|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On July 23 2013 02:47 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 01:56 baldgye wrote:
Restricting access to the Internet and actually knowing what it is and how to deal with it is what parenting is in the 21stC, if you fail to do these basic things then chances are, your unfit to be a parent and no matter what the Gov does your children will suffer due to your incompetence.
Except it's the state that picks up the pieces. We don't live in "not my problem" world any more (thank God). Limiting that suffering is important wherever possible. Again, I must stress that I'm not sure I would support the legislation. But I believe the principle of limiting access to pornography for young people is a worthwhile one. "It's created so to try and link pornography to actually negatively effecting children, when infact bad parenting is actually whats to blame." Why is everyone so keen to make this false dichotomy?
Because that should be the role of the parents and not the government. Are we going to start making J-walking illegal becasue children are walking into roads and being hit by cars?
|
On July 23 2013 02:58 KwarK wrote:
Sex is something recreational and porn doesn't especially objectify women more than it does men. Both are performing. The entire "porn objectifies women" nonsense just stems from "porn depicts female sexuality which is at odds with my (conservative repressed Victorian) ideal of what a woman is" which was a thing back when feminism was dominated by old white women who only fucked to create a new generation for England but is no longer a thing. Men and women both actively enjoy porn.
Well I don't know what porn you're watching but most of it is nothing like real sex at all.
A lot of it (not all) is misogynistic, men getting their way with women.
Or sex with a complete lack of relationship. Two people just meet and have unprotected sex, because that's fine right?
I know it's subtle and won't effect every child but it will have a consequence on those without good role models. Kids who already have enough problems without dealing with unrealistic sexual expectations.
Education is important... but by having this hugely available sexual resource, with no vetting that essentially is education.
It's a negative form of education that is not beneficial to society.
Hypothetically, lets say it was possible to completely control all porn on the internet. And you could remove all aggressive, misogynistic, exploitative porn and replace it with, still porn, but porn framed in a realistic context. How beneficial do you think that would be to society. I think, and I have some experience to back this up, it would make a significant difference to the attitudes young people have towards sex.
|
United States43966 Posts
You assume men getting their way with women is misogynistic. It's not. Maybe women don't like you having their way with them but I can assure you that most women enjoy most men having their way with them. You might just be doing it wrong. In fact women having their way with men pretty much involves the same bits doing the same things. Who says it has to be like real sex? It's for the consumption of the brain for entertainment. You don't get people surprised that tv shows aren't much like real life because they get that its entertainment.
You don't get to remove porn you deem aggressive, exploitative or misogynistic. A lot of men and women like that stuff, like fantasising about it, like acting it out, like creating it, like watching it. Leave it the fuck alone or I'll come ban something you like.
|
On July 23 2013 03:14 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 02:58 KwarK wrote:
Sex is something recreational and porn doesn't especially objectify women more than it does men. Both are performing. The entire "porn objectifies women" nonsense just stems from "porn depicts female sexuality which is at odds with my (conservative repressed Victorian) ideal of what a woman is" which was a thing back when feminism was dominated by old white women who only fucked to create a new generation for England but is no longer a thing. Men and women both actively enjoy porn. Well I don't know what porn you're watching but most of it is nothing like real sex at all. A lot of it (not all) is misogynistic, men getting their way with women. Or sex with a complete lack of relationship. Two people just meet and have unprotected sex, because that's fine right? I know it's subtle and won't effect every child but it will have a consequence on those without good role models. Kids who already have enough problems without dealing with unrealistic sexual expectations. Education is important... but by having this hugely available sexual resource, with no vetting that essentially is education. It's a negative form of education that is not beneficial to society. Hypothetically, lets say it was possible to completely control all porn on the internet. And you could remove all aggressive, misogynistic, exploitative porn and replace it with, still porn, but porn framed in a realistic context. How beneficial do you think that would be to society. I think, and I have some experience to back this up, it would make a significant difference to the attitudes young people have towards sex.
You and Government are not our moral guardians, and should act with total indifference to the sexual practices of consenting adults.
Vetting the entire internet of what is and isn't acceptable images will be a costly time consuming exercise that will do more harm than good and will simply push the real child predators further underground in there activities.
|
On July 23 2013 03:18 KwarK wrote:
You assume men getting their way with women is misogynistic. It's not. Maybe women don't like you having their way with them but I can assure you that most women enjoy most men having their way with them. You might just be doing it wrong. In fact women having their way with men pretty much involves the same bits doing the same things. Who says it has to be like real sex? It's for the consumption of the brain for entertainment. You don't get people surprised that tv shows aren't much like real life because they get that its entertainment.
You don't get to remove porn you deem aggressive, exploitative or misogynistic. A lot of men and women like that stuff, like fantasising about it, like acting it out, like creating it, like watching it. Leave it the fuck alone or I'll come ban something you like.
Well for a start it's not being banned.
Sex is way better when both parties are taking the lead.
I don't know why you feel the need to patronise me to make your argument.
|
the issue is that with the blanket ban of pornography is that the impact won't be what is expected here, i mean those kids who know about porn now but whose parents choose a blanket ban will try to circumvent the filters and will probably end up turning to classmates who do still have access, then you have the issue of your kid has limited access to this material but definitely will not tell you about it since it is banned and thus a no-no.
there is also an issue that i see in that i had a friend in school who was terrifyingly naive when it to relationships and any matters sexual because their parent had never mentioned it to them and they didn't look at porn so had no real idea of what happened in any sort of sex (yes i'm serious about the no clue thing). i feel like if your taking away teenagers ability to do research on stuff like this then you'd better have a goddamn brilliant system in place for teaching kids about it in schools and since Britain definitely doesn't then all your doing in my eyes is making more children unaware of "safe practice" and more likely to go along with the unscrupulous who would take advantage.
and i'm sorry i can't explain that point better
|
On July 23 2013 03:28 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 03:18 KwarK wrote:
You assume men getting their way with women is misogynistic. It's not. Maybe women don't like you having their way with them but I can assure you that most women enjoy most men having their way with them. You might just be doing it wrong. In fact women having their way with men pretty much involves the same bits doing the same things. Who says it has to be like real sex? It's for the consumption of the brain for entertainment. You don't get people surprised that tv shows aren't much like real life because they get that its entertainment.
You don't get to remove porn you deem aggressive, exploitative or misogynistic. A lot of men and women like that stuff, like fantasising about it, like acting it out, like creating it, like watching it. Leave it the fuck alone or I'll come ban something you like. Well for a start it's not being banned. Sex is way better when both parties are taking the lead.I don't know why you feel the need to patronise me to make your argument.
I am guessing his need to patronize you stems from the ignorance your posting reeks of. You are so vanilla it is sad. I simply don't understand how you can consider the entire kinky community deviants (of which I actually am in no way a part of - I am really fairly vanilla myself).
Have you really never heard of dom/sub-relationships?
|
United States43966 Posts
I think you're doing sex wrong.
|
On July 23 2013 03:32 KwarK wrote:
I think you're doing sex wrong.
Well it's not a recreational activity right?
Once for each child and done doesn't leave much room for practice.
On July 23 2013 03:28 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 03:18 KwarK wrote:
You assume men getting their way with women is misogynistic. It's not. Maybe women don't like you having their way with them but I can assure you that most women enjoy most men having their way with them. You might just be doing it wrong. In fact women having their way with men pretty much involves the same bits doing the same things. Who says it has to be like real sex? It's for the consumption of the brain for entertainment. You don't get people surprised that tv shows aren't much like real life because they get that its entertainment.
You don't get to remove porn you deem aggressive, exploitative or misogynistic. A lot of men and women like that stuff, like fantasising about it, like acting it out, like creating it, like watching it. Leave it the fuck alone or I'll come ban something you like. Well for a start it's not being banned. Sex is way better when both parties are taking the lead. I don't know why you feel the need to patronise me to make your argument.
The first time I ever brought a girl home I failed to take the lead. I didn't end up losing my virginity that night.
|
Wouldn't opt-out make more sense? Not forcing people into the awkwardness that is this nonsense plus it would utilize substantially less resources.
|
Doesn't matter if you think someone is doing it wrong or what u think should happen, let people sex the way they want to if they are both consenting adults and stop telling and or forcing others to do things the way you do them or watch the porn you watch or not watch in this case.
|
It isnt being banned it is not made illegal.
It just is made unavailable to small children. Thats the intention behind it and I think that is a good one.
The discussion should not be wether or not porn is good or bad in general but wether or not porn is good or bad for kids, teens, youths. I think we can all agree that below a certain age it can really have bad influence? (I do not have any science to back this up)
|
On July 23 2013 03:44 Kleinmuuhg wrote:
It isnt being banned it is not made illegal.
It just is made unavailable to small children. Thats the intention behind it and I think that is a good one.
The discussion should not be wether or not porn is good or bad in general but wether or not porn is good or bad for kids, teens, youths. I think we can all agree that below a certain age it can really have bad influence? (I do not have any science to back this up)
Add in the caveat that deals with whether or not the government ought to arbitrate this. Governmental parenting, while oftentimes noble in intention, usually does not pan out, if history is any indicator.
|
United States43966 Posts
I do not agree. For most of human history you'd grow up with your parents fucking in the same cave/shack you lived in. A lot of humans still live that way. You need to achieve a certain level of excessive wealth and decadence to have enough of a surplus that you can start making sex shameful and that's actually relatively recent. There's a reason Victorian values are called Victorian values and we all know what wonderfully well adjusted people they were.
|
On July 23 2013 03:44 Kleinmuuhg wrote:
It isnt being banned it is not made illegal.
It just is made unavailable to small children. Thats the intention behind it and I think that is a good one.
The discussion should not be wether or not porn is good or bad in general but wether or not porn is good or bad for kids, teens, youths. I think we can all agree that below a certain age it can really have bad influence? (I do not have any science to back this up)
Yes but it's being made unavailable to small children at the expense of making it unavailable to all people, unless they opt-out which may be embarassing, when it should be up to parents to look out for their own children not the state.
It would make far more sense to make it a law that ISP's have to be able to block porn sites if requested, it's far less embarassing to opt-out of watching porn than to opt in.
|
At the end of the day this should be something you chose to opt into, not something you have to opt out of like some sort of criminal.
|
United States43966 Posts
That and if the argument is that the parents are too incompetent to use an child block in the first place then how exactly does making them unlock porn before they watch it fix that? They'll still watch porn. Make the software intuitive and freely available if you want to address the problem, this solution doesn't actually solve the problem it's meant to.
|
Having to publically affirm ones' interest in pornography screams "Scarlet Letter" to me, and sex/stigma make for troublesome partners imo.
|
On July 23 2013 03:51 KwarK wrote:
That and if the argument is that the parents are too incompetent to use an child block in the first place then how exactly does making them unlock porn before they watch it fix that? They'll still watch porn. Make the software intuitive and freely available if you want to address the problem, this solution doesn't actually solve the problem it's meant to.
I agree but better yet have an education system that works, so that people growing up have an actual understanding of the world around them.
Oh wait no sorry, they are making SATS even more meaningful to state school's... that'll definably help...
|
On July 23 2013 03:42 heliusx wrote:
Wouldn't opt-out make more sense? Not forcing people into the awkwardness that is this nonsense plus it would utilize substantially less resources.
Yes, it would make more sense. This whole idea is ridiculous and I'm pretty sure only a tiny minority of the public would endorse it at all. Hopefully some petition will arise soon.
Even banning porn which simulates rape is a terrible idea. People roleplay rape all the time. It's not a particularly rare 'fetish'. The very last thing Britain needs is more sexual repression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
