of course any of these could be combined with (d) the absence of countervailing {social training \ parenting}.If all cases where non-acting out of the violence are also cases of countervailing {social training \ parenting} and all acting out cases lack the {social training \ parenting}, then I think you can make a case for the games being a significant factor in the actions.{{edit fixed scrambled post}}[This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 03-27-2004]

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

quote:

---

If all cases where non-acting out of the violence are also cases of countervailing {social training \ parenting} and all acting out cases lack the {social training \ parenting}, then I think you can make a case for the games being a significant factor in the actions.

---

Wouldn't it suggest the opposite?That the game had zero contribution, and the lack of
approriate socialisation was the root cause of the
problem.I also think that a lack of empathy plays a role (or an
inability to consider how ones actions affect others).At the end of the day no well-adjusted human would go out
and act in an anti-social way just because they have played
'Grand Theft Auto: Vice City' or watched Governor Schwarzenegger
stomping around shooting folks.I doubt that the imagery is even a trigger for pre-existing behaviour
-- just an attempt at an excuse.

You cannot say zero contribution, as these people exactly acted out behavior from the game, both in use of car and in manner of beating the victim. The only question is how much it contributed to the behavior, what were other contributing factors, and what may have been missing counteractive agents that keep others from such behavior. You could definitely argue that a lack of empathy played a major role in not inhibiting the behavior. These people showed no {remorse \ empathy} through the trial, except for the one that did not participate in the beatings and testified against the others.There are also studies that show that playing violent games reduces normal empathy for others. I believe the effect was temporary for those in the studies, but the period involved for these people (immediately after play) would put them within the temporary period, so is the lack of empathy displayed above enhanced by playing the game to the point of acting out? I agree. The problem is with the not-well-adjusted ones. Should one have to earn a license to play a game? I'm sure there is a good science fiction story in that idea ....

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Not sure what the game was ... but in the types of game
I am thinking of the 'use of the car' would be under player
control ... so they had already thought-up the act and
played it out ... similarly the 'beating' part would usually
depend on the weapon availability and then the player making the
game-person do the acts.I agree that the not-so-well-adjusted are the problem. The
british board of film certification in the UK makes the same
argument for some of its decisions (that a minority of viewers
amy be encouraged to copy the behaviour).Blaming the media is a societal cop-out, though.These problems are social ones, that cannot be impacted
by censorship.There have been far more societies on earth that had none of
these media (and I'm talking historically) where such atrocities
were also enacted. Its part of the dark under-belly of
human nature, and can only be addressed by better control
over the socialising and early education of the peoples of
the Earth.I'll concede that 'zero contribution' was an exaggeration, perhaps
zero causative effect may have been closer to my intent. The
game didn't cause the behaviour.

porn is for whimps and wussies that can't get a date or maintain a decent relationship. porn is for irresponsible individuals who are affraid of commitment and wish to live in fantacy land like peter pan.it's a shame, because love from a real person, even with all the challenges, is far, FAR greater than any image.pornography help - Google SearchQuick Facts
Effects of Viewing Pornography
by David SanfordWhen it comes to pornography, one look isn’t enough.
Pornography’s appeal may seem innocent at first. ("What’s wrong with looking at the beauty of the human body?") Like cocaine, however, pornography is quickly addictive.Pornography creates a strong physiological response in men and women. The immediate "rush" of a first exposure to pornography is often followed by intensely negative feelings.In subsequent viewings, the same types of pornographic stimuli produce increasingly weaker physiological responses.This law of diminishing returns often prompts individuals to seek edgier and darker forms of pornography, which may include depictions of sexual foreplay, sexual intercourse, violence, murder, child sexual abuse, homosexuality, orgies, or bestiality.The intense pull of pornography can eventually drag viewers into a shocking underworld of "adult entertainment," which includes visits to "adult" stores, strip joints, topless bars, massage parlors, and other areas frequented by male and female prostitutes.Even if one doesn’t act out sexually, the costs of pornography are staggering.David Sanford is president of Sanford Communications, Inc., and author of the Living Faith Bible.

Porn affect Ted Bundy:Fatal Addiction: Ted Bundy’s Final Interview | Pure Intimacypornography help - Google SearchThis message has been edited by steve, 06-20-2004 11:52 PM

That's a pretty convinient fiction, but it doesn't explain why the single largest group of porn consumers are couples.

If that’s what David Sanford wrote then he’s an idiot.If his assertion were true, then anyone that had ever looked at pornography (and presumably could access more) would be hooked.Jeez, almost everything he says is completely wrong. If as he said people graduate towards edgier and darker forms of pornography and In subsequent viewings, the same types of pornographic stimuli produce increasingly weaker physiological responses. then eventually those addicted to pornography would cure themselves.And as for your Ted Bundy comment, so did a lot of other people. Might try looking up ‘porn’ and ‘founding fathers’. Makes one wonder how many people beat off over the Songs of Solomon in ages past.