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.
Yeah, they should require them to surface that more and make it easier to use for all parts of the internet. And the law didn't pass yet, if I read correctly, its just in the works?
Don't really think the availability of porn is very harmful to children honestly. Children wont be scarred for life by accidentily seeing some people have sex, or scarred at all, really. Teenagers looking for porn will quickly learn how to circumvent the filter, and I wish them the best of luck with that.
TBH its like if smoking was an opt OUT. Kids as young as 10 find porn then begin masturbating. As their brains are in their development stages, there is scientific evidence that their minds pleasure centers become rewired, in extreme cases they will have erectile dysfunction (e.g. not being able to get it up when they DO get a chance at sex). Porn can be addictive to people who just want that dopamine rush. This is where you get these kids on the internet who admit they masturbate like 5 times a day every day for 6 years.
Theres a good TED Talk video about this here:
Of course I would like completely free internet but the damage porn can do to the sexual expectations, innocence and brains of our youth leads me to support David Cameron.
On July 23 2013 20:36 Foblos wrote: I don't see the problem. I wouldn't want my kids to have the chance to happen across porn when they aren't looking at it, and I've read numerous studies about how porn can sabotage relationships. The PM is indeed protecting families and youth. They aren't "censoring the internet" as some of you have said, because you can opt in to porn. If you want to do something, you shouldn't be ashamed about it and if you are perhaps that is an indication that you should reassess it.
obviously if your child finds out about porn you are clearly not paying enough attention to the child. not in any way stating that you are a wrong parent or anything and defintely not questioning you. but making a law like this is just bullshit. they are spending recourses that could better be spend on something else like the economy or better safety it is and always has been the parents job to watch what their child is doing. whether it be coming across porn or watching something with tons of curse words. the government shouldn't have to do that job for you.
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.
Its smartphones that have made it more of an issue, rather than just PCs. And parental controls at the router level are super hard to use.
Its in the governments best interest to protect people from the fiery eternal hell that surely awaits porn seekers. Not to mention exposing sexual beings to sex will surely damage them permanently. A ban should be inacted immediately.
I would have thought that David Cameron would be more concerned with the garbage available in public like the sun. But I guess he wouldn't want to offend Rupert Murdoch, so Internet pornography = bad, we must get rid of it, but pornography on public news stands = just turn the page.
On July 24 2013 01:45 Wombat_NI wrote: [quote] 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.
Its smartphones that have made it more of an issue, rather than just PCs. And parental controls at the router level are super hard to use.
I don't think smartphones are an issue. They basically are computers. If you wouldn't trust your kid with their own computer, you shouldn't trust them with a smartphone.
Hell, you can get them a phone without a data plan.
On July 24 2013 03:14 papalion wrote: "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.
It's pornography. Not Gladiator games. Being regulated is a huge problem because it sets a standard that can be used for future censoring. Automatic opt-in affects everybody. It's also a waste of money, time and administration.
The British anti-piracy measure lasted 11 minutes before Piratebay linked 40+ mirrors for people to use instead, all of which still work perfectly. You cannot regulate the internet because proxys, VPNs and the deep web all exist and youngsters these days are taught IT from a very young age. My 12 year old cousin is more computer literate than my entire family.
And it is the parents problem. Almost every British ISP has parental protection schemes, blocks and other measures the average family can request. If nobody is using them, then it's a case of apathy, bad parenting or trusting your child with the ability to see nipples and vaginas. For me, that's a lot less destructive and more "fun" than alcohol and other activities that are presented as standard and cool.
Yeah "it is just porn" but 10 years down the line it might be "it is just <something else>". And everyone knows this measure will fail if implemented, it simply just gives Cameron's old boys club the precedence to do other things and continue to use this excuse of, "we're saving the children!!!" and all that hogwash.
On July 24 2013 01:45 Wombat_NI wrote: [quote] 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.
Yeah, they should require them to surface that more and make it easier to use for all parts of the internet. And the law didn't pass yet, if I read correctly, its just in the works?
From what I understood it's already in effect? Earliest I heard about this at all was on reddit yesterday when suddenly all UK based users couldn't see the "porn part" of a picture.
I disagree that an option like that needs to be shoved into peoples faces. If you are a parent and you are worried about your child watching porn on the internet then you do your own research to see what you can do as a parent. You'll find a multitude of options that will work including phoning your ISP and disabling pornographic content.
Will all parents do that? Ofcourse not. Does that mean the government should intervene? I'm not sure. Not without at least some studies supporting the "reasoning" behind this.
Classic case of the government not trusting its people and therefore making redundant laws.
On July 24 2013 03:14 papalion wrote: 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.
What makes parenting that is conceptually different from yours "bad"? One could easily make an argument that shielding children from the modern-day life can be more detrimental for their development than a hands-off guidance approach. I'm not making it because I don't know much about it, but I'm sure there are people who would make that argument.
The internet might not be old enough to measure how it affects kids, but sex is pretty damn old. Just because the internet offers a greater quantity of adult content doesn't mean the effect of the experience will be different. It also doesn't mean the kid will spend all his computer time watching porn (for obvious reasons) either.
The only thing that's different is that he has easier access whereas in the past he would have to figure out covert ways to obtain porn magazines or movies and find a place to watch them. The experience still happened anyway.
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.
Yeah, they should require them to surface that more and make it easier to use for all parts of the internet. And the law didn't pass yet, if I read correctly, its just in the works?
From what I understood it's already in effect? Earliest I heard about this at all was on reddit yesterday when suddenly all UK based users couldn't see the "porn part" of a picture.
I disagree that an option like that needs to be shoved into peoples faces. If you are a parent and you are worried about your child watching porn on the internet then you do your own research to see what you can do as a parent. You'll find a multitude of options that will work including phoning your ISP and disabling pornographic content.
Will all parents do that? Ofcourse not. Does that mean the government should intervene? I'm not sure. Not without at least some studies supporting the "reasoning" behind this.
Classic case of the government not trusting its people and therefore making redundant laws.
There is a difference between put in people's faces and just surfaced. When I say surfaced, I mean that the option should be a check box or switch that parents can easily find and hit. It doesn't need to be in someones face every time they log in.
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.
Yeah, they should require them to surface that more and make it easier to use for all parts of the internet. And the law didn't pass yet, if I read correctly, its just in the works?
From what I understood it's already in effect? Earliest I heard about this at all was on reddit yesterday when suddenly all UK based users couldn't see the "porn part" of a picture.
I disagree that an option like that needs to be shoved into peoples faces. If you are a parent and you are worried about your child watching porn on the internet then you do your own research to see what you can do as a parent. You'll find a multitude of options that will work including phoning your ISP and disabling pornographic content.
Will all parents do that? Ofcourse not. Does that mean the government should intervene? I'm not sure. Not without at least some studies supporting the "reasoning" behind this.
Classic case of the government not trusting its people and therefore making redundant laws.
There is a difference between put in people's faces and just surfaced. When I say surfaced, I mean that the option should be a check box or switch that parents can easily find and hit. It doesn't need to be in someones face every time they log in.
I agree that the option should be more out in the open, but who should be blamed for that not being the case? I would argue the consumers themselves. If more parents were worried about pornographic content reaching their children then more would ask their ISPs and ISPs would go "oh I guess we need to make an obvious option to censor it". So since that isn't the case it means there's no demand for it, I find it hard to blame the ISP.
On July 24 2013 03:27 DeathProfessor wrote: TBH its like if smoking was an opt OUT. Kids as young as 10 find porn then begin masturbating. As their brains are in their development stages, there is scientific evidence that their minds pleasure centers become rewired, in extreme cases they will have erectile dysfunction (e.g. not being able to get it up when they DO get a chance at sex). Porn can be addictive to people who just want that dopamine rush. This is where you get these kids on the internet who admit they masturbate like 5 times a day every day for 6 years.
Kids as young as 10 begin masturbating with or without porn, because their hormones start to kick in and they inevitably get let in on humankind's worst-kept secret. If anything it's seems like your logic would let parents send their masturbating children to juvenile hall if they didn't approve of it.
Porn can be addictive to people. Nobody is disputing that. But so can videogames, Pokemon cards, soda/pop, candy, and any number of other things. We don't decide to make everyone opt in to using these things just because some people are going to have their expectations let down the first time they have sex. Why does that matter at all? It's not like they're going to die or become murderers or anything else. No, just a few people may have a slightly higher chance of ED the first time they have sex. The horror. Nevermind that ED is one of the most common sexual dysfunctions across every single demographic, or that people get ED the first time they have sex for all kinds of more reasons than warped expectations (like anxiety).
Of course I would like completely free internet but the damage porn can do to the sexual expectations, innocence and brains of our youth leads me to support David Cameron.
Sexual expectations? LOL. Might as well ban war movies so that kids don't get the wrong idea about the military, or cop movies for the police, or crime procedural shows for the lawyers. Innocent? What does that even mean? It's not like sex is some devilishly evil thing that tarnishes the pure mind of a child (setting aside that 13 year olds are in no way as pure as you think they are). Finally, the "brains of our youth"??? What does that even mean?
I grew up in Holland. Holland, in my opinion, is one of the most sexually enlightened countries on the planet. From the ages 12-18 I lived and learned there and grew into a pretty normal person. Any oddities I possess aren't due to internet pornography at least.
I remember a holiday with two friends from England when I was about 14, in Italy. Go down any high street in Italy and there's mostly naked women in adverts all over the place; their eyes were falling out of their heads, they were giggling, laughing, couldn't believe it and so sexually immature it was shocking. The weird part is if you gave them a sniff to look at something sexual they'd gawk over it. To me at that age it just seemed... there. In the city centre in Groningen, a pretty small city but one of the only ones in northern Holland, there's a sex shop next to a massive cinema complex. It's treated as normal, a part of life.
When you make porn and sex, something already a taboo, an even more forbidden fruit than it already is, you are not 'saving the children'. You're making them extremely curious, and the thrill when they do see it is going to be all the higher. In reference to the TED talk; do you think the dopamine hit is going to be stronger for someone looking to get their rocks off if they bypass a government-instituted wall to stare at tits (and they will, whether at a friends house or just through poorly implemented protection) or if they could do it any time of the day.
There's no moral easy win here; trying to ban pornography on the internet is hilarious when sex is such a driving force in modern media. You wind everyone up with pictures of people in bikinis and newspaper articles that skirt the fringes and then take away the release and suddenly people are looking all the harder for it.
In short, this legislation? It won't help anyone. It'll cost the taxpayer money. It'll lend to a culture in the UK of sexual taboo and pent up frustrations that is already rampant. It'll sensationalise sex all the more. It's censorship where none is needed at a national level.
It's a demonstration of a mindset I can't wait to try and vote out of government next election.
On July 24 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote: Porn can be addictive to people. Nobody is disputing that. But so can videogames, Pokemon cards, soda/pop, candy,
Not only are videogames, Pokemon, soda/pop, and candy deliberately addictive... they're also marketed towards children. If there is pornography marketed towards children, I'm not aware of it.
On July 24 2013 03:27 DeathProfessor wrote: TBH its like if smoking was an opt OUT. Kids as young as 10 find porn then begin masturbating. As their brains are in their development stages, there is scientific evidence that their minds pleasure centers become rewired, in extreme cases they will have erectile dysfunction (e.g. not being able to get it up when they DO get a chance at sex). Porn can be addictive to people who just want that dopamine rush. This is where you get these kids on the internet who admit they masturbate like 5 times a day every day for 6 years.
Of course I would like completely free internet but the damage porn can do to the sexual expectations, innocence and brains of our youth leads me to support David Cameron.
while it is probably fact that extreme amount of pleasure at development stage can have the brains rewired, I am pretty sure different kinds of pleasure at normal levels are needed for the brain to get wired properly. And sexual pleasure is part of that too. And what about the other pleasures? Does the extreme amount of sweets cause brain rewiring? or of junk food in general? or of normal food that just tastes good (tree or more times every day)? Does too much parental love cause rewiring? What should be called extreme? What kind of rewiring is actually bad?
EPT
