In my view there are some sex acts that are not aporipriate for kids, or anyone really tbh. (If anyone here has seen 2 girls 1 cup they know what I mean. But in genral when it's not normal sex, e.g. scat)  So I think a line must be drawn but a boob isn't going to warp anyones mind. I don't know where the line should be drawn but I think there should be one.

You don't give kids material that is beyond their comprehension level.  Children have to learn not only how to constructively deal with their emotions, but just to identify what those emotions are.  Sex is tied into a lot of complex emotions.  Even casual sex has a degree of psychological complexity that is beyond kids until a certain point in their life. 

I wouldn't give a kid studying pre-Algebra the equations underlying fractal patterns and expect them to understand the material.  Yeah, they're beautiful, but the kid isn't ready to understand what is going on and the frustration of trying to study the advanced material might end up warping their view of advanced math.  That would be a shame and a loss.  You give a kid material that is appropriate for building knowledge, not stuff that will overwhelm them.

I would label material as 'Adult' if it might be beyond the comprehension of a child.  It's a nice waying of letting parents know that the material may not be appropriate for whatever stage of life their child is in and it would be a good idea to review it first in order to see if it's ok or if that kid might need a little help understanding what is being shown.  Maybe think of it as a courtesy to those who are still learning about life rather than as a form of censorship.

You might want to keep in mind that by saying kid you are talking about ages 3-18.  There are a range of maturity levels and abilitie sto process information here.  Yes, children can be too sheltered and that is not good.  That does not mean you give them every bit of information available about complex subjects at age 3.  And even when you get to older ages, not every kid is the same.  The responsible parent is there to guage their child's ability to take on whatever subject and help them understand the material.  It is not fair to expect a kid to understand material that is clearly beyond their comprehension level. 

As an aside, I would note that every kid is going to get made fun of for something.  You cannot prevent that.  Seeing as adults do the same thing to each other, learning to deal with mockery and judgement is something people have to learn.

 There are a lot of people who say that children aren't prepared to deal with sexual imagery or information before a certain age, and I have noticed that this claim pretty much goes unchallenged.  The thing is, I've been scouring every resource I can find, and I can't find any proof of this.  You would think that if there are children who've been damaged by seeing sexual images, there would be lots of documentation, and yet, I can't find a single study conclusively linking adult sexual dysfunction to childhood exposure to sexual imagery.

Not one.

In short, every article or study I've seen has been clearly agenda driven, not scientific.  Does this mean that children aren't affected by sexual imagery?  No, but it certainly does raise the question:  If it's so damaging, why isn't it thoroughly documented?  Shouldn't we have lots of evidence?  I mean... damn... sexual imagery is everywhere.  Shouldn't the internet have doomed our entire generation to sexual dysfunction?

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not suggesting that we ought to show children "Two girls one cup" every night before bed.  Nor am I suggesting that we ought to go out of our way to show them anything sexual before they reach adolescence.  I just can't find any reason to suspect that if they do happen to see something, it'll cause any problems.

I can't say this authoritatively, but I think the problem is with adults, not children.  Some sexual imagery bothers us deeply because we understand the significance of it, and we think that it will bother children, too.

By the way, what I'm talking about here is sexual imagery, not violent sexual imagery or sexuality with other elements that are clearly understood and disturbing to children.  I just wanted to make that clear.  Genitals, breats, and other nakedness/sexuality seems basically innocuous, as far as the complete lack of evidence to the contrary suggests.

Of course, I could be wrong.  If somebody knows of a legitimate scientific study linking the two, I'd absolutely love to see it.

 Anniet, I think you've hit on something really important.  Children are not particularly different from adults when it comes to things they don't understand.  Typically, they just ignore them.

The question of sexual imagery is confounded by the layers of falsehood implied in the question itself.  Consider:

1) There is no evidence that I have seen indicating that knowledge of human sexuality is damaging to children.

2) There is no evidence that I have seen indicating that the sight of a penis, vagina, or breasts is inherently disturbing.  To the contrary, all the evidence I've seen suggests that children learn to be ashamed of their (and others') sexual organs.

3) If that is the case, we must ask the question of whether shame is an appropriate emotion to associate with sexuality.

4) If we are to assert that shame is appropriate, we must offer valid reasons.

5) So... what are those reasons?

As I've demonstrated very clearly in THIS ARTICLE, our sexual mythology is rooted not in good science but in political land grabs and patriarchal property rights.  The idea of "old fashioned sexual values" is a myth.  Study after study indicates that people who are open and honest about their sexuality are happier than those who are not.  In many parts of the world, children are allowed on topless beaches, and they seem to suffer no ill effects.  Outside of religious convictions about the dirtiness of sex, I can't think of any rational objections to seeing sexual organs.

So... again, what is the valid scientific reason for "protecting" children from sexuality?

As far as "adult pictures" go, I can understand categorization.  There are certainly places where it is inappropriate to view explicit pictures.  In coed work environments, for instance, it's certainly not a good idea for employees to have their own favorite version of porn on their screen saver.  The workplace is an artificial environment where people are not intimate enough to want to view each other's personal sex habits.  Or, put another way, just because something is not shameful, it does not follow that it is appropriate for all settings.

I can also understand why parents wouldn't want their children bombarded by sexual imagery at all hours of the day.  There may well be an argument to be made for intense over sexualization of children leading to early puberty.  I've heard that claimed, although I have yet to see it substantiated.  (For one thing, addatives to food have not been ruled out as a contributing factor.)  Also, we have to ask the question:  Is it possible that puberty is just coming earlier as a result of selection and improved diet/environment?  We've grown a foot and a half since Columbus' day.  Couldn't puberty move back three or four years in the same time?

Basically, it's my view that censorship of sexual imagery should be a personal choice.  I'm all for the rights of software manufacturers who produce individual censorship modules for PCs.  If someone wants to censor their own life, they should be able to.  As far as the internet goes, I can't think of any reason for images to be blocked.  Labeled?  yes.  Censored, no.  As far as TV, I think we need to get over our fear of boobs.  They're just breasts, for crying out loud.  We've all sucked on them.  What's so scary about seeing them?

As far as my personal opinion, I think it would be one of the biggest victories for women's rights if the U.S. completely struck down all laws regarding the covering or uncovering of female breasts.  It's absurd to suggest that they are in any way damaging to anybody in any context.  In my opinion, females and males should have total equality with regard to clothing.  If it is appropriate for a man to go topless in a certain place, it ought to be appropriate for a woman to.  That goes for the internet, too.  If parents are ok with their child seeing a shirtless man, they should be ok seeing a shirtless woman.

Yes, I know breasts are secondary sexual organs, and I know they excite men, but for crying out loud, shirtless men are attractive to women, too!  Also, let's be realistic about this.  Allowing women to go topless isn't going to make the country into a nudie fest.  Most women will nearly always wear shirts for the same reason most men nearly always wear shirts.

While I'm at it, does anyone think men don't look at attractive breasts now?  Does anyone think we don't get excited and aroused when a woman with great boobs that are covered stands next to us?  We're sexual beings, for fuck's sake.  (Play on words intended.)  You can't stop us from noticing boobs just by covering them.  We notice anyway.

Hmmm... can you tell I get irate about this subject?  It doesn't help that someone just called me an asshole for saying YAHWEH about fifty times.

Oh, and for the record...

Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Horus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 Yeah, I don't really see my childlessness as having anything to do with this.  As you've seen, on my list of things that piss me off, harm to children is very, very high.  One of the reasons I'm childless is that I recognize very well that if I ever had children, it would be for the wrong reason, and that would be harmful to the children.

As I've probably mentioned, the fact that I'm childless certainly doesn't mean that I'm ignorant of children.  I taught children, both in class and private settings, for over a decade, and I'm very well versed in psychology.  Another big factor in my decision to remain childless is the fact that I've spent enough time around children to know I don't want to have them!

(I know you weren't attacking me.  I'm just clarifying and adding to what you've said.)

Like I said, I'm all in favor of parents having the reasonable right to decide what their children are exposed to.  Granted, if I were emperor of the world, I'd insist on reasonable limits.  Parents should not have the right to keep their children away from other children, for instance.  It's extremely well documented that children's socialization depends on frequent interaction with other children.  They need to interact with other children to avoid having problems as teens and adults.  Adults who keep thier children from any outside contact are doing their children great harm.  This should be prevented.  Telling a kid, "you can't play with Johnny anymore because he's a bad influence" -- fine.  Telling a kid, "No, you can't go to school like the other kids.  You'll stay in this house until you're sixteen, and you won't be corrupted by those horrible non-Christian children" -- very, very bad.

I agree with you that the media, the church, and much of our popular culture are all bad places to learn about sexuality.  This is why, in my humble opinion, it's the duty of intelligent secular parents to adequately prepare children for what they will inevitably encounter before they have the chance to accept the myths as true.  Children should learn that homosexuality is normal in nature.  They should learn that monogamous marriage is one way that some people choose to live.  They should learn that people like to play with each other and touch each other, but that it's not ok for adults to do that with children.  They should learn that masturbation is healthy.  They should never, ever, ever see their parents freak out over normal sex.

Oh, and yes, Freud's intuition was correct... sexuality IS the dominant force in the human psyche.  He just went way, way wrong from there.

In terms of showing sexual content to kids, I think it depends on a couple of factors

1. The kid's preferences/ability to tolerate certain material

2. How well the parent has explained and discussed sex

3. In what context is the sex appearing

I advise rational discrepancy void of freaking out/overworrying. I wouldn't show porn to a three year old (what the hell would he want to see that for? he's THREE), but if my 10 year old was curious about what porn was, I'd talk them through it.

One reason to avoid, for instance, shoving an extremely graphic sex scene down your kid's throat is that they may be too young/undeveloped to "get it", and therefore it may confuse or disturb them. To prevent this, if there is a sexual scene in a movie (and most movie sex scenes are fairly tame), I would definitely DISCUSS it with the kid and answer all of their questions as honestly as possible.

I know many parents feel "awkward" about watching sex scenes with their kids. That's fine, but if one pops up or your kid asks about one, DEFINITELY take the time to discuss it. Is this what sex is really like? How do films/television glamorize sex? etc.

Also depends on age and the kid's tolerance level/maturity. But my view is, most parents worry too much about it.

In conclusion, the key to any sexual content is honest, open and rational discussion between parent and child. Parents can't and shouldn't control everything their kid is exposed to (unless it is for protective reasons), but if their child has the knowledge and confidence to deal with it, they're all the more better off.

On a side note, I know a freshman college girl who's never seen porn, or at least claims not to. Hmmm...

This reminds me of the first wake I attended, at the fragile age of 3. I really don't remember much about the experience, except wondering why this old man had decided he was so tired at this party that he had to take a nap in a giant suitcase. Years later, when I was 11 or 12, I was asking my parents about "this party we were at, and some old guy was sleeping on the table." Eventually they figured out I must be referring to the wake of our relative.

If anyone tried to explain what was going on to me, I don't remember it. Most likely though, my parents just avoided bringing up the subject of death, figuring that I'd quickly forget the occasion. They were surprised that it had made such an impression on me and that I remembered it. This is a rather benign example of how a child can witness events that they can't comprehend, and fail to "get it," yet still be impacted in some way.

At the same time, I don't think we need to go to elaborate lengths to cover up nudity or lie about how babies get here. These are natural parts of the human experience. In fact, I think many peoples' sexual repression or body-image problems are a result of a lack of exposure to it early on. As a child, I saw my mom naked a few times. That was pretty much it. In middle school and high school, girls were never naked in the locker rooms. Ever. The only naked or close-to-naked people that I saw were fashion models & airbrushed magazine images, which did not do wonders for my self-esteem. Earlier this week I was on this website (don't click if you're at work -- edit: I didn't realize that the link won't go to the page I intended. In the menu on the left, click "Female Figure Studies I" to get to the page I'm talking about.) and I immediately wished that I had seen this when I was 10 or 11. Normal women, normal bodies, a realistic level of variation. By the time I saw regular naked women, it was at a hot spring in Japan, but at that point I was just entering eating disorder therapy, so the experience had come far too late.

While the "adult" label legally applies to children 18 and under, I think that we should not wait until they are 18 to introduce them to this material. I think it's important to establish healthy attitudes toward body image and sexuality, and to establish open lines of communication about it with your kids. I'm really glad that my mom took me aside shortly before I turned 10, and told me about sex, and what to expect over the coming years. Barely 2 months after that conversation, my breasts started developing, and it made it easier to accept once I knew that it was normal for this to happen (it also made it easier to endure my younger siblings poking at them & naming them.. ) My mom also stressed that if I ever had any questions or felt that something was abnormal, that I shouldn't hesitate to come to her, which has been extremely helpful in many situations over the years. I think we have an obligation to our kids to at least educate them and encourage discussion about sexual subjects. We don't need to forcefully expose them to it, because they will find it (or it will find them) eventually. And we don't need to obsessively hide it either. Once people begin to accept that nudity and sex are just as much a part of life as eating and sleeping, the obsession will stop.

I've been seeing those photos floating around the net for years.  I'm glad to know where they actually come from.  (Apropos of nothing.)

I think this adolescents ought to see things like this.  There are plenty of thirteen or fourteen year old girls with body image issues who'd be pleased to know that ordinary looking people don't look like those magazine models when they take their clothes off.

By the way, anyone who could look at this webpage and be offended needs to have their head examined.  This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.  This is a very good depiction of the variety of humanity, and I can't think of any way this could damage a child who wasn't already damaged by the "nudity is dirty" bullshit.

Eighteen to buy hardcore porn?  Sure.  Why not.  It's a reasonable limit, I suppose.  Eighteen to be able to see naked people on the beach, or to see an ad with boobs, or to read a sex ed book with realistic depictions of anatomy, intercourse, and the human reproductive system?  Certainly no.

Part of the reason (IMO) that we're so obsessed with sex in America is that we try so hard to hide it.  What I'm about to say may sound like I'm being sarcastic but I'm not.  This is totally serious.  A year or so ago, I downloaded an entire "Girls Gone Wild" video and watched the whole thing.  I'm not going to lie to you and tell you it wasn't pretty exciting for the first fifteen minutes or so.  It was pretty college girls with great bodies showing their breasts, and I didn't even have to tip.  The thing is, I really was watching as part of a research project, so I made myself watch the whole thing.  I say I made myself because in all honesty, after about thirty minutes, I was over breasts.  Completely over them.  If my doorbell had rung and it had been a sexy college girl with no shirt on, I'd probably have said, "No thanks.  I'm over them for the moment.  Come back next week."

Some people would call this "desensitization."  They'd say that I'd overloaded my brain with porn and that I'd "lost" something as a result.  But that's not really what it is.  Yeah, it's desensitization, but that's not a bad thing.  It's approaching the norm, not going away from it.  For any of you that have ever gone skinny dipping with a group, or been to a nude beach, you know what I'm talking about.  For about fifteen minutes, the conversation is stilted, and people are a little uncomfortable about looking at each other or sitting too close, or accidently brushing against someone else, or whatever.  Once everyone gets over it, though, it almost gets to the point where you don't notice the nudity anymore.  You start dealing with people as people again.  On a nude beach, if a really hot girl walks by, sure the guys notice, but they do the same thing on non-nude beaches.  Getting turned on is not dependent on nudity.  It's dependent on context.

To put it plainly, fifteen year old boys are always going to be horny wrecks, but which is going to make them more horny?  Having to go to extraordinary lengths to get a slight glimpse of a forbidden breast, or seeing lots of people naked all the time, perfectly comfortable, and without the air of forbidden fruit?

I'm not suggesting that we make America into a giant nudist colony.  I'm just pointing out that our obsession with nudity is precisely because we go out of our way to avoid it.