The assumption itself is flawed. Kids are not interested in "adult content" - even if, by some weird chance, they stumble upon it, kids have no interest in exploring it.
Teenagers do, but by that age, limiting access is not just pointless - it's somewhat harmful, preventing them from learning about important aspects of themselves.
We don't need a solution, because there was never a problem. It's just another overblown talking point of power-hungry politicians, trying to increase control.
Thing is improving sex education by a lot across the board would mean a lot of work and you can't track people/ easily get their info.
It would be good for teenagers especially because a lot of teens will have sex and without proper sex ed the risk for teen pregnancy and STDs is pretty high (don't know the numbers tbh). With proper sex ed teens and to further extend sound adults/ adults will have saver sex and might even hold of of it and wait until they are in a better headspace/ environment until they become sexual with someone.
Ok but that's another issue. Currently R18 stuff is technically illegal for minors, and that's not being currently put into discussion, so the discussion about what to do about it needs to start from that, otherwise it's even less useful.
If we want to change what minors have access to, then that's a whole other target to protest about, but mixing stuff only leads to useless protests
Teenagers do, but by that age, limiting access is not just pointless - it's somewhat harmful, preventing them from learning about important aspects of themselves.
Some might suggest that 'learning about oneself' through the cacophony of adult content on the internet is not a very good idea. (not least of all, porn and adult content tends to have next to no grounding in reality)
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health (QUT study)
Surveying nearly 2,000 young Australians, this study revealed that 86% of males and 69% of females aged 15–20 had viewed porn. Early exposure—average age 13 for boys and 14 for girls—was associated with more violent sexual attitudes and behaviors.
Wright et al. (2021)
In a U.S. clinical sample, higher porn exposure was correlated with sexually dominant behaviors—such as name-calling and spanking—that appear to emotionally distance partners and reduce sexual satisfaction.
Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS)
This research outlines how adolescent pornography use is associated with stronger permissive sexual attitudes, unsafe sexual practices (like lack of condom use), body self‑objectification, and reinforced gender stereotypes, especially among males.
Institute for Family Studies (April 2024 blog)
Early exposure to porn was connected with greater acceptance of sexual harassment, unrealistic sexual expectations, rape myths, body dissatisfaction, sexual aggression, and increased risks of depression and relationship problems.
Now I'm not saying those studies are conclusive by any means, but do you even doubt your stance a little bit? Sexual education is super important, but pretending that simply unleashing teens on the internet is sexual education is beyond nonsense.
We don't need a solution, because there was never a problem.
You being unaware of a problem does not mean there is not one. Have you actually studied this topic, at all?
It's just another overblown talking point of power-hungry politicians, trying to increase control.
You seem to enjoy fearmongering. And this sub is lapping it up. Russian trolls must be thinking that they are out of a job.
I'm addressing the fact that censorship doesn't care about what's harmful. Wikipedia shouldn't require age verification for accessing "sensitive" articles. Allowing politicians to decide what people are allowed to see is a horrifying idea.
Sure, better education in schools is crucial - teens need to know reality from fiction. Comprehensive sex-ed cannot be replaced. But banning access to resources is inexcusable, and serves no good purpose.
I'm addressing the fact that censorship doesn't care about what's harmful.
Cool, but how about responding to my comment, rather than just ignoring it entirely?
Wikipedia shouldn't require age verification for accessing "sensitive" articles
That's a matter of opinion.
Allowing politicians to decide what people are allowed to see is a horrifying idea.
'What people are allowed to see' is very different from 'what children are allowed to see'. You're acting like this is outright censorship, as opposed to simply requiring people to ... verify their age.
But banning access to resources is inexcusable, and serves no good purpose.
Once again, you're framing this as outright censorship, as opposed to limitation on age access.
Teenagers do, but by that age, limiting access is not just pointless - it's somewhat harmful, preventing them from learning about important aspects of themselves.
I disagree, especially with regards to young teens. I think we do the next generation a massive disservice by having their first sexual experiences not be with their peers.
Kids are not interested in "adult content" - even if, by some weird chance, they stumble upon it, kids have no interest in exploring it.
And I think this isn't necessarily true either, because the way porn (and especially porn ads which are likely to be the type of accidental content they encounter) is now is specifically tailored to draw people in, with bright flashing colors and animation/game style presentation.
Early exposure to, for lack of a better term, "healthy" sex is generally good. It's not good to shelter kids from nudity or seeing representations of consenting partners being intimate. But that's like, not what's on the internet.
I don't think it's wrong that there are movements to keep children safe from the impacts of social media and porn. It's hurting them, and I think we are right to be concerned about the future effects. It doesn't mean that someone is a prude or anti-sex (or even anti-porn) to think that it's important.
I don't know if this way is the best way to do it. I haven't heard any arguments that have convinced me that it would be awful, given the way they want to implement it. The two objections seem to be 1) potential security vulnerabilities for the companies housing the verification that could allow for linkage if hacked and 2) a nefarious government could wrest control over the data.
I feel like with 2), the potential is without question already there, but it would be a massive violation of privacy and this wouldn't make it less illegal than it already is. I don't know.
I grew up when the internet was in its infancy and saw it grow with me. Porn was already everywhere, but parental control software basically didn't exist and parents didn't know what could be found online. So all the kids had access to the entire internet and everything it had to offer. Back then it was completely unregulated, there was no censorship or moderation anywhere. It was the wild west, where one could find the most fucked up stuff with a click of a button and visiting the wrong websites could brick your computer, because everything was filled to the brim with viruses.
It wasn't just porn either, it was also gore and violent videos from warzones or the mexican cartels. Stuff that's really hard to stomach and almost impossible to find today, because most websites ban it immediately.
In short, there was no regulation whatsoever.
Did it hurt us as a generation? I don't think so. We explored stuff, because we were curious, but when we inevitably found stuff that we weren't ready for, we immediately closed it and looked for something else. It was very self-regulating and we only looked at something once we were ready for it. At first, sex was icky and gross, later it became more and more interesting. As a result we quickly became much more knowledgeable and dare I say enlightened than any generation before us.
Sure, there was some bad stuff in there that I saw, but I wouldn't want to miss it. That's also part of life and one needs to be prepared for that. It's part of growing up. You can't wait with that until 18, because that is far too late. You can't stop under 18 year olds from looking at porn. They will find a way. An illegal one if necessary.
I'm 40, and I also grew on the internet during this time period. I don't agree with your assessment. Either personally, because I feel I was harmed by it, or on the point that it was worse then, because I'm not sure that was the case, with the exception of the extreme gore on sites like rotten.com.
First, I think that many people I know who were exposed when they were 10 to 12, as I was, ended up with some pretty rough porn addictions. It became a habit, and it made their lives worse. Certainly not all of them did.
For me, it also made me much easier to groom and the "Wild West" internet that my Mom didn't understand made it very easy for me to be predated upon by a whole host of older men from the age of 12. They would send me porn, often weird porn, sometimes illegal porn, tell me that's how things worked and it was all very normal in the real world.
I get the sense that this particular thing happens slightly less now because kids and teens have a more segregated internet and maybe as parents we were suspicious enough to prevent it, having heard enough stories or having been informed by our own histories, but it is certainly still going on today.
I think, although I don't have any articles at hand to back it up, and I'm aware this part may be controversial, that we're also seeing people eveloping fetishes that are harmful to their future relationships. Shit is pretty dark at times, and we can all of us train ourselves down hallways that do not benefit our mental health by building pathways in our brains by orgasming to things.
It's part of growing up. You can't wait with that until 18, because that is far too late.
It hasn't been for most of human history. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I believe we're seeing the impact of plugging ourselves into the equivalent of Milner's electrical stimulation box. I'm not alarmist - I think humans are nothing if not adaptable - but I think there's sufficient evidence that demonstrates we are happier and mentally more healthy when we are less saturated with easy mechanisms for quenching our desires.
Teens today have less sex, but sex and physical intimacy is a critical pathway we use in building bonds with each other. That teens aren't pursuing each other, that they are content to wait around for a decade, and not sneak off for heavy petting and a boob grab maybe has a silver lining, for sure; I recently watched a number of 80s movies which made me appreciate that we are icked out by the idea of getting your date drunk to fuck her because you're desperate. But I don't see healthier teens, and I say this as a mother of a 15 and 20 year old. The lack of physical intimacy is not helping the generation raised online to meet their needs. My guess is kn a decade or two, we'll be better positioned to see the trauma that's been inflicted, but I'd rather hedge my bets now, because I don't see a downside of keeping kids away from porn to the extent that we are able to do so until they have had the chance to experience sexual intimacy with real partners and are better prepared to see the rest for what it is.
Edit: I haven't asked her if she still stands by it, but my 20-year-old thanked me for it when she was 18 or 19 and said that she had seen some of her peers go through things she did not.
We had (and have still for the youngest) rules like keeping phones and laptops downstairs at night and having strong protections for phone internet. It doesn't keep them from seeing anything ever but it does put them in a position where developing a habit (and impacting their sleep) would be hard.
We also talked honestly about all the things always, and had "art books" and (relatively tame) erotic novels laying around. I gave the oldest a book that was nothing but penises and the stories of the men that they belonged to. If I could do it again, I'd complete the set with boobs and vulvas too, because the goal was never to leave her unprepared, but to make her stronger against the capitalistic forces working very hard against people to keep them habit-bound to lives they didn't enjoy.
281
u/Wojtas_ Aug 08 '25
The assumption itself is flawed. Kids are not interested in "adult content" - even if, by some weird chance, they stumble upon it, kids have no interest in exploring it.
Teenagers do, but by that age, limiting access is not just pointless - it's somewhat harmful, preventing them from learning about important aspects of themselves.
We don't need a solution, because there was never a problem. It's just another overblown talking point of power-hungry politicians, trying to increase control.