BBC Asks Viewers: “Should There Be Age-Appropriate Porn” for Teenagers?

Please respect the Copyright of this image and follow the license accordingly.
Advertisement

In a world that is absolutely inundated with pornography, there has been a jaw-dropping conversation as of late as to how to address the issue that children are consuming pornography.

In the “sex-positive” world, it has become common for so-called “sex educators” to try to ensure teenagers have a healthier view of sex than what would be afforded them by gratuitous pornography consumption.

Rather than address the root cause behind why teenagers and even children are able to easily access pornography, that is, pornography itself, these “educators” think a smart course of action is to give “porn literacy” classes to high school students so they can fully understand the wide variety of porn genres, as took place at a Manhattan prep school earlier this year.

Now, there is an honest discussion surrounding whether there should be porn made specifically for teenagers to achieve such an end.

So rather than recognize as a society that pornography is doing pronounced damage to the very fabric of society by fueling the sex trafficking crisis, victimizing women and children, encouraging young people to sell their body online for quick cash, and damaging marriages by enabling unhealthy addictions and routine emotional betrayal, folks now think the right course of action is to make porn for kids.

We are very close to seeing society turn into the dystopic vision of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, in which promiscuity was glorified and celebrated and children encouraged to have sex at a young age as they were raised in state facilities without parents, having been genetically engineered in a lab.

As Faithwire reports, the BBC recently posed the question to viewers as to whether or not “age-appropriate” pornographic content should be made available to teenagers.

What exactly is “age-appropriate” when it comes to showing graphic sex to teens?

The poll came days after GQ journalist Flora Gill tweeted out the suggestion that “porn for children” should be a thing, “young teens are already watching porn, but they’re finding hardcore, aggressive videos that give a terrible view of sex” and could benefit from “entry level” porn.

“Entry level” porn assumes that it is necessary to work one’s way up to the hardcore stuff, when there is absolutely no need for porn in society to begin with, at all, whatsoever.

“Pornography isn’t only deeply problematic because it distorts God’s perfect design for sexuality, which He created to be enjoyed within the context of a marriage between one man and one woman,” Faithwire editor Tré Goins-Phillips notes. “It also does a great deal of psychological and even physical harm to those who consume it.”

Even if you exclude consideration of the high potential for abuse and exploitation that the pornography industry creates, “there’s plenty of evidence to suggest its consumption creates neural pathways that cause cravings not unlike those addicted to drugs such as alcohol, nicotine, or even cocaine,” Goins-Phillips notes.

“Just as is the case with addictive substances, when a user consumes pornography, the so-called reward center in her brain is flooded with dopamine and, over time, she’s conditioned to expect dopamine highs at ever-increasing intensities,” he explains. “As the pathways in her brain become worn down, she’ll need more extreme content to satisfy her cravings.”

We certainly don’t advocate for creating “entry-level” drugs or cigarettes for kids, do we?

“So while ‘porn literacy’ classes might acknowledge there’s a problem, all it does is rearrange deck chairs on a sinking Titanic,” Goins-Phillips astutely notes.

He argues, and we emphatically agree, that the antidote to the problems that pornography causes is the truth about its harmful effects on children and adults alike.

If you appreciate the work we are doing for faith, family, and freedom, please consider a small donation to help us continue. Thank you so much!

Sponsor