> Can't you just educate them to avoid drinking to excess? No, you can't, they don't have that level of self-control yet
This is not only untrue, it's actually the only worthwhile course.
I know that bans, rules, and technical solutions are not substitutes for parenting. This is why all the kids of the parents I know who have tried that are doing all the supposedly disallowed things secretly (and circumventing the technical restrictions with ease).
It's shocking to read opinions that kids would not «have that level of self-control». Children can display self-control... And of course they can.
(Just a tiny example: in many countries, we have them study since the age of five, sometimes earlier. They already have a sufficiently working anterior cingulate gyrus at and before that age; they have understanding of tradeoffs at and before that age.)
--
Ooooh, hitters that will probably reveal to be snipers. That just confirms the point: if some people think it normal to gesticulate and not formulate - well, that's them, not all... Some children will have a weaker will. Some will have a stronger one! And surely it can be educated.
Does that explain why most societies don't permit children to drive cars? Perhaps that's not based on development, but just being too short? I kid, but clearly we don't let children drive, vote, drink alcohol, have sex etc. because of general observations about their limits, including self-control.
We don't let children vote because they are not wise enough: we demand a threshold for accrued mental competence is gained. Similarly, cars give them a power similar to that of guns: hence the restriction past the threshold.
We don't let children damage themselves because it is plain indefensible. If they want to, they must have passed said formal threshold.
Technically in the US farmer's kids can drive at 12 without a license if they are on "farm business" including hauling massive loads, both with tractors and regular cars and trucks. If they wanted they could put an unsecured goat in the back seat of an unlicensed car and drive to town with it.
Somewhat relatedly, there are US states where the age of consent (for sex with an older partner) is 13 years old, and the age of consent for marriage is 16.
Define "sex with an older partner". I'm pretty sure that for sex with someone of arbitrary older age, the age of consent is 16-18 in every state. If you're counting limited age difference then you might be right but that phrasing is misleading
Right. The question is whether porn is poisonous, and many people (myself included) genuinely feel the answer is yes. Mature, responsible adults can often ration their consumption enough to avoid too many negative effects - as they do with alcohol - but even adults sometimes fail and for children it's much harder.
Well, social networks and *-toks are also poisonous for your dopaminergic system. As well as certain classes of games, I guess here's a spectrum.
But the best option I see is to educate _everyone_ including kids about mental hygiene. Rather than enforcing unenforceable restrictions.
With all due, some may want to advise you to check into that. It could be that it does strange things because of the way you are wired.
Please note (about similar corners) what I have already written in the page, "for some it brings a satisfaction and this is an outlet valve that reduces adverse social effects; for some it is a kindler and it will increase adverse social effects".
To some it will be the opposite of a poison - it will be constructive. It will depend.
The idea of porn as an outlet valve just sounds to me like the self-medication hypothesis for alcoholism. I have no doubt there's people who watch lots of porn and believe that it's helping them with some problem or another, but I'm more skeptical that it actually is helping and a lot more skeptical that it's so helpful as to make up for the negative consequences.
Well, doesn't porn-ish entertaiment fuck up ones reward system? I'm not talking of porn specificly, but about a range of products that turn people into "dopamine rats", constantly pressing a button for more bursts of novelty?
besides porn, things like facebook, tiktok, instagram, reddit... generalising, it's everything that acts as a button "gib me more novelty" that one can press as much and as frequently as they want.
surely, not everybody is hooked by these things, and it's definitely possible to use them without harm, but sometimes it requires training and (self-)awareness.
But every source of pleasure could create addiction, so it is not valid to point to a specific one, and the requirement of self control and gratification delay remains generally fundamental.
Not every source of pleasure is equally addictive by its nature.
However, I'm not talking about _addiction_, but messing with the dopaminergic system. It's, I'd say a specific kind of "pleasure" with particular mechanisms to trigger.
The problem here is not that a person "is not having control over doing, taking or using something to the point where it could be harmful to them" (https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/addiction-support/addiction-wha...). The problem is that the reward system gets broken. If a person is actually addicted to instagram scrolling, like people are addicted to smoking, it just adds another layer of complexity. As I observing from myself, "checking stuff on my phone" looks like a bad habit rather than an addiction.
So, it seems you are saying that there exist products that, giving "pleasure upon command", make people akin to Damasio's rats - they would constantly go to the pleasure trigger.
But people are not rats: they are or can be made aware that crude pleasure is a negligible factor. Duties and other values count much more.
The dopaminergic system is inferior to judgement.
If there are issue in managing the dopaminergic system, the issue is cultural - and has to be treated in that framework.
It's like with the cognitive disaster in many medical doctors, that seem to equate "quality of life" with "pleasure" (in their own twisted ignorant subdevelopment): health itself has an extremely high value, crude veneers like said pleasure have not or can be plain countervalues.
Following what you are writing, you misunderstood my post, Sitzkrieg.
I was not writing about alchool... I said that some controversial imagery may be neutral or even enriching to some - while alchool remains a poison (it physically is).
Which is relevant, because other resources (e.g. those relevant here) can reduce or abate sexual misconduct, for many, or maybe boost it for some - depending on the profile. Some will be satisfied (and stay at that), some other will be kindled.
>Yes, they will, but it matters that they get it less often and less frequently.
but they won't. Alcohol restrictions are at least somewhat enforceable (although as a sidenote I also find them silly) but you can open a new tab, literally type "porn" into any search engine, and you'll get fifty thousand results.
And all of those sites are hosted in the middle of nowhere and do zero content moderation compared to Pornhub, so chances are on those sites adolescents will run into some genuinely abhorrent content. You've made it no less difficult, but much less safe.
It's so utterly meaningless even compared to other internet bans, it makes more sense to assume they just banned something so that people would stop talking about it. It's as if someone was on a crusade against video games, banned literally one video game
Can't you just educate them to avoid drinking to excess? No, you can't, they don't have that level of self-control yet.
Isn't it unfair to the responsible bakers who just want a really tender pie crust? Yes, it is, but they're going to have to deal with it.
Won't a determined kid still be able to get their hands on alcohol? Yes, they will, but it matters that they get it less often and less frequently.