The Daily Mail Wants to Ban Porn
Discussion
Tiggsy said:
There is an issue here. The notion that finding a copy of Mayfair in the park in 1985 is anything like the ease at which young people can see thousands of extreme images anytime of day in their bedroom is crazy. And the idea that parents shold be trusted to lock down those pc's is equally silly, they just don't do it. Whatever the reason ( lazy, lack of know how) they don't.
I have no idea how you'd ever introduce what the mail want but if you could, I'd be all for it- why not?
The current situation is like having 18 rated films shown on bbc1 during the day and jut telling parents to deal with it
I do wonder what the impact will be on people who grow up seeing millions of extreme sexual images by the time they are 18. I never bought into the idea that porn makes men think less of women and any one looking at a copy of a 1980 razzle would have to agree the girls seem happy enough......but spend 10secs on any pornhub type site and you'll find plenty of less than jolly looking ladies.
True, these days it's so much easier to just go on the internet rather than searching for hours in park bushes, bus shelters etc, but the reason that the magazines aren't found in these places any more is because of the ease of access to internet porn. I have no idea how you'd ever introduce what the mail want but if you could, I'd be all for it- why not?
The current situation is like having 18 rated films shown on bbc1 during the day and jut telling parents to deal with it
I do wonder what the impact will be on people who grow up seeing millions of extreme sexual images by the time they are 18. I never bought into the idea that porn makes men think less of women and any one looking at a copy of a 1980 razzle would have to agree the girls seem happy enough......but spend 10secs on any pornhub type site and you'll find plenty of less than jolly looking ladies.
And yes, the internet porn stars may look unhappy, but at the end of the day they've consented to do this and are getting paid for it.
But a blanket ban on all internet porn is just silly, it's just a fact of life that if younger people want to look at this sort of thing, they'll find a way, be it online, via Porn Fairies, or the kid in class with just about every dirty film ever made on his phone. The DM are making a racket over a lost cause here. And of course, as many have pointed out already, their hypocrisy on the whole thing is just silly.
I think the "false sense of security" is correct. There are no effective technical means to effectively block adult content by ISP's in such a way that "all adult content, and nothing non-adult, is blocked". To put a system in place which claims to block such content would be misleading, because the kids will find a way around it and then the parents will moan twice as loudly.
Tiggsy said:
The current situation is like having 18 rated films shown on bbc1 during the day and jut telling parents to deal with it
I think it's more like giving a child unhindered access to a sex shop and being surprised when they pick up a porno DVD instead of reading a piece of paper near the till on a planning permission application for an extension over the road.DanB7290 said:
True, these days it's so much easier to just go on the internet rather than searching for hours in park bushes, bus shelters etc, but the reason that the magazines aren't found in these places any more is because of the ease of access to internet porn.
And yes, the internet porn stars may look unhappy, but at the end of the day they've consented to do this and are getting paid for it.
But a blanket ban on all internet porn is just silly, it's just a fact of life that if younger people want to look at this sort of thing, they'll find a way, be it online, via Porn Fairies, or the kid in class with just about every dirty film ever made on his phone. The DM are making a racket over a lost cause here. And of course, as many have pointed out already, their hypocrisy on the whole thing is just silly.
The problem (and I dont regard it as solvable) is the severity of the imagery nowadays. For example, people are making the obvious digs at the Mail for their bikini clad ladies all over the place...but those photos are no more extreme than what you'd find (now, or 30 years ago) in your mums catalogue. To compare them to their "campaign" is like calling their dangerous dogs opinion hypocritical because they run a story about Paris Hilton buying a new Yorkshire Terrier.And yes, the internet porn stars may look unhappy, but at the end of the day they've consented to do this and are getting paid for it.
But a blanket ban on all internet porn is just silly, it's just a fact of life that if younger people want to look at this sort of thing, they'll find a way, be it online, via Porn Fairies, or the kid in class with just about every dirty film ever made on his phone. The DM are making a racket over a lost cause here. And of course, as many have pointed out already, their hypocrisy on the whole thing is just silly.
The ease with which anyone can see VERY extreem stuff is scary. Sure, there was hardcore stuff about years ago but it was a) no way near as extreme* and b) no way near as easy for a young teen to see.
I'm sure most parents wouldn't be too worried if their 10/11 year old had seen a Mayfair at a mates house....I doubt they'd be too worried if they'd seen a typical "Roger the Plumber sorts out some kinky housewives" type VHS.......but would they be alright with them spending just 5 mins on Pornhub?
We are heading down an interesting road....in 5 years most TVs will have web access, as such, in 10 years most kids TV's in their rooms will have web access - it will be everywhere and there is some degree of need to protect kids from their dumb parents.
- And whats with the extreme stuff, it seems to be a HUGE % of the stuff online. Once the acts depicted deviate so far from what a typical couple would ever consider doing, whats the appeal (or is that the appeal????)
As a father of 3 young boys (and a 16 yr old daughter) thats my issue with todays stuff. I may have got a realistic understanding of what plumbers did from a 1980's VHS but the sex depicted was, tool belt aside, in keeping with what I'd experience when older. There must be a scary amount of young girls being asked to do things (or have things done to them) that are way outside the norm!
Edited by Tiggsy on Friday 27th April 15:38
0000 said:
Tiggsy said:
The problem (and I dont regard it as solvable) is the severity of the imagery nowadays.
Pretty severe imagery has been around a while now. I was still in school when I survived goatse and I turn 30 this year.
Raify said:
The current Daily Wail website has:
1. "It's not me" Kim (who?) denies nude photo scandal on web" - with an FHM-style bikini shot
2. Long lens Pap shots of someone in a bikini on holiday
3. "Bottom-baring Alexandra Burke (who?) ignores....." - with shots of said short-shorts
4. "If you've got it flaunt it!" - swimsuit shots with Nicki Minaj (who?)
5. "Showing off Ora her curves" - long-lens Pap shots of someone in swimsuit
6. "Cut it out" - Eliza Doolittle (who?) reveals too much in a dress, more Pap shots
etc, etc.
If they want to get all puritan, they should probably keep their house in order.
I cant even read any of the DailyFails website because I have a greasemonkey script that makes all the headlines hilarious.1. "It's not me" Kim (who?) denies nude photo scandal on web" - with an FHM-style bikini shot
2. Long lens Pap shots of someone in a bikini on holiday
3. "Bottom-baring Alexandra Burke (who?) ignores....." - with shots of said short-shorts
4. "If you've got it flaunt it!" - swimsuit shots with Nicki Minaj (who?)
5. "Showing off Ora her curves" - long-lens Pap shots of someone in swimsuit
6. "Cut it out" - Eliza Doolittle (who?) reveals too much in a dress, more Pap shots
etc, etc.
If they want to get all puritan, they should probably keep their house in order.
so I get things like:
Is Darling cheating your children?
Could the poles turn the church gay?
Is Feminism ripping off the conservative party?
Will Gypsies defraud common sense and decency?
Could the nanny state ruin you? (with summary of 0 - 62mph in 3.9 seconds!)
Could health and saftey tax Cliff Richard?
Has Jacqui Smith stolen from your pets?
Will the unemployed give you cancer?
And so on. Its much more entertaining.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 27th April 16:47
Tiggsy said:
There must be a scary amount of young girls being asked to do things (or have things done to them) that are way outside the norm!
My BIL is deputy head of a secondary school on the south coast and he is saying that he is getting lots and lots of anecdotal evidence of exactly this happening.Somehow a way had got to be found to restrict content coming in to the home on the broad range of devices that are now there: TVs, consoles, phones, tablets etc etc. That has got to be implemented at the perimeter ie router/modem or at the ISP level.
Personally, I am in favour of the router approach but it really is up to parents to get acquainted with how to stop this stuff: they don't allow their kids to wander in to sex shops or access the top shelf in the newsagents, so why they think it is a good idea to have uncontrolled access to the WWW is beyond me.....
I have 1 in secondary school and we had an invite in to talk on line security from the local BiB. They showed some fairly horrific examples of stuff posted on line, all underage, all self-posted and outside of the types of service normall associated with on-line porn.
I'm happy to block at the ISP level and give those who want it an opt-in.
Blocking at the router is new on me, can anyone point me in the right direction please.
I'm happy to block at the ISP level and give those who want it an opt-in.
Blocking at the router is new on me, can anyone point me in the right direction please.
Starfighter said:
I have 1 in secondary school and we had an invite in to talk on line security from the local BiB. They showed some fairly horrific examples of stuff posted on line, all underage, all self-posted and outside of the types of service normall associated with on-line porn.
I'm happy to block at the ISP level and give those who want it an opt-in.
Blocking at the router is new on me, can anyone point me in the right direction please.
The place to start is with the router manual. The router that I have does blacklisting, on a domain or keyword basis. It depends on how old the kid is though. Once they get over a certain age they'll find a way to look at those sites without it getting caught by the filter. One of the clever ones is to use Google Translate as a proxy so that any words that would get caught by the keyword filter are removed. I'm happy to block at the ISP level and give those who want it an opt-in.
Blocking at the router is new on me, can anyone point me in the right direction please.
If they're over 13 I think it's probably better to lock down the administrator account on the computer, disable private browsing, and disable browsing history deletion. Make it extremely clear to the child that you can see exactly what they have been looking at and that will almost certainly be enough to nip it in the bud.
davepoth said:
If they're over 13 I think it's probably better to lock down the administrator account on the computer, disable private browsing, and disable browsing history deletion. Make it extremely clear to the child that you can see exactly what they have been looking at and that will almost certainly be enough to nip it in the bud.
Hopefully.I can't help feeling that the DM is trying to advocate the technology
doing the parenting, instead of the parents doing the parenting
and controlling what their children see.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff