75% of children lie to researchers

A quarter of children have looked at pornography in the last year, according to LSE research used in a Panorama programme about the sexualisation of young children.

7 thoughts on “75% of children lie to researchers”

  1. Takes about 3 minutes to apply a content filter these days. By the time they’re savvy enough to disable it without you noticing, they’re probably old enough to look at boobies.

  2. Yes, but that relies on parents taking responsibility to learn how to apply a filter, how to monitor it, etc.

    What, you expect them to be responsible for their own offspring!?

    Meh. Big Daddy Government should do it for them.

  3. Define “pron”.

    Justice Stewart might have said: “I can’t define pronography, but I know it when I see it,” but one man’s work of great artistic merit is another man’s filthy smut.

    Given that the article’s general tone is negative towards edifying literature of the one-handed variety and that HMG is currently trying to control access to the interweb on the grounds that pron is evil, am I wrong in thinking a rather broad definition of the term was used in this research?

  4. ps I find the age range used to define “children” rather interesting too. 9 – 16.

    I know it was a long time ago but I seems to remember that 9 year olds are interested in different thinks to kids 7 years their senior. At the age of nine I was more interested in comics, and dinky toys but by time I was 16 I’d seem plenty of nudie pics. And that was well before the Al Gore invented the Interweb.

    My guess is most of those 25% fall into the 14-16 age bracket.

  5. How much of it is self generated “pron”? Taking pictures of themselves on their mobile phones for their girl/boy friends.

    Does looking at Page 3 get classified as porn? What about magazines like FHM and Heat?

    How much of it is just children’s curiousity, which is a natural part of growing up, moving from looking at each other in the showers after games to looking at each other on the net.

  6. Philip Scott Thomas

    Does looking at Page 3 get classified as porn? What about magazines like FHM and Heat?

    Or, indeed, the women’s underwear section of the Sears catalog? Or the pictures of Amazonian native ladies in National Geographic?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *