|
can't you opt out from porn already?
|
oh good another step towards fascism in the guise of "protecting the children"
because we all know people that play FPS all end up as serial shooters and gunmen!
|
Didn't the porn lobby do anything to stop this? It's not as if tobacco and alcohol lobbies would be fine to let their drugs be banned.
|
On July 24 2013 02:49 Superouman wrote:
Didn't the porn lobby do anything to stop this? It's not as if tobacco and alcohol lobbies would be fine to let their drugs be banned.
I have never heard of porn lobby. Does it even exist?
|
I don't think this responsibility should fall on a government, but I do think it's ultimately a good idea. I know if I were a parent I wouldn't want my kids to have such incredibly easy access to porn over the internet. The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
I also think if this succeeds it will open the door for even more government censorship, whether public or secret. This is the main reason I think it shouldn't be left to a government to implement something like this.
|
On July 24 2013 01:57 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:52 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:49 Yurie wrote:On July 24 2013 01:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 24 2013 01:42 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:29 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:15 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:12 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:09 Godwrath wrote:
[quote]
No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted. Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it? I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable. Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ? That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason. I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now. My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.  Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system. Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this. Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn. The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money. edit, My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points. Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ? I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
|
On July 24 2013 02:55 AnomalySC2 wrote:
I don't think this responsibility should fall on a government, but I do think it's ultimately a good idea. I know if I were a parent I wouldn't want my kids to have such incredibly easy access to porn over the internet. The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
I also think if this succeeds it will open the door for even more government censorship, whether public or secret. This is the main reason I think it shouldn't be left to a government to implement something like this.
Teaching your children right from wrong is 99% of the battle.
|
On July 24 2013 02:57 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:57 Yurie wrote:On July 24 2013 01:52 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:49 Yurie wrote:On July 24 2013 01:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 24 2013 01:42 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:29 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:15 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:12 Talin wrote:
[quote]
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable. Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ? That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason. I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now. My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is. Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system. Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this. Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn. The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money. edit, My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points. Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ? I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them. That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them... Show nested quote +The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
I don't know if there is any real "data" on it, but that is my personal view on it.
|
On July 24 2013 02:44 Cheerio wrote:
can't you opt out from porn already?
Yes, most ISP's have the option although most people were unaware of its existence.
The difference is that the default for "porn censorship" will now be on instead of off.
So practically it doesn't change much unless you're 12-16 and you don't want to ask your parents for permission to watch porn.
But it does raise some discussion about the government meddling with its populace for no real reason.
On July 24 2013 02:55 AnomalySC2 wrote:
I don't think this responsibility should fall on a government, but I do think it's ultimately a good idea. I know if I were a parent I wouldn't want my kids to have such incredibly easy access to porn over the internet. The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
I also think if this succeeds it will open the door for even more government censorship, whether public or secret. This is the main reason I think it shouldn't be left to a government to implement something like this.
As a parent there are plenty of tools to stop your children to have access from porn, no tools were added or removed by this action. It's just redundant.
|
On July 24 2013 02:59 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 02:55 AnomalySC2 wrote:
I don't think this responsibility should fall on a government, but I do think it's ultimately a good idea. I know if I were a parent I wouldn't want my kids to have such incredibly easy access to porn over the internet. The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
I also think if this succeeds it will open the door for even more government censorship, whether public or secret. This is the main reason I think it shouldn't be left to a government to implement something like this. Teaching your children right from wrong is 99% of the battle.
And some things boys/young men will want to get into no matter what, if you know what I mean by that.
|
On July 24 2013 02:59 Clarity_nl wrote:Yes, most ISP's have the option although most people were unaware of its existence. The difference is that the default for "porn censorship" will now be on instead of off. So practically it doesn't change much unless you're 12-16 and you don't want to ask your parents for permission to watch porn. But it does raise some discussion about the government meddling with its populace for no real reason. Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 02:55 AnomalySC2 wrote:
I don't think this responsibility should fall on a government, but I do think it's ultimately a good idea. I know if I were a parent I wouldn't want my kids to have such incredibly easy access to porn over the internet. The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
I also think if this succeeds it will open the door for even more government censorship, whether public or secret. This is the main reason I think it shouldn't be left to a government to implement something like this. As a parent there are plenty of tools to stop your children to have access from porn, no tools were added or removed by this action. It's just redundant.
I didn't know that, maybe they should just increase awareness about it then.
|
On July 24 2013 03:02 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 02:59 ref4 wrote:On July 24 2013 02:55 AnomalySC2 wrote:
I don't think this responsibility should fall on a government, but I do think it's ultimately a good idea. I know if I were a parent I wouldn't want my kids to have such incredibly easy access to porn over the internet. The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
I also think if this succeeds it will open the door for even more government censorship, whether public or secret. This is the main reason I think it shouldn't be left to a government to implement something like this. Teaching your children right from wrong is 99% of the battle. And some things boys/young men will want to get into no matter what, if you know what I mean by that.
Really I think if parents are more open about sex and porn the topic wouldn't be such a huge taboo that lead to a lot of porn addiction + early erectile dysfunction.
|
On July 24 2013 02:57 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:57 Yurie wrote:On July 24 2013 01:52 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:49 Yurie wrote:On July 24 2013 01:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 24 2013 01:42 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:29 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:15 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:12 Talin wrote:
[quote]
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable. Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ? That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason. I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now. My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is. Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system. Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this. Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn. The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money. edit, My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points. Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ? I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them. That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them... Show nested quote +The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
|
On July 24 2013 03:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 02:57 Shiori wrote:On July 24 2013 01:57 Yurie wrote:On July 24 2013 01:52 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:49 Yurie wrote:On July 24 2013 01:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 24 2013 01:42 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:29 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:15 Godwrath wrote:
[quote]
Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ? That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason. I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now. My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is. Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system. Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this. Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn. The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money. edit, My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points. Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ? I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them. That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them... The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn. There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited. These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
|
"Do not take the little bit that I enjoy away from me!"
Did the ancient Romans argue in the same way after Honrius banned the gladiator games? I think so.
In my opinion, the unleashed pop culture, including the violence in the media, the unlimited access to pornography is a serious problem. The internet is not that old that we can really measure how it afflicts kids, we can only tell that in a certain age, kids should not watch that bullshit the mainstream industry produces for us in masses, for the masses. Panem et circenses. When I was young we watched some movies that were not for our age, ok, but we did not have unlimited access to it.
This is a general problem. Enough people are not willing to limit themselves, even if it harms other people.
Also, you cannot say it is the parents' problem. People are different, you cannot expect from all parents to do the same. It is a shame if one approaches kids that have "bad parents" which such apathy.
It is just porn. It is not politics, not The Capital by Marx or the Holy Bible, or the Satanic Verses that are banned, or anything else. Do not compare this to China.
And yeah, I approve. I also like the parental filter in SC2.
|
Brave Prime Minister, David Cameron... If he succeeds, future generations will remember him only as David Ron.
|
On July 24 2013 03:13 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 03:10 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2013 02:57 Shiori wrote:On July 24 2013 01:57 Yurie wrote:On July 24 2013 01:52 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:49 Yurie wrote:On July 24 2013 01:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 24 2013 01:42 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:29 Talin wrote:
[quote]
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason. I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now. My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is. Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system. Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this. Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn. The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money. edit, My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points. Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ? I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them. That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them... The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn. There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited. These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly. Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen. Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
|
On July 24 2013 03:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 03:13 Klondikebar wrote:On July 24 2013 03:10 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2013 02:57 Shiori wrote:On July 24 2013 01:57 Yurie wrote:On July 24 2013 01:52 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:49 Yurie wrote:On July 24 2013 01:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 24 2013 01:42 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote:
[quote]
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now. My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is. Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system. Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this. Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn. The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money. edit, My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points. Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ? I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them. That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them... The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn. There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited. These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly. Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen. Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried. Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that. To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
This exists for most ISPs, all the government did was change it from opt out to opt in. The option itself however was (is) very obscure.
|
Used the internet hours almost every day since I was 11. I was never exposed to anything terrible...
I know things have changed a lot in the last 10 years, but I can't see how this would help except for stopping kids in class opening up porn on a school computer and showing it to all his friends. Which would be unlikely to happen in any school with a decent IT technician who should block all kinds of bad websites.
|
On July 24 2013 03:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 03:13 Klondikebar wrote:On July 24 2013 03:10 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2013 02:57 Shiori wrote:On July 24 2013 01:57 Yurie wrote:On July 24 2013 01:52 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:49 Yurie wrote:On July 24 2013 01:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 24 2013 01:42 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote:
[quote]
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now. My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is. Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system. Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this. Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn. The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money. edit, My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points. Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ? I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them. That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them... The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn. There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited. These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly. Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen. Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried. Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that. To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
You can block stuff at the router level. That's what schools do. And when you're talking about the average home...how many computers are there? One or two? Is a machine by machine basis that hard?
And I know all parents are different and all kids are different, but if you're kid is old enough to have their own computer (and smartphones are computers now) complete with internet access...then I think their old enough to look at porn. If parents haven't given them proper sex ed by that time, that's a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
