Poll: (Yet another) Moral Dilemma

[Tonimata]

So this question rose up the other day in class: If you had to choose, would you make your child watch a porn movie (Standard stuff, nothing too kinky or extravagant) or a Saw movie? Basically, the idea is, with these two thematics (pornography and ultraviolence) being "accepted taboos" in our society, which is the more traumatic, or in other words, more influential, to a young mind who might watch this

Thanks everyone

EDIT: Assume your child doesn't know about either of the two taboos and essentially, still believes in everyone's goodness and that children are made out of happy wishes (Or whatever you were told as a child)

 

[TriggerHappyAngel]

Pr0n, because that spares me the sexual education talk.

 

[Nackl of Gilmed]

Probably have to go with the prawns. It would most likely be confusing and gross to the child, but the Saw films could be truly traumatic to someone who's probably just getting used to the concept of death.

 

[retterkl]

My brother wanted to watch Final Destination with me, but having seen it before I made him sit in a box and only come out on the bits that weren't gory. Just thought I'd add that.


But pr0n, definitly.

 

[iLikeHippos]

Porn; For that is what the Internet is fooooooor!
The Internet is for porn, the Internet is for porn....

Well, bastard better recognize!

 

[Flatfrog]

I think I'd go with Saw - it's a lot further removed from a child's actual experience so it's much easier to treat it as what it is, which is grand guignol panto.

Also, I'd say both age and sex are fairly big factors here.

My kids are just getting to the age where I'm going to have to have the porn talk. I saw my first porn when I was my daughter's age, and it's a hell of a lot easier to find these days!

 

[Sarge034]

Prawn cus at least that is something that is socially accepted at some point. Brutally murdering someone on the other hand never becomes socially acceptable.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm advocating youth watching prawn. I just went with the lesser of the two evils at this point.

 

[Oliman43]

Saw all the way.

Behavioral conditioning ftw.

Oh boy, hell here I come. :-(

 

[Falconsgyre]

I'd go with the porn, because there's nothing wrong with sex, but there is something wrong with kidnapping and torturing people.

I'd also make a case that kids are more resilient than we give them credit for. Neither one is likely to have much effect as long as you explain things to the kid.

 

[Womplord]

Depends on the age of the child. If they were really young I'd go with the pron, but if they were a bit older I'd go with saw.

 

[DJDarque]

I would go with porn. I think real porn would be easier on a childs psyche than torture porn. Plus sex is natural and should be accepted as such, not taboo.

 

[Ogargd]

Saw is weak thus Saw

 

[SillyBear]

What a ridiculous hypothetical situation. I always wonder what psychopath is making people do this. Does he burst into your room in the middle of the night: "Make your kid either watch porn or saw! I'll fucking stab your dog if you don't! NOW CHOOSE!".

I'd probably choose the porn. At least it is normal human behaviour. The stuff in Saw isn't quite as natural and widespread.

 

[BonsaiK]

So this question rose up the other day in class: If you had to choose, would you make your child watch a porn movie (Standard stuff, nothing too kinky or extravagant) or a Saw movie? Basically, the idea is, with these two thematics (pornography and ultraviolence) being "accepted taboos" in our society, which is the more traumatic, or in other words, more influential, to a young mind who might watch this

Thanks everyone

EDIT: Assume your child doesn't know about either of the two taboos and essentially, still believes in everyone's goodness and that children are made out of happy wishes (Or whatever you were told as a child)

Both. It doesn't matter. Neither are influential.

Kids are way, way, way more resilient than people make out. Everyone stupidly forgets what it was like when they were a kid. I'm sure everyone reading this has been exposed to horror movies and porn at one point, and is still just fine. Besides, if you buy the argument that sex and violence on TV influences young minds in a negative way and kids should be sheltered from it, then you must also buy the argument that computer games train kids to be murderers, because it's basically the same argument, and we all know how false that particular argument is now, don't we.

 

[Tonimata]

So this question rose up the other day in class: If you had to choose, would you make your child watch a porn movie (Standard stuff, nothing too kinky or extravagant) or a Saw movie? Basically, the idea is, with these two thematics (pornography and ultraviolence) being "accepted taboos" in our society, which is the more traumatic, or in other words, more influential, to a young mind who might watch this

Thanks everyone

EDIT: Assume your child doesn't know about either of the two taboos and essentially, still believes in everyone's goodness and that children are made out of happy wishes (Or whatever you were told as a child)

Both. It doesn't matter. Neither are influential.

Kids are way, way, way more resilient than people make out. Everyone stupidly forgets what it was like when they were a kid. I'm sure everyone reading this has been exposed to horror movies and porn at one point, and is still just fine. Besides, if you buy the argument that sex and violence on TV influences young minds in a negative way and kids should be sheltered from it, then you must also buy the argument that computer games train kids to be murderers, because it's basically the same argument, and we all know how false that particular argument is now, don't we.

Well, twiddle my tinkies, SOMEONE actually went with the argument I provided in class! Nice, BonsaiK

 

[infohippie]

Teh Pr0nz. It's far less damaging IMO. (And it's probably better acted too! Not to mention having a better plot.)
Besides, I wouldn't make a child watch something that I'd refuse to watch myself.

 

[Zerazar]

Both. It doesn't matter. Neither are influential.

Kids are way, way, way more resilient than people make out. Everyone stupidly forgets what it was like when they were a kid. I'm sure everyone reading this has been exposed to horror movies and porn at one point, and is still just fine. Besides, if you buy the argument that sex and violence on TV influences young minds in a negative way and kids should be sheltered from it, then you must also buy the argument that computer games train kids to be murderers, because it's basically the same argument, and we all know how false that particular argument is now, don't we.

I like this guy.

Although I would like to object: If the kid doesn't enjoy it or benefit from it, wouldn't it be better to limit the experience to only one of the options?

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

As a child even Jaws at the age of 6 gave me nightmares. A saw my first erotic movie when I was 10 and my first prawn at the age of 12. Prawns didnt traumatize me, made me curious. And I think it wouldnt traumatize me even if I had seen it at the age of 6.
And even something like Jurassic park, that I saw at 12, gave me nightmares. So I avoided horror movies as the plague till I was much much older.

So yes porn would be my choice.

 

[BonsaiK]

Both. It doesn't matter. Neither are influential.

Kids are way, way, way more resilient than people make out. Everyone stupidly forgets what it was like when they were a kid. I'm sure everyone reading this has been exposed to horror movies and porn at one point, and is still just fine. Besides, if you buy the argument that sex and violence on TV influences young minds in a negative way and kids should be sheltered from it, then you must also buy the argument that computer games train kids to be murderers, because it's basically the same argument, and we all know how false that particular argument is now, don't we.

I like this guy.

Although I would like to object: If the kid doesn't enjoy it or benefit from it, wouldn't it be better to limit the experience to only one of the options?

Well I wasn't suggesting that you should do both simultaneously, that could just be confusing (although there are films that present both in equal measure quite effectively). Rather I'm suggesting that it doesn't matter much which choice is made.