UK to crack down on internet porn - Page 20

On July 27 2013 06:27 schimmetje wrote:
This is retarded and it's got nothing to do with the children, it's about pandering and control. But maybe, if the children are what the government is so worried about, it's time for them to man the fuck up and tell people to take some responsibility in raising those. But of course "we'll get rid of the things you don't like" will always have appeal somewhere.

On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote:
Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.

Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.

On July 27 2013 19:57 Reggiegigas wrote:

So many of you use this argument in the thread. Don't you realize how disrespectful and ignorant you're being blaming the parents, basically telling them they're bad at parenting?

No?

On July 27 2013 04:49 Reggiegigas wrote:
I think there's a fault in an argument here.

People are saying this is just censoring sex. And sex is natural. That by itself is true. There is nothing really wrong with children seeing normal sex, depending on context of course. There is nothing wrong with sex, as in, a pair making love.

But porn is not merely sex. Porn is, in 99% of cases, a sort of sex that doesn't really happen in real life: a situation where the woman's role is to please the man, where the end of the scene is when the man ejaculates, because his pleasure is what matters; the woman's is inconsequential. But of course, in this male power fantasy the woman's senses are overloaded with pleasure simply from pleasuring him. If you can't see how damaging this is to the psychology and view of sex in young people, I don't know what to tell you.

There is no loss in censoring it. Good riddance, I say.

On July 27 2013 20:24 peacenl wrote:
Next thing you know we'll have counselors talking to children who accidentally watched porn. Or a new illness called porn addiction.

Moral of my story is that it's up to children to explore the world, if porn was really that bad we would all be fucked up right now. If you keep protecting them they will grow with disillusions and not able to deal with the real world. If the government had anything to say about they would put rubber blocks all over your house, so that kids wouldn't be able to hurt themselves. When that same child goes out to friends who didn't have those rubber blocks they would freak and the first time they really got hurt be in so much pain that they get trauma's. Simply because the kid will have built op zero tolerance.

On July 27 2013 04:49 Reggiegigas wrote:
If you can't see how damaging this is to the psychology and view of sex in young people, I don't know what to tell you.

On July 27 2013 19:57 Reggiegigas wrote:

So many of you use this argument in the thread. Don't you realize how disrespectful and ignorant you're being blaming the parents, basically telling them they're bad at parenting?

No?

On July 27 2013 22:38 nimbim wrote:


Hardcore porn can actually have a negative impact on adolescents. I remember watching a documentary (not the ridiculous "we tell you what's true" type) about people who had kinda severe experiences that crippled them in their later love lives. Like 1st time in a threesome, ATM in 14+14yr relationships etc.
Young people are dumb and a good plentiful of parents leave sex education up to the school system, so they end up mistaking sex for something entirely physical.

On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote:
Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.

Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.

On July 28 2013 00:59 Talin wrote:


I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn.

I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions.

On July 28 2013 01:12 peacenl wrote:


It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power.