Thread: The government, porn and censorship Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025953
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
According to the BBC, the government is to force ISPs to disallow porn for all consumers by default.
Do you see this as a good move?
Is this the starting point of general censorship on the internet?
Do people who opt-out of the list, even for reasons such as an overzealous filter, risk being added to a government list of perverts?
Discuss!
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
It already happens on our mobile phones. If I want to access stuff I have to go into the EE shop and get them to change my settings. Yeah. Like I'm going to go and ask an 18 yr old boy to let me look at dirty pictures.
I don't see the problem.
Only those who want to access porn are going to complain at 'censorship'.
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Only those who want to access porn are going to complain at 'censorship'.
Right, but is there an underlying issue - should the government be involved in individual moral decisions for people?
Surely this can roll onto other moral issues that may be closer to home for us, individually, even if porn is not.
Since accessing porn itself is not a crime, but it itself is being blocked, surely there would then be precedent for the government to, say, block access to sites organising protests, although protests are a legal right?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I don't see that follows.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Only those who want to access porn are going to complain at 'censorship'.
Once you can successfully define what porn is, what a porn website is, and whether a computer can tell the difference between porn and non-porn, we can then discuss whether or not I have a right to complain.
Until that moment, I'll be at the front of the queue to have the blocks taken off.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I think the main motivation is against child pornography. The problem is that most accessors of porn seem to want their 'models' to look ever younger and it is sometimes (so I believe) difficult to ascertain whether some models just look young or are actually underage.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think the main motivation is against child pornography. The problem is that most accessors of porn seem to want their 'models' to look ever younger and it is sometimes (so I believe) difficult to ascertain whether some models just look young or are actually underage.
You don't search for 'child porn' through google, and any child porn sites are hidden away from google's all-seeing eye.
This is just a case of Cameron, being ineffectual in all other areas of politics (you know, the ones that actually matter), trying to sound like he's doing something.
But a 'porn block' won't work. Either it'll be too draconian, and sweep up an untold number of porn-free websites along with it, along with sites-with-porn-but-not-porn-sites, or it'll be too lax and therefore useless. Hopefully the experts he's said he'll now consult with (as opposed to talking to them first, duh) will tell him it simply can't work.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Only those who want to access porn are going to complain at 'censorship'.
Once you can successfully define what porn is, what a porn website is, and whether a computer can tell the difference between porn and non-porn, we can then discuss whether or not I have a right to complain.
Until that moment, I'll be at the front of the queue to have the blocks taken off.
Oh come on! I think we all know what porn is!
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It already happens on our mobile phones. If I want to access stuff I have to go into the EE shop and get them to change my settings. Yeah. Like I'm going to go and ask an 18 yr old boy to let me look at dirty pictures.
Except that the filters don't quite work like that: I couldn't for example get on the Ship via my mobile until I had the settings changed because some Shippies (not you, obviously, Mudfrog!) use 'naughty' words from time to time and the filters didn't like that. The Wi-Fi at my local Tescos still won't let me access the Ship for the same reason.
[ETA: it's all the fault of these rude fuckers on the Ship!]
[ 22. July 2013, 09:43: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Oh come on! I think we all know what porn is!
Then you'll be able to construct a computer algorithm that'll instantly be able to recognise it, and return no false-positives or false-negatives.
Good luck with that. The nation awaits your answer.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I feel very uneasy about this. I don't want the govt telling me what I can see or not see. And how the hell does it propose to define what porn is?
For example, last night I watched the French series 'The Returned' which showed shots of naked women and men.
Is this porn? If not, why not? If yes, should I be barred from watching it?
Tate Britain has tons of nude pictures. Porn?
[ 22. July 2013, 09:46: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
The Daily Mail online?
(you see, everything has a silver lining ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
)
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Only those who want to access porn are going to complain at 'censorship'.
Once you can successfully define what porn is, what a porn website is, and whether a computer can tell the difference between porn and non-porn, we can then discuss whether or not I have a right to complain.
Until that moment, I'll be at the front of the queue to have the blocks taken off.
Oh come on! I think we all know what porn is!
If you're a young woman who's interested in her sexual health, and wants to read about sexually transmitted diseases and about abortion, will she be able to without removing the porn block?
If I'm a 16 year old boy and I'm confused about my sexuality and I want to access online resources for help, will I be able to or will the porn block assume that everything with the word 'gay' in the title is for adults only?
If I'm interested in looking at photographs of Greek and Roman statues, will the computer see naughty bits and think 'Censor! Censor!' and so stop me viewing them?
And will the local paedo be able to do stuff with proxy servers and external hard drives in his mother's box room to get around the block? Most likely, I think.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
In one way, it's hilarious that this forum itself is blocked by some wi-fi providers; but it also shows how sinister it can become.
Who is going to decide whether content is OK or not?
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And will the local paedo be able to do stuff with proxy servers and external hard drives in his mother's box room to get around the block? Most likely, I think.
Great point, does this raise the possibility of plausible deniability for some? "It couldn't have been me, your honor, just look at the opt-out list"
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In one way, it's hilarious that this forum itself is blocked by some wi-fi providers; but it also shows how sinister it can become.
Who is going to decide whether content is OK or not?
Mind, if we can just work out what search terms will block certain posters...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I remember Clark (of 'Civilization') got into hot water, when he started to distinguish porn from erotic art. Basically, he was really saying that the latter is for posh gits.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And will the local paedo be able to do stuff with proxy servers and external hard drives in his mother's box room to get around the block? Most likely, I think.
Great point, does this raise the possibility of plausible deniability for some? "It couldn't have been me, your honor, just look at the opt-out list"
All the authors I know will opt-out, because we need to research some pretty unpleasant/suspect/obscure things at times - which are clearly not porn, but will be swept up in the general melee.
That, of course, will mean than when the list of ISP opt-outs is inevitably leaked online, will everyone assume we're all paedos?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I was also thinking of our Tracey (Emin), who delights in drawings of female genitalia - is this porn? No, it's for posh gits with tons of money, so it's allowed.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think the main motivation is against child pornography. The problem is that most accessors of porn seem to want their 'models' to look ever younger and it is sometimes (so I believe) difficult to ascertain whether some models just look young or are actually underage.
"Most"? You're suggesting that a significant percentage of the people who start off looking at mainstream adult porn will inevitably go off looking for kiddy rape sites? Based on what? Is there any evidence there?
I'd also add that kiddy porn sites are actually less likely to be affected by this because they already operate outside the law and have to be discreet and secretive. It'll be the mainstream sites that suffer - and these are going to involve the more reputable companies who offer some protection to their workers.
I take issue with many aspects of porn - I'm not a big fan of the objectification of women (or men, but women seem to get the worst of it), and I don't like the way in which it has shaped many young people's expectations of sex before they've even had any. I don't think this puritannical attitude is the answer though, and I also suspect it's going to backfire for Cameron because if it works it's going to be spectacularly unpopular. My suspicion is that it won't work, because the moment that goes live there'll spring up a thousand different websites with easily downloadable hacks to get round it.
[ 22. July 2013, 10:14: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In one way, it's hilarious that this forum itself is blocked by some wi-fi providers; but it also shows how sinister it can become.
Who is going to decide whether content is OK or not?
Mind, if we can just work out what search terms will block certain posters...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
Since accessing porn itself is not a crime, but it itself is being blocked, surely there would then be precedent for the government to, say, block access to sites organising protests, although protests are a legal right?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't see that follows.
You don't see how the government blocking internet access to things it doesn't like follows from giving the goverment the power to block internet access to things it doesn't like? Really?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
"First they came for the pornographers..." and all that, Mudfrog.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think the main motivation is against child pornography. The problem is that most accessors of porn seem to want their 'models' to look ever younger and it is sometimes (so I believe) difficult to ascertain whether some models just look young or are actually underage.
"Most"? You're suggesting that a significant percentage of the people who start off looking at mainstream adult porn will inevitably go off looking for kiddy rape sites? Based on what? Is there any evidence there?
Besides which, paedophiles, qua paedophiles, by definition, are not interested in models who could pass for 18, even if they're made to look a bit younger.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Only those who want to access porn are going to complain at 'censorship'.
Once you can successfully define what porn is, what a porn website is, and whether a computer can tell the difference between porn and non-porn, we can then discuss whether or not I have a right to complain.
Until that moment, I'll be at the front of the queue to have the blocks taken off.
Oh come on! I think we all know what porn is!
Erm no. My workplace filter used to block online retailers of women's lingerie and swimwear. It doesn't any more. I imagine someone pointed out to The Man that it was somewhat unfair to allow male employees to order a pack of new kecks on the web during their lunch break but not allow female employees to do the same.
But it does amply illustrate the point that there is no clear place to draw a line (other than at pictures of criminal activity - but they are already prohibited).
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I wonder if controls would apply to written texts? Then, presumably James Joyce, Lawrence, and so on (plenty of cocks and cunts), will be blocked.
It would be hilarious, if it wasn't sinister.
China leads - we follow!
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But it does amply illustrate the point that there is no clear place to draw a line (other than at pictures of criminal activity - but they are already prohibited).
And this is the point - once the government creates legislation to address something that is not, in itself, illegal; it creates a very, very scary precedent, IMO.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This is just a case of Cameron, being ineffectual in all other areas of politics (you know, the ones that actually matter), trying to sound like he's doing something.
Indeed. And it's interesting that it's hitting the headlines today.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
An interesting discussion but premature. Cameron and the Mail may be declaring victory but they haven't actually done anything. This article explains what's going on.
Basically Cameron is just asking the ISPs to rename their existing filter service from 'Active Choice +' to 'Default-On' in order to make it sound like he's doing something.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Latest news: the Duchess of Cambridge has gone into ******, as she is having a *****, because her and Will had ***. The queen's ******* is in attendance.
Under new government restrictions, offensive material has been deleted.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
While we're at it, let's ban alcohol. (See the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution.)
If implemented, this will follow the same pattern as Prohibition, and end up romanticizing porn, rather than deterring it.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Erroneous Monk: My workplace filter used to block online retailers of women's lingerie and swimwear. It doesn't any more. I imagine someone pointed out to The Man that it was somewhat unfair to allow male employees to order a pack of new kecks on the web during their lunch break but not allow female employees to do the same.
I once worked for a big development organization in the Netherlands, where I was responsible for maintaning contacts with various local organizations in Latin America, some of which had activities in terms of AIDS education, reproductive rights, etc.
I was once called into the director's office, because I accessed the website of one of these organizations, and I guess the content triggered some kind of corporate warning system. Yeah, I have to access these sites, it's part of my job.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
I waited a while for someone to define pornography but waited in vain.
Here's mine.
Pornography is any media created with the intent to sexually arouse the viewer.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
This is very likely to be hilariously simple to get round - quite likely with something as basic as a VPN. For those who don't know what those can do, I have, for example, a handy app called Tunnelbear -one click and l see the web as an American would. UK filter /restrictions begone!
These are free, easy to get, download in seconds and use a selection of foreign ISPs & encryption. So basically a lot of unwary parents will be thinking this means their kids can't access porn and the kids will be happily browsing whatever they like. Useless, silly and a stunt, designed to draw attention away from Cameron's other failings, by the looks of it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
As long as I can still browse websites with lots of hairy goats, I don't really mind. I have no interest in their front bottoms, as I just want to kiss them.
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
its a bit like Deep Thought in the Hitchhikers Guide series - we have an answer in search of the correct question.
No one is being prohibited access per se - the approach seems to be an 'opt in' to generally accepted Adult content. Thats not too hard to implement and as Mudfrog said, phone companies do it already. And it does produce a few odd results particularly on medical or art sites.
The impact on Child Pornographers and Paedophiles? Very little. The plan seems to include a validation of search terms to catch incrimiding searches and redirect the seacher to a warning website. But i would suggest that those doing illegal rather than just immoral , will not be using Google anyway, considering Goggle's habit of remembering searches.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
An amusing juxtaposition of a huge tit and The Daily Mail online's 'sidebar of shame'. Ban this sick filth! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[screenshot linked fromTwitter - doesn't lead to Mail site ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
According to the BBC link, Mr Cameron's main concern is for the children who are gaining access to porn at a younger age. But I think that ship has sailed. If most parents aren't that bothered about it then inefficient censorship isn't going to help matters, and it'll only upset the many adults who use porn, or who fear a slippery slope.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Nearly 10 years ago the company director who hired me couldn´t receive an email. I asked what was it for. A purchase order for a table. I said it was the porn filter. So they turned it off and up came a nice picture of a rosy flesh toned table.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
An amusing juxtaposition of a huge tit and The Daily Mail online's 'sidebar of shame'. Ban this sick filth!
[screenshot linked fromTwitter - doesn't lead to Mail site ]
Did you notice the 16 year old girl, with caption 'Chloe looks grown-up dressed in towering heels and mini-dress'.
Read the Daily Mail, the towering beacon of moral rectitude - plus, salacious pix of 16 year old girls! Have your cake and wallow in it!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Joined up government - the budget for the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre has been cut by 10%. I'm sure everyone will agree that this makes perfect sense; after all, less is more, or is it the other way round?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Oh come on! I think we all know what porn is!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Thanks, Mudfrog, that was better than a second cup of coffee!
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
When Mrs B and I had a filter on our computer to stop our eldest from accessing the 'nasty parts of the net', one of the things we were unable to view was the Bible. Quite apart from the various accounts of begetting and lying with (not to mention the salacious parts of Ezekiel about the two unfaithful sisters), the main word to which apparently objected was the word 'cock' in the accounts of St Peter's denial.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Ref. the OP, my biggest problem with the whole thing is that it's total bollocks, based on a complete failure to understand how any of this stuff works. Political posturing based on either ignorance, deception, or both, at its finest.
It will therefore fail spectacularly, probably cause more harm than good, but be lauded as a marvelous things for all Right Thinking People.
And that's before you get to any "thin end of wedge" issues, or principled stands etc.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I gather from the Mailwatch website that Mad Melanie Philips is in favour of it, which pretty much guarantees it's a very very bad idea indeed.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Oh yawn yawn.
Apart from the fact that pornography is not just morally neutral adult entertainment but is actually seen by many, many people as immoral and disgusting, there are many internet filters already that are placed either on local PCs or bought into that stop stuff 'at source'.
Many places of employment have blocks on pornography as well. It's hardly a new thing.
I would have thought that Christians would be quiote happy for this to be stopped - it will at least prevent children access pictures of stuff that even many adults find disgusting.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would have thought that Christians would be quiote happy for this to be stopped
The - surely obvious - reason I'm not happy for *anything* to be stopped on the grounds that I find it distasteful is that there are plenty of people out there who find my pleasures in life not to their taste.
So we set the barrier for censorship at "is it a crime?" not "do I find it unpleasant?"
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Indeed. Otherwise the endpoint is Muslim groups insisting that pork recipes and information on home brewing be censored, because these are immoral and disgusting.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would have thought that Christians would be quite happy for this to be stopped - it will at least prevent children access pictures of stuff that even many adults find disgusting.
Don't you think that their parents should be doing this?
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
Personally I find that the sight of tattoos and most piercings makes me want to throw up - it's a kind of phobia I guess. But I can't make people hide their tattoos from me (and in the current heatwave, many more are on show than on an average day). I, personally, find tattoos more objectionable and disgusting than porn. I may even find them more objectionable and disgusting than Mudfrog finds porn. That's my gut (somewhat literally my gut) reaction to them. But of course people have a right to go and get inked, to wear their clothes and to have online communities showing off their tattoos. I don't go to those websites, obviously, but I don't think that other people should be kept away from them because I find them gross.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
With you on the tattoos ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would have thought that Christians would be quiote happy for this to be stopped - it will at least prevent children access pictures of stuff that even many adults find disgusting.
My own filtering programme is on such a hair trigger that it blocks perfectly innocent sites.
However, I can unblock said perfectly innocent site by adding it to my whitelist (which includes such offensive material as stately homes, geographical mapping software, craft fairs and lego-themed web comics, all auto-barred).
So before you consign me to the moral dustbin, consider this: I'm doing it already, I know the problems with it, and I'm not happy with the government (of any stripe) censoring my searches with a hidden list of banned terms and sites.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...is actually seen by many, many people as immoral and disgusting
So what?
You can either have freedom, or you can have outright bans on everything that enough people see as immoral and disgusting. "Both" is not an option. And if you choose the way of banning, at least give a few seconds' thought to what happens if enough people in the future decide that Christianity is immoral and disgusting.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Does anyone think for one moment that on-line pornography will become less widely available as a result of the latest Cameron soundbite? If it does then I expect we will see what happened to alcohol in America in the Roaring Twenties: it will be controlled by organised crime, the price will climb, the quality will decline (no, really) and the conditions for those working in the industry will fall further.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would have thought that Christians would be quite happy for this to be stopped - it will at least prevent children access pictures of stuff that even many adults find disgusting.
Don't you think that their parents should be doing this?
If they were routinely doing this then it wouldn't be a problem, would it?
IMO it's not the done thing in our culture for the state to take on the moral role of the parents. As a result, this sort of censorship is never going to get widespread backing. Perhaps it's only those parents who lack self-confidence in their parenting skills who will support this move. But victory never goes to those who doubt their influence and power.
Looking at the websites of some of the so-called right-wing newspapers it's interesting that most posters seem to be against any suggestion of censorship on the net. This just shows that even people on the right aren't necessarily bothered by the pervasive influence of porn. My feeling is that this influence is only of concern to families or mothers at the lower end of the social scale. Mr Cameron is trying to get their votes, but the mainstream middle class isn't interested.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I really doubt if anything is going to happen. It's just a Cameron sound-bite, as he gears up for the election in 2015. He is going into full war-paint, right-wing mode, which basically means that so far from encouraging the small state, the state threatens to be looking into your thoughts and fantasies. Except that it won't really, as the ISPs will drag their feet, and will probably forget to switch off the porn switch, unless you ask for it.
The Daily Mail gets a few headlines, the Tories in the shires feel more relaxed about call me Dave, and Lytton Crosby looks around for a few more populist sound-bites, as long as they're not about tobacco.
It means that the Tories really really want to win the next election.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My feeling is that this influence is only of concern to families or mothers at the lower end of the social scale. Mr Cameron is trying to get their votes, but the mainstream middle class isn't interested.
it's nothing to do with not being interested in the influence of porn. It's to do with having read enough history to know what happens once you start letting the state decide what you are and aren't allowed to read, look at, say, think.
Also some of us would like some evidence to show what the influence of porn is. Does porn have a more harmful influence on society than modern-day advertising, for instance?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Oh yawn yawn.
Apart from the fact that pornography is not just morally neutral adult entertainment but is actually seen by many, many people as immoral and disgusting, there are many internet filters already that are placed either on local PCs or bought into that stop stuff 'at source'.
Many places of employment have blocks on pornography as well. It's hardly a new thing.
I would have thought that Christians would be quiote happy for this to be stopped - it will at least prevent children access pictures of stuff that even many adults find disgusting.
Others have said it, but it bears repeating - since when was disgust at something justification for censorship?
And, as we've heard, filters can block out the Bible - do you think that's an effective way to stop children from accessing pornography? Unless you believe that anything containing erotic imagery and descriptions of sex is porn and should be banned, in which case you might want to get some new Scriptures. Bear in mind that the Song of Songs contains things which would definitely be blocked under these proposals - do you go around tearing that book out of all the Bibles you own? You might want to think again about suggesting that all Christians view porn as terrible when it's in your own Bible.
More to the point, since you seem to not have picked this up, non-porn gets blocked too - what about people who need info on safe sex or LGBT issues? What about women who want to buy a bikini or a bra online? What people who study anatomy and find anything containing 'penis' or 'vagina' blocked?
Anyway, nobody here has actually said that porn is a good thing, but that these proposals will actually drive extreme porn production underground and make it worse - and as Louise says, all you need is something like TunnelBear in order to get around UK-only restrictions. It's just a very poorly-thought-out idea.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I agree with what Anglican't said about gay teenagers wanting to access support groups and women worried about breast cancer.
Also, I have been following a story about my local councillor, who is a film-maker, who wanted to access a website that features his film - it happens to involve a gay kiss and is blocked from the council office. He has had lots of hate mail because he decided to complain.
Will there be a list of those people who 'opt in'. What will happen to that list?
I dare say Dave will uturn like he did on minimum alcohol pricing and cigarette plain packagaing.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Many places of employment have blocks on pornography as well. It's hardly a new thing.
I would have thought that Christians would be quiote happy for this to be stopped - it will at least prevent children access pictures of stuff that even many adults find disgusting.
There are lots of things it isn't appropriate to do at your desk at work which are fine to do at home.
Part of the reason why kids these days are seeing porn at a young age is that kids these days are probably - on average - more tech savvy than their own parents. There will be ways to get around the default block status, and the likelihood is that every 13 year old in your neighbourhood will know exactly how to do so, even as their parents think that the nice Mr Cameron has protected them from seeing dirty things. I don't think we have all that much of a problem with kids accidentally stumbling upon porn (though some probably do, particularly when computers are virus-ridden). We have a problem with kids going out looking for porn, because it's there, and their friends have seen it, and they're curious.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
The idea may be supportable, i.e., block illegal (usually children) pornography. The doing it is harder. The law enforcement and computer experts need to start talking about how it could be done, or if is can be done. With the NSA from the USA cataloguing everything online, mobile, phone calls and everything else, one would think they have the means, but until we hear about the how it's done, it is merely wishful thinking on the part of a politician.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
When I see Cameron dressed entirel in soaped latex carry an armful of live eels up a greased slide*, then I'll believe he can come up with an effective control over Internet access.
*actually, I just want to see this.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I don't think we have all that much of a problem with kids accidentally stumbling upon porn (though some probably do, particularly when computers are virus-ridden). We have a problem with kids going out looking for porn, because it's there, and their friends have seen it, and they're curious.
I think you grossly underestimate how easy it is to stumble upon porn. For instance, say you were looking for the album cover to Dylan's "Blonde on Blonde" and happened to have the safe search turned off. Knowing the repetition is meaningless to the search engine, and the word "on" will be ignored, you just search for "blonde." Yikes. Wall o' porn.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
And how do you inadvertently turn safe search off, when it's on by default?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I don't think we have all that much of a problem with kids accidentally stumbling upon porn (though some probably do, particularly when computers are virus-ridden). We have a problem with kids going out looking for porn, because it's there, and their friends have seen it, and they're curious.
I think you grossly underestimate how easy it is to stumble upon porn. For instance, say you were looking for the album cover to Dylan's "Blonde on Blonde" and happened to have the safe search turned off. Knowing the repetition is meaningless to the search engine, and the word "on" will be ignored, you just search for "blonde." Yikes. Wall o' porn.
It certainly happens, but I can only remember once in my life accidentally stumbling on porn. So either I am unusually lucky or these things don't happen very often. And legislating to prevent rare cases is hard to do well.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
I once was at work and wanted to download some information on Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for a Student Nurse I was mentoring, and Googled 'CBT'. Cock and Ball Torture - who knew!
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I always 'accidentally stumble across porn' ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
See, I've heard a lot about how easy it is to stumble across porn accidentally, but I can honestly say it's happened to me three times since I started using the internet in 1995. Two of those times were on Facebook - the most recent just a few days ago when someone on a fan page I looked at had a hardcore porn picture for a profile pic (presumably fb took it down fairly swiftly but it was a bot spamming the page so the job was done). The other time was looking at a stranger's random blog of humorous images and then there were a couple of porn pics in the mix. Given the vast number of web pages I've viewed since 1995 I'd say that's really not bad going. It's not a perfect record but I've not been inundated with porn and I'm pretty sure that the three times that it happened would have happened even with this kind of filter on. Because they were not porn sites or indeed sites where porn was even allowed.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
I did at work once! Used to go on a legit fitness website: mansized.co.uk to discuss diet, fitness regimes, weights vs cardio etc (you think we discuss the same topics here a lot. That baby went on for ever). Had it on favorites at home so never typed the address manually. At work on a night shift and typed in mansized.com by mistake and got a very different website!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Presumably, there will eventually be a database of people who 'opt-in', that is, who don't want censorship on their laptop or phone or whatever. What will happen to this database? Who will have access to it? The police? PRISM? Will we actually be told who has access, and who is looking at someone's name on it?
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, there will eventually be a database of people who 'opt-in', that is, who don't want censorship on their laptop or phone or whatever. What will happen to this database? Who will have access to it? The police? PRISM? Will we actually be told who has access, and who is looking at someone's name on it?
That's a very good point. I really need to advertise for a lodger - then I can blame them!
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would have thought that Christians would be quiote happy for this to be stopped - it will at least prevent children access pictures of stuff that even many adults find disgusting.
As has been explained to you, it wont.
Meanwhile Cameron will go on 'corroding childhood' by making sure more and more children go without, as their parents try to scrape up enough to feed them from foodbanks, and some misguided Christians will be bought off with his ineffectual posturing on porn.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
My father in law had a railway in the garden and he was looking for some new accessories for it. He entered the the usual abbreviation for the manufacturers, Lehmann Grosser Bahn, and was presentated with a variety of Gay and Lesbian sites that he, a broad-minded life painter had never seen the like of before.
Oh, and at work to show that Net Nannies don't stop everything, we got hits for Jo Guest (a Katie Price/Jordan type from a few years ago) when searching for guest houses.
That was without trying.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Look on the bright side - your kids will have fun working out how to unblock the blocks. This will give them a few minutes of educational experience in relation to proxy breakers, VPNs, and so on. If you ask nicely, they might help you, when you get blocked on your 'stopcock required' request.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My feeling is that this influence is only of concern to families or mothers at the lower end of the social scale. Mr Cameron is trying to get their votes, but the mainstream middle class isn't interested.
it's nothing to do with not being interested in the influence of porn. It's to do with having read enough history to know what happens once you start letting the state decide what you are and aren't allowed to read, look at, say, think.
Also some of us would like some evidence to show what the influence of porn is. Does porn have a more harmful influence on society than modern-day advertising, for instance?
So what you're saying is that the fear of state power is greater than any concern about the influence of porn, which is not something you're entirely convinced about anyway. That's fair enough. Many people agree with you.
I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist, myself. Despite Mr Cameron's words I don't think the state is all that bothered about plebs enjoying porn, but the powers that be are always interested in acquiring more power.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
It's the usual rape of civil liberties, which many people are happy to tolerate as long as it's prefaced by lots of hand-wringing about "the children."
Others have addressed the inadequacy of algorithms that are supposed to block porn. The fact that it Just. Doesn't. Work. ought to prevent this from ever happening, but who cares when political points are being racked up?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Let's face it, porn users are an even easier target than public servants, asylum seekers, benefits claimants, immigrants and payday loan sellers.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My feeling is that this influence is only of concern to families or mothers at the lower end of the social scale. Mr Cameron is trying to get their votes, but the mainstream middle class isn't interested.
it's nothing to do with not being interested in the influence of porn. It's to do with having read enough history to know what happens once you start letting the state decide what you are and aren't allowed to read, look at, say, think.
Also some of us would like some evidence to show what the influence of porn is. Does porn have a more harmful influence on society than modern-day advertising, for instance?
I think the jury is out on this. In fact, there have been suggestions that porn being available may reduce sex crimes. For example, I think in Denmark and Japan, child porn became legal, and child abuse cases dropped.
There have been suggestions that simulated child porn could be used to reduce paedophile activity. Of course, this is highly controversial!
However, there are also studies showing the opposite, and there has been some criticism of all studies, along the usual grounds that converting correlation to causation is notoriously difficult, as there are so many confounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_effects_of_pornography
[ 22. July 2013, 17:38: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Something gives me the feeling that if this proposal had been put forward by Prime Minister Miliband then it might not be drawing such a negative response here.
Are we saying everything's fine with the nature and availability of hard porn on the IT ?
If things are not fine , and very few think there are, then what is the solution ? ( Assuming we are all correct in saying Cameron's idea is rubbish and won't work ).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
One needn't be a conspiracy enthusiast to fear giving control to government. Power given will be power misused, conspiracies not needed. It is necessary for government to function to have some control, but it is prudent to limit that control and monitor its usage. (Where these limits are, of course, will always be argued.)
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Oh yawn yawn.
Apart from the fact that pornography is not just morally neutral adult entertainment but is actually seen by many, many people as immoral and disgusting, there are many internet filters already that are placed either on local PCs or bought into that stop stuff 'at source'.
Many places of employment have blocks on pornography as well. It's hardly a new thing.
I would have thought that Christians would be quiote happy for this to be stopped - it will at least prevent children access pictures of stuff that even many adults find disgusting.
So when will you be putting fig leaves back on the statues, then?
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Are we saying everything's fine with the nature and availability of hard porn on the IT ?
If things are not fine , and very few think there are..
Yes. And I don't think it's very few who think there are.
If it's not illegal, there's no reason to introduce control around it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
One thing I really detest is the conflation that goes on, the sliding from child porn to rape porn, to violent porn, to hard porn, to just porn.
Hang on. In the UK, child porn is illegal; very violent porn is illegal. The CEOP already monitors many sites that deal in this stuff (despite having their budget cut by, yes, this government!).
But Cameron and the right-wing press are quite happy to allow this conflation, or this mission creep.
Then you get the absurd position by some Christians - well, it's all disgusting, so let's ban it. Give me strength. Combine the right-wing with some Christian views and you get hell on earth.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Are we saying everything's fine with the nature and availability of hard porn on the IT ?
If things are not fine , and very few think there are..
Yes. And I don't think it's very few who think there are.
If it's not illegal, there's no reason to introduce control around it.
What is hard porn defined as? Films of people having sex? Photos of genitals? Good God, are we still so fearful of the human body?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Are we saying everything's fine with the nature and availability of hard porn on the IT ?
If things are not fine , and very few think there are, then what is the solution ?
I'm less and less convinced that most people are really concerned about it. Perhaps mothers are concerned, but most people aren't mothers. Maybe clergymen and preachers are concerned, but that's the role they have to play. (Can you imagine a vicar with a congregation dominated by mothers and grandmothers arguing that it's harmless for tweenies to access porn??)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Something gives me the feeling that if this proposal had been put forward by Prime Minister Miliband then it might not be drawing such a negative response here.
Are we saying everything's fine with the nature and availability of hard porn on the IT ?
If things are not fine , and very few think there are, then what is the solution ? ( Assuming we are all correct in saying Cameron's idea is rubbish and won't work ).
If something is illegal, then one expects the forces of law and order to detect crime and the offenders to be prosecuted. Child porn and some other kinds are illegal, whether on or off the internet.
The speed limit in the UK is 70 mph on motorways. Do you think speed governors should be fitted to all motor vehicles to prevent speeding? Should we be given cards or eletronic tags that are updated when we buy drink, to prevent excessive drinking, after all, that is disgusting too.
As for Milliband and Cameron, I wouldn't buy carpets from either of them, and that is about their calibre.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Surely Cameron is trying to reassure all his supporters, who were upset by the SSM law. They are worried he is a liberal, not the right-wing zealot that they want. So there are a few reassuring buttons that a Tory leader can press to remind them that he's 'one of us'. Europe - tick; porn - tick; anti-trade unions - tick; that utter wet Miliband - tick; let's not be beastly to smokers - tick; 2015 election win coming up - tick.
Hang on, I think I'll apply for a job with the Tory party.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
If you've ever worked with a net nanny you'll know that you then can't find anything on:
Cockneys
Cockburn port
Titus and Andronicus
Coriolanus
The Grapes of Wrath
Fanny Hill
just from the things we came up with on Twitter earlier - cock, tit, anus, rape and fanny get banned.
The net nanny didn't stop you googling the names of porn sites which tend to be hidden. There used to be one called "steak and chips" - I haven't been blocking them from an education provider for a year, but the names were all totally innocuous.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I've heard that in the early days of primitive search engines, that many innocuous names were bought by porn companies to direct otherwise innocuous searches to them.
Blocks, like locks, are for the honest and lazy.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My feeling is that this influence is only of concern to families or mothers at the lower end of the social scale. Mr Cameron is trying to get their votes, but the mainstream middle class isn't interested.
it's nothing to do with not being interested in the influence of porn. It's to do with having read enough history to know what happens once you start letting the state decide what you are and aren't allowed to read, look at, say, think.
Also some of us would like some evidence to show what the influence of porn is. Does porn have a more harmful influence on society than modern-day advertising, for instance?
I think the jury is out on this. In fact, there have been suggestions that porn being available may reduce sex crimes. For example, I think in Denmark and Japan, child porn became legal, and child abuse cases dropped.
There have been suggestions that simulated child porn could be used to reduce paedophile activity. Of course, this is highly controversial!
However, there are also studies showing the opposite, and there has been some criticism of all studies, along the usual grounds that converting correlation to causation is notoriously difficult, as there are so many confounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_effects_of_pornography
I think the main problem is in assuming porn will affect everyone in a like fashion, which is an implicit assumption in treating the general population as a single demographic. As I understand it (which is not by a lot), the availability of porn can be correlated with a slight drop in sex crimes in general samples*, but conversely convicted sex criminals (especially paedophiles) can often be found to have insane amounts of graphic porn on their chosen "interest". Also there have been various studies that show that the most violent sex crimes correlate with porn availability (see here). If that is true then it follows that the assumption of a single demographic falls, whatever you think about causation v. correlation.
It leaves an awkward sense that porn may provide a safety valve for the majority of the population, but potentiate a small minority to go on to worse things.
(*the stats I saw related to midwestern USA but has been confirmed in numerous other countries)
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would have thought that Christians would be quiote happy for this to be stopped - it will at least prevent children access pictures of stuff that even many adults find disgusting.
I frequently find myself wishing that "Christians" would keep their nose out of other people's business. But I'm all out of luck too.
I'm with those that think this is nothing more than Call Me Dave trying to give the impression of doing something. Wringing his hands and wailing "won't somebody think of the children" is a pretty decent way of giving his troublesome backbenchers a few warm and fuzzy feelings.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So what you're saying is that the fear of state power is greater than any concern about the influence of porn, ...
Every time Svetlana - every time.
quote:
... I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist, myself. Despite Mr Cameron's words I don't think the state is all that bothered about plebs enjoying porn, but the powers that be are always interested in acquiring more power.
I don't think you have to be a conspiracy theorist. Being a conspiracy theorist is prima facie evidence of being some sort of nutter. I just think the last eleven words of your post say it all. Just in case any one is in any doubt as to which of your words I mean, I've converted them to italics.
Just to test some of this, I typed "great tits" into my search engine, deliberately choosing the plural, with 'safe search' off. The first ordinary result was from the RSPB and it only produced 27 results. That is unusual in itself. They all related to wildlife. However, the only advertising result was the charmingly titled "Shocking Free Porn - The best free porn tube videos".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Try big tits instead. 267 million hits.
[ 22. July 2013, 18:38: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Apparently, Cameron said that stuff like '50 shades of grey' won't be affected. What a relief for all those Tory-voting mums, who like a bit of 'his hot hand caressed her cool thigh', before their tea.
Tory Porn-users Я us!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
And there is another point where it is bullshit. A solid argument can be made that 50 Shades is at least as harmful as explicit porn.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Another point that interests me - it appears that simulated rape is to be made illegal; how about simulated murder, which fills my TV screen?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Does this include simulated rape on the telly and in the "legitimate" cinema?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Try big tits instead. 267 million hits.
"Big tit" may be a species of politician but it isn't a species of bird.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Porn exploits those who appear in it. Is viewing it just, even if it's not illegal?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Apparently, Cameron said that stuff like '50 shades of grey' won't be affected. What a relief for all those Tory-voting mums, who like a bit of 'his hot hand caressed her cool thigh', before their tea.
Tory Porn-users Я us!
So the women who've read this book vote Tory? An interesting assumption. Is the corollary to this that men who look at porn on the net are more likely to be Labour voters?
I have no desire to read '50 Shades', but I do wonder if this topic is divided by gender, and especially, as I said above, by parental status. I feel disinclined to criticise mothers, Tory or not, for being concerned about their children. I understand men's fears about the loss of freedom (a particularly male fear, I read somewhere. Ref needed?), but whose concerns should take priority?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Something gives me the feeling that if this proposal had been put forward by Prime Minister Miliband then it might not be drawing such a negative response here.
Not here. Were Miliband, PM, introducing this I would say it's further evidence (were any needed) of the socialist need to control people's lives.
As it is, I'm a little disappointed that a very good Prime Minister who is doing great things for this country has got side-tracked by an unworkable project.
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on
:
How about the concerned mothers take responsibility for alleviating their own worries? There are plenty of easily available commercial (and, probably, free) filters for porn and other adult content. Install one of those on your own computer, don't let your eight year old have a smart phone, actually talk about sex with your kids, and accept that little Isaiah seeing the odd naked breast isn't going to screw him up for life.
It seems to me that the very people who are happy to cry "Nanny State" when it suits them are asking for exactly that kind of legislation now.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Silly IF. The government is only interfering when stopping me from doing what I want.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
So, let me get this straight. Censorship is being outsourced to certain private companies. And the way in which these companies handle this censorship will be monitored by who? And these companies are compliant with UK law? Are they UK companies?
We also have to remember that Cameron got in deep trouble over tobacco and packaging - but, hello, two things come to his rescue - porn (think of the children); and of course, the baby! Cameron is home free.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
How about the concerned mothers take responsibility for alleviating their own worries? There are plenty of easily available commercial (and, probably, free) filters for porn and other adult content. Install one of those on your own computer, don't let your eight year old have a smart phone, actually talk about sex with your kids, and accept that little Isaiah seeing the odd naked breast isn't going to screw him up for life.
It seems to me that the very people who are happy to cry "Nanny State" when it suits them are asking for exactly that kind of legislation now.
Sigh. We live in a divided society. It's unsurprising that the indigenous population is failing to reproduce itself. 'It takes a village to raise a child' - what a quaint, old-fashioned idea.
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So, let me get this straight. Censorship is being outsourced to certain private companies. And the way in which these companies handle this censorship will be monitored by who? And these companies are compliant with UK law? Are they UK companies?
Sorry, quetzalcoatl, is that comment directed at my last post?
If it is, then I don't think installing a porn filter on your own computer is censorship. Censorship is something that an authority (like the government) does to you, not something that you do to yourself. And as for monitoring the companies, isn't this the quintessential free market paradigm? If users don't like one company's product, they move to a different one. I would've thought that this, added to the small government nature of my solution would be a Conservative wet dream.
Alternatively, if your comment wasn't directed at my last post, I apologize for answering as if it was. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
No, it wasn't at all. I was just musing about how these companies will deal with it.
Anyway, we are now being deluged with royal baby fever, so porn and tobacco will take a back seat for a while.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
<snip>
I do wonder if this topic is divided by gender, and especially, as I said above, by parental status. I feel disinclined to criticise mothers, Tory or not, for being concerned about their children. I understand men's fears about the loss of freedom (a particularly male fear, I read somewhere. Ref needed?), but whose concerns should take priority?
Nope, female and a mother here. But I have worked with too many teenage boys to be at all convinced that any blocks like this will work. I've been shown far too much porn by immature boys trying to shock a female member of staff. My reaction is more likely to check the url. The response of "Oh, steak and cheese* is still going, must make sure it's blocked" tends to get them to show me a few more addresses to block too. But because they were innocuous looking addresses we had to find them / get shown them to manually block them on the system, the safety filter didn't pick these sites up.
* steakandcheesedotcom was the site I was failing to remember earlier - it's still going and very definitely not work safe.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I have been reading a few techies on the internet, and basically they are doubled up laughing at this, as they reckon that in most schools, proxy servers (which enable you to access the internet from an intermediary which is anonymous, based anywhere in the world), will become as common as smartphones.
Famous example, PirateBay was blocked, and its traffic increased! Google piratebay proxy to see why.
Incidentally, on rape sites, there some which cater for women, offering Mills & Boon type rape fantasies in frilly frocks. Wait for the first prosecution!
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'It takes a village to raise a child' - what a quaint, old-fashioned idea.
Fine, I'll come and install your web filter for you. Is that village-like enough?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'It takes a village to raise a child' - what a quaint, old-fashioned idea.
Fine, I'll come and install your web filter for you. Is that village-like enough?
Nah, it's okay - I don't have any kids. If you lose your porn it won't be my family's fault!
Let's be honest, though; it's not going to happen.
[ 22. July 2013, 22:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by barrea (# 3211) on
:
I am with Mudfrog on this one. I think that it is good thing that the Prime Minister is doing something about it, whatever his motives may be.
I can't think why people who call themselves Christian should seek to defend the right to watch pornography.
The Bible tells us not to let our eyes look at any vile thing.
If it takes censorship so be it. There was much more censorship in my early years in the 30s 40s and 50s and we were better for it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
If it takes censorship so be it. There was much more censorship in my early years in the 30s 40s and 50s and we were better for it.
No. No you weren't.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I am with Mudfrog on this one. I think that it is good thing that the Prime Minister is doing something about it, whatever his motives may be.
I can't think why people who call themselves Christian should seek to defend the right to watch pornography.
And you never will understand why as long as you equate the result of a free moral choice with the result of having that choice taken away--the end justifies the means, since all that's really important is the result. Perfect neo-conservative thinking.
Besides which, it won't work--as many on this thread have already pointed out.
Posted by barrea (# 3211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
If it takes censorship so be it. There was much more censorship in my early years in the 30s 40s and 50s and we were better for it.
No. No you weren't.
Oh yes we were. I was there at the time were you?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
If it takes censorship so be it. There was much more censorship in my early years in the 30s 40s and 50s and we were better for it.
No. No you weren't.
Oh yes we were. I was there at the time were you?
No. And this is exactly the point.
Back in the 30s, 40s and 50s, you were told not what you needed to know to make informed decisions, but you were told what other people thought you should know so that when you made a decision, you would do what they told you to do and think you did it from your own free will.
That is not better. That's worse. Historians looking back at the 20th century can now discover all those things that you weren't told at the time because you had to be kept quiescent at all costs.
[ 22. July 2013, 23:27: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I can't think why people who call themselves Christian should seek to defend the right to watch pornography.
The Bible tells us not to let our eyes look at any vile thing.
If it takes censorship so be it.
Why can't I disapprove of porn, and disapprove of censorship?
There's plenty that the Bible tells me to do, or not do, that I don't want enforce in law. I don't want other religions to be banned, for example. Legal coercion isn't the way to build a Christian society. Christianity is a call to personal transformation, not enforced conformity. If you think that someone who is not watching porn only because their computer blocks it is thereby living the gospel, then you haven't understood the gospel. It doesn't work like that. We don't get a Christian society by enforcing Christian laws - we get it only by people choosing to follow Jesus. Choosing.
If I read the Bible as telling me to avoid porn (and I do) then I ought not to look at porn - it doesn't follow that I have to stop you or anyone else looking at porn. That's a choice you make for yourself. I'm pleased if you don't, of course, but I'm not responsible for denying you the choice.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, I was born in the 40s and grew up in the 50s, and the censorship and restrictions were absolutely asphyxiating. I remember the 60s with great pleasure, as things opened up, one could say things more openly, gays were no longer imprisoned, new kinds of literature and music were around. Don't want to go back to all that philistinism and sheer drabness.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Here's a comforting thought - if China can censor the internet, so can we!
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I can't think why people who call themselves Christian should seek to defend the right to watch pornography.
Christians don't have to watch pornography if they don't want to. But quite why you feel that anybody else should abide by those rules is simply beyond me.
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
The Bible tells us not to let our eyes look at any vile thing.
And where in the bible does it say "Thou shalt force the whole of society to conform to your own morals"? Yeah, thought not.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
And how do you inadvertently turn safe search off, when it's on by default?
You have to turn it off because some other thing you wanted to search for (I forget now what) wouldn't bring up ANYTHING with it on, even though what you were searching for wasn't pornographic. (I admit this was Bing and it might have worked better on Google; I don't know.)
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, there will eventually be a database of people who 'opt-in', that is, who don't want censorship on their laptop or phone or whatever. What will happen to this database? Who will have access to it?
Chevron.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Then you get the absurd position by some Christians - well, it's all disgusting, so let's ban it.
Yep. Then next week they'll think Islam is disgusting. Then Atheists. Then Democrats.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I understand men's fears about the loss of freedom (a particularly male fear, I read somewhere. Ref needed?)
Ask women in Texas.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Great. Let's fight for our liberty - but what about the slavery of those used in the making of porn?
It's a bit me , me, me isn't it?
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
It's not so much a fight for liberty as a fight against idiotic ideas that won't work, won't do anything to diminish the porn that's out there, and ultimately will be counterproductive.
The whole announcement is just political posturing at its most cynical.
Far better (but harder) to address the culture where e.g. the Daily Mail can support such a pointless policy whilst displaying a sidebar that's all tits'n'ass, and carry articles sexualising young teens whilst howling in outrage with the next breath.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Great. Let's fight for our liberty - but what about the slavery of those used in the making of porn?
It's a bit me , me, me isn't it?
The measure will do bugger all to stop any porn being made or viewed. I'll back measures to stop exploitation, but this one doesn't even try.
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Great. Let's fight for our liberty - but what about the slavery of those used in the making of porn?
It's a bit me , me, me isn't it?
Legalizing it (not to say it's not already legal!) and regulating it will do much more for the slavery of those in the making of porn, than outlawing it will ever do. That's a fact.
[ 23. July 2013, 08:16: Message edited by: wishandaprayer ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
In fact, some people are arguing that it could make things worse, by making porn more of a backstreet operation. Think Prohibition.
At the moment, the big porn companies cooperate with the police, and you don't want small underground companies springing up, putting stuff on the 'dark web'.
I remembered last night, that I did try one of the full-on filters, and I had to get rid of it, as half the web-sites I go on were blocked - not porn! It was ridiculously over-sensitive to any dodgy word such as 'cock' or 'tit'.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It leaves an awkward sense that porn may provide a safety valve for the majority of the population, but potentiate a small minority to go on to worse things.
A bit like alcohol, then?
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
The big porn companies who use paid, consenting adults are the ones who are more likely to suffer from this because they are the ones who play by the rules, including registering their sites as porn sites and being quite clear about what's on there. They'll be filtered out. The really nasty stuff won't be.
As for people worried about their own children - if that's the case install your own parental controls.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
And what about Scunthorpe United? Will the entire British population be default-barred from checking the scores in League Two?
The horror, the horror!
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
And what about Scunthorpe United? Will the entire British population be default-barred from checking the scores in League Two?
The horror, the horror!
Premiership scores may be inaccessible too, as "Arsenal" will probably set the default web bowdlerizer to stun.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Apparently, Cameron said that stuff like '50 shades of grey' won't be affected. What a relief for all those Tory-voting mums, who like a bit of 'his hot hand caressed her cool thigh', before their tea.
Tory Porn-users Я us!
And this is more than just annoying. This "50 Shades" is fine attitude is basically the attitude that female sexuality is safe, unthreatening and basically can acceptably be aroused on public transport or in your sitting room. No harm done.
Meanwhile male sexuality is unsafe, threatening and ought not to be aroused at all. We can't have men - beasts that they are - reading Razzle on the tube, or Shaven Haven in Starbucks. No sir.
Both of these cliches serve to dehumanise sexuality, keeping us at a distance from true intimacy. And both of them are inaccurate.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Does this include simulated rape on the telly and in the "legitimate" cinema?
I haven't been following The White Queen (costume drama on the BBC), but I happened to flick through channels and catch part of it. it was a rape scene: young Lord Somebody-or-other brutally raped his even younger virgin bride.
Porn or not porn?
And now how about if I say I found it a turn-on? Porn or not porn? Lock me up or let me go?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
[Sally Bercow 'innocent face']Shaven Haven? I wasn't even aware there was such a publication! How does one get one's hands on such an organ? [/Sally Bercow 'innocent face']
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I see Cameron is also saying that topless photos in newspapers are OK.
Hang on a minute - Cameron has now declared that tits 'n'ass is OK, and that '50 Shades' is OK. But why is he now the arbiter of erotic acceptability? Is this a job that anyone can apply for?
It shows how relativistic this becomes, and in a sense, arbitrary.
I suppose the thinking is that boobs won't harm little Johnny, genital shots may well harm him, and pictures of a couple making love are very corrupting.
Is it me, or is Cameron in a kind of moral vortex, where nothing makes any sense at all?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
The big porn companies who use paid, consenting adults are the ones who are more likely to suffer from this because they are the ones who play by the rules, including registering their sites as porn sites and being quite clear about what's on there. They'll be filtered out. The really nasty stuff won't be.
As for people worried about their own children - if that's the case install your own parental controls.
Yes, that's what I find weird. Some people seem to feel grateful to Cameron for making up for their parental deficit. It's not really rocket science to install controls, insist that computers are used in a shared space, and put controls on phones. Also, tell your kids that if they start accessing porn, you will confiscate all the gadgets. Oh no, I can't do that, I will hope Mr Cameron will do it for me, as I prefer a nanny state.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I see Cameron is also saying that topless photos in newspapers are OK.
That's just ridiculous. If porn is wrong, so is page 3. End of story.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Ah, but the Sun supports the Tories. Therefore not porn!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
And what about Scunthorpe United? Will the entire British population be default-barred from checking the scores in League Two?
The horror, the horror!
What about Hamlet, where the prince makes a deliberate pun on 'country matters' to Ophelia, and most actors today pronounce it 'cunt - (long pause) - ry matters', to get a laugh from the stalls?
Also found in Marvell, 'And your quaint honour turn to dust', where 'quaint' is an ancient pun on cunt.
English lit is disgusting! Ban it!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
That's the whole point. Who gets to define porn? Or any other banned speech. In practice the rich and the powerful (cos that's part of what "powerful" means).
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: What about Hamlet, where the prince makes a deliberate pun on 'country matters' to Ophelia, and most actors today pronounce it 'cunt - (long pause) - ry matters', to get a laugh from the stalls?
Put them in the dungeon I'd say!
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's the whole point. Who gets to define porn? Or any other banned speech. In practice the rich and the powerful (cos that's part of what "powerful" means).
And if the arguments over tax tell us anything, it's that the government is crap at definitions. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
I'm a bit sick of the argument that everyone should be free to do whatever they want. Not everything should be an unregulated free market economy. In fact free choice is actively harmful in many ways. Arguing that everyone should be free to judge for themselves what is right has historically been the direct cause of some serious exploitation and harm.
Free choice led to slavery. It was only the strict removal of the choice from businessmen about what 'goods' they chose to trade in that eradicated it.
Free choice leads to appalling worker conditions and exploitation even today.
Some things are intrinsically harmful and exploitative to the worker and should be heavily regulated or banned entirely to reduce the harm as much as possible, to prevent vulnerable people being exploited by powerful or wealthy people for profit. Sex work is definitely one of these things IMO.
And the idea that censorship is the start of an inevitable slide to an Orwellian dystopia that has been propogated by some posters here is equally ridiculous. Its as though once someone starts censoring something they can't stop themselves. The BBFC has been censoring our films in the UK since 1913 and mostly they've done a pretty good job at restraining themselves from sending thoughtcrime brigades goosestepping down our streets.
I think it is perfectly possible for intelligent societies to draw a line of judgement about what is acceptable and what is not, and stick to that line without an inevitable expansion and oppression of censorship.
Many have said that internet filters are stupid, and either too sensitive or not sensitive enough. Perhaps many are but the best ones are very good indeed. The one I use is K9 Bluecoat. I just tested it on steakandcheese and it correctly blocked it. I would recommend it as the best one I've found.
Whether a particularly computer-literate child can hack a computer to get round the filters is of course beside the point. Most kids wouldn't do this. You can't build a perfect lock, but you can try and do the best you can, to put off most opportunists.
Many claim that pornography isn't degrading and harmful to women, both directly for those working in the industry, or indirectly for those affected by the slowly, subtly changing attitudes it causes in society as a whole. I think this is a rosy, blinkered view, too bothered with supporting the totems of free-choice and liberalism to see the harm being caused under the glamorous surface. The tales of ex-performers and performers alike are shocking when you read them. It is an appalling industry dedicated to the degradation of women for ever-increasing profit. The only reason it shouldn't be banned outright is because it would only continue underground in worse (though smaller) ways. But it certainly should be curtailed. Some people may believe the marketing of the big porn companies that say all their girls are happy and excited and loving every minute of it and modern regulations prevent any abuse or exploitation. But anyone who's ever heard of the practices of the best-selling films of Max Hardcore for instance will know how much BS that is.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Great. Let's fight for our liberty - but what about the slavery of those used in the making of porn?
It's a bit me , me, me isn't it?
The measure will do bugger all to stop any porn being made or viewed. I'll back measures to stop exploitation, but this one doesn't even try.
Perhaps it is toothless and won't change anything. But it is at least the start of a conversation. If the conversation meets with massive opposition it will die and the porn industry will continue to expand, make money, and find new and more degrading things to convince young girls to do which men want to pay for.
If the conversation is met by a chorus of 'good, but what's next', then the results could be different.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's the whole point. Who gets to define porn? Or any other banned speech. In practice the rich and the powerful (cos that's part of what "powerful" means).
Or it's farmed out to a little committee of experts, which is far more likely.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Hawk wrote:
quote:
Free choice led to slavery. It was only the strict removal of the choice from businessmen about what 'goods' they chose to trade in that eradicated it.
Well no, because the slaves were enchained against their will, thus rendering the whole system one of involuntary labour. In the case of pornography, assuming a willing performer and a willing customer, neither party is comparable to the position of a physically coerced slave.
A better example you could use of free-choice rum amok:
Under a strict free-market regime, there would be nothing to limit the right of a person to sell one of his kidneys for a profit. And yet most people, even those who advocate maximum free choice in other areas, would balk at the idea of allowing that, regardless of the individual wishes of the buyers and the sellers.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I don't think organ sales from the living are an example of free will either actually. I'd be surprised if even 5% of those wanting to sell their kidneys were not experiencing extreme deprivation. If the sellers had their basic needs covered and those of their loved ones, would they still sell their kidneys would they want to still do so? Very very rarely, I suspect.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Hawk: Or it's farmed out to a little committee of experts, which is far more likely.
"Alright, we are now opening our committee meeting. Mr. Jones, show us the PowerPoint of the images you got from the internet this week. All committee members, raise your hand if you're excited yet."
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Hwak wrote:
quote:
If the conversation meets with massive opposition it will die and the porn industry will continue to expand, make money, and find new and more degrading things to convince young girls to do which men want to pay for.
Regardless of where one stands on pornography, I think it's good to be consistent with our nomenclature. If you're going to call the customers "men", then call the performers "women".
You can certainly argue that their is economic(and perhaps other) pressure on women to enter the pornography industry, and that this presents an ethical problem. However, the use of infantilizing terminology as a stand-in for such an argument is not valid.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't see the argument as 'everyone should be free do do what they want'. Rather, I'm against censorship. I grew up in the 50s, when censorship was very heavy - for example, one of the great English novelist's novels was tried for obscenity (Lady Chatterley), the Lord Chamberlain decided what should be on stage, gays were routinely imprisoned, and so on.
This degree of censorship was thankfully reduced. But we have to very careful about any reimpositions.
I don't think it's melodramatic to be wary of new powers of censorship - think PRISM.
[ 23. July 2013, 15:21: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
And the idea that censorship is the start of an inevitable slide to an Orwellian dystopia that has been propogated by some posters here is equally ridiculous. Its as though once someone starts censoring something they can't stop themselves. The BBFC has been censoring our films in the UK since 1913 and mostly they've done a pretty good job at restraining themselves from sending thoughtcrime brigades goosestepping down our streets.
The BBFC is not the government. They don't also control the police and armed forces, and they have no jurisdiction over anything other than movies. To compare the two is ludicrous.
And by the way, they don't censor films, they merely give them a rating that says which age group is allowed to watch. Of course, most studios want the lowest possible rating in order to get bums on seats so they will voluntarily cut bits out in order to achieve that.
quote:
I think it is perfectly possible for intelligent societies to draw a line of judgement about what is acceptable and what is not, and stick to that line without an inevitable expansion and oppression of censorship.
Intelligent societies, maybe. Governments? No. Have we already forgotten how the previous UK government used the freaking Terrorism Act to eject an 80-year-old heckler from their party conference in 2005?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I don't think organ sales from the living are an example of free will either actually. I'd be surprised if even 5% of those wanting to sell their kidneys were not experiencing extreme deprivation. If the sellers had their basic needs covered and those of their loved ones, would they still sell their kidneys would they want to still do so? Very very rarely, I suspect.
Well I would say it's an example of extreme economic pressure, maybe sometimes of a life-or-death nature.
That said, I'd still see a difference between someone selling their organs to cover basic needs, and someone being dragged against his will into a room somewhere and having his organs forcibly taken out, while he begs for it not to happen. Because the latter I would see as directly comparable to slavery.
And my original point was that something doesn't have to be directly equivalent to slavery in order to be morally problematic. Organ sales being my example.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Hawk: Or it's farmed out to a little committee of experts, which is far more likely.
"Alright, we are now opening our committee meeting. Mr. Jones, show us the PowerPoint of the images you got from the internet this week. All committee members, raise your hand if you're excited yet."
Hand?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Hawk: Or it's farmed out to a little committee of experts, which is far more likely.
"Alright, we are now opening our committee meeting. Mr. Jones, show us the PowerPoint of the images you got from the internet this week. All committee members, raise your hand if you're excited yet."
This was notorious in the 80s and 90s, when there were big anti-porn movements in the US; and periodically, they would hold conferences and meetings, to decide future policy. Part of these was the screening of various porn films and other stuff, in order to check out what the state of the market was.
So of course, many jokes went around about this. Some of the anti's became very knowledgeable about women's genitals, and various stages of erection. I suppose it could be useful knowledge.
[ 23. July 2013, 15:26: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Hawk,
The conversation has been going on for centuries. Nothing has changed.
This is not about ending pornography, the sex-slave trade or anything else. Except cheap, political points.
[ 23. July 2013, 15:26: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I think it is perfectly possible for intelligent societies to draw a line of judgement about what is acceptable and what is not, and stick to that line without an inevitable expansion and oppression of censorship.
I'm not sure that restricting all public discourse to a level acceptable for small children still counts as "intelligent society".
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Hawk: Or it's farmed out to a little committee of experts, which is far more likely.
"Alright, we are now opening our committee meeting. Mr. Jones, show us the PowerPoint of the images you got from the internet this week. All committee members, raise your hand if you're excited yet."
Such a self-appointed committee already exists in the UK. It's called the Internet Watch Foundation. They notify ISPs of web content that they think might contain child pornography. Almost all UK ISPs block such web pages automatically and invisibly to the users, withou notifying either the user or the owner of the web page. As do some foreign providers.
Almost everyone involved approves of what they do, including th ISPs and the police. What more does Cameron want?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's the whole point. Who gets to define porn? Or any other banned speech. In practice the rich and the powerful (cos that's part of what "powerful" means).
Actually, in Canada, the Butler Decision used feminist-inspired legal theory to craft a "harm-based" definition of obscenity, ie. If the material in question hurts people, it can be considered obscene. This was touted as representing a breakthrough for feminist legal theory(supposedly more concerned with protecting the vulnerable), as opposed to the patriarchal notions that had underlied previous defintions of obscenity.
Unfortunately, the new test was quickly put to service in justifying the prosection of a gay and lesbian bookstore, for selling(I believe) material of a sado-masochistic nature. The irony being that gays and lesbians are one of the groups that feminists are supposed to be in solidarity with.
And from my brief glances at the top shelves of Canadian newstands while back in country, I wouldn't say that Butler has had much impact in quashing the kind of pornography that feminists really wanted to go after. Barely Legal Teen Vixens is still going strong.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
If the material in question hurts people, it can be considered obscene.
That covers an awful lot of religious doctrine...
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
If the material in question hurts people, it can be considered obscene.
That covers an awful lot of religious doctrine...
That was indeed one of the objections raised to Butler. Not just relgious doctrine, but any number of cultural items(eg. soap commercials) promote negative stereotypes of women, but weren't being challenged in the courts.
The religious wing of the anti-porn movement did actually postulate dystopian scenario in which Butler would in fact lead to Christians being arrested for quoting St. Paul's view on marriage. Suffice to say, that hasn't really come to pass.
Quetzlcoatls wrote:
quote:
This was notorious in the 80s and 90s, when there were big anti-porn movements in the US; and periodically, they would hold conferences and meetings, to decide future policy. Part of these was the screening of various porn films and other stuff, in order to check out what the state of the market was.
So of course, many jokes went around about this. Some of the anti's became very knowledgeable about women's genitals, and various stages of erection. I suppose it could be useful knowledge.
That kind of thing enjoyed a vogue in Canada as well, and seemed popular in feminist circles, as well as conservative Christian ones.
And I've wondered to what extent those kinda sessions contributed to whatever degree of support "pro-sex feminism"(of the Susie Bright variety) now enjoys. I mean, if you show hardcore pornography to thousands of women, the law of averages alone would dictate that at least some of them are eventually going to think "Hey, this stuff's not that bad".
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
I suspect the reason 50 Shades of Gray won't be affected is because it's published by Vintage, i.e. Random House, i.e. Bertelsmann, and Her Majesty's Gov't wouldn't want to interfere with the business of a multimedia conglomerate.
By comparison, porn producers are independent and relatively untangled in big business as a whole (well, when they aren't mobbed up). So it's safe to scapegoat them, even though the media in general promotes an insidiously harmful and probably much more pervasive pack of lies about love and sexuality.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Stetson wrote:
And I've wondered to what extent those kinda sessions contributed to whatever degree of support "pro-sex feminism"(of the Susie Bright variety) now enjoys. I mean, if you show hardcore pornography to thousands of women, the law of averages alone would dictate that at least some of them are eventually going to think "Hey, this stuff's not that bad".
I can't remember all the ramifications about porn in the feminist movement then, but I am pretty sure that a section of feminists began to peel away from the 'all porn is bad' position which some feminists seemed to take up. For one thing, of course, gays, lesbians and straight women began to make their own porn, so it was no longer just 'Hard Harry and Sweet Sue' type stuff.
But there was also some interesting theoretical work being done - for example, on the question as to what porn means, what effects it has, who its users are, and so on. So often these questions are just answered anecdotally and with prejudice.
It's amazing how the topic of porn returns and returns, but I think for right-wing people in the UK, it is a kind of dog-whistle, like immigration and Europe. So Cameron is blowing very hard on a few dog whistles right now - his terror is that he will not win the next election - he is dead in the water then.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's amazing how the topic of porn returns and returns, but I think for right-wing people in the UK, it is a kind of dog-whistle, like immigration and Europe. So Cameron is blowing very hard on a few dog whistles right now - his terror is that he will not win the next election - he is dead in the water then.
Is anti-porn a mostly right-wing thing? Where is the proof for that?
I think it depends on what kind of 'right-wing' we're talking about. On the one hand, moral conservatism is considered to be a right-wing characteristic, but on the other, porn is a business like any other, and many right-wingers are against govt interference in business. Right-wingers have to prioritise one characteristic over the other, presumably.
There used to be a component of moral conservatism in the left-wing (hence anti-porn feminism), but that seems to have dissipated now.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
I can't remember all the ramifications about porn in the feminist movement then, but I am pretty sure that a section of feminists began to peel away from the 'all porn is bad' position which some feminists seemed to take up. For one thing, of course, gays, lesbians and straight women began to make their own porn, so it was no longer just 'Hard Harry and Sweet Sue' type stuff.
Yeah, On Our Backs started publishing in 1984, and had became a semi-household name by the late 80s. And I recall that in '91 or so, Harper's published an essay by a heterosexual woman who talked about enjoying pornography. I remember it was considered kind of unprecendented for a woman to admit that in such an august venue.
Then, of course, you had Madonna, Camille Paglia, etc, but I think the biggest factor in the demise of left-wing anti-pornography was the internet. Once the material was just a click away, it became evident that more people than previously assumed had an interest in looking at it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Svitlana
I agree that some left-wing and liberal people are anti-porn - in fact, I'm surprised that Blair never tried something like this.
But I was talking about Cameron's current campaign, which strikes me as a dog whistle to his right-wing, who possibly were worried by SSM. They don't want a centrist PM, they want a right-wing zealot. Well, he probably isn't that, but he will do a reasonable simulacrum, by beating the drum on various issues, such as Europe, immigrants, porn, anti-trade unions, support for smokers, and so on.
I guess it's also designed to spike the guns of UKIP.
[ 23. July 2013, 16:44: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Stetson
Linda Williams was the go-to girl in the 90s, for theoretical work on porn. Her book 'Hard Core' became famous, and still is, I think. I think she starts by accepting that we don't really know what porn means, or we often just take a kind of reductive view - it's for teenage boys to wank over - without considering what these images mean.
Rather immodestly speaking, I was part of a team writing about porn then, and contributed some miniscule paragraphs and chapters. So it is all quite weird to see it return, but as Freud said, the repressed always does.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Is anti-porn a mostly right-wing thing? Where is the proof for that?
I think it depends on what kind of 'right-wing' we're talking about. On the one hand, moral conservatism is considered to be a right-wing characteristic, but on the other, porn is a business like any other, and many right-wingers are against govt interference in business. Right-wingers have to prioritise one characteristic over the other, presumably.
There used to be a component of moral conservatism in the left-wing (hence anti-porn feminism), but that seems to have dissipated now.
As I see it, the 21st Century anti-porn movement is basically the province of what is sometimes short-handed as "Soccer Moms", ie. a loosely parametered social-welfare ideology, concerned especially with the protection of children. Basically, the worldview commonly satirized by Helen Lovejoy's famous line on The Simpsons.
This makes it somewhat different from either the "Moral Majority" version or the "feminist" version of years past, though both of those contained appeals to harm-reduction as well.
Interestingly, Canadian Conservatives are now musing about following Cameron's lead.
The Harper government is often thought of as being aligned with the Religious Right. However, Harper has so far resisted all pressure to move backwards on gay-marriage, or re-open the abortion debate. But porn-filters might give him the opportinity to do something that appeases his disgruntled SoCon base, while also appealing to the more secular-minded "concerned parents" crowd. Should he choose to go down that route, that is.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, Cameron really upset grass-roots Tories on SSM - what the hell, they thought? If we'd wanted a liberal PM, we'd have voted LibDem.
So now it's all soothing words and right-wing policies. Don't worry, we'll destroy the unions, make the rich richer, turn the poor into beggars, illegalize those nasty images, put teenage mums into the workhouse, help smokers a bit, stop those nasty gypsies camping on your field - all good bracing stuff. But Cameron wakes up at 4am, thinking, oh shite, it's not enough, and I'm toast, (mixed metaphor).
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quetzalcoatl
Hmmm. Going back to what you said about Mr Cameron above I think it's a risky game. Do anti-porn and anti-SSM attitudes overlap? Not entirely, I think. Women are more likely to be pro-gay than (straight) men are, so I read; and I imagine that access to porn is more likely to be championed by men than by women. I'm not talking about everyone - this website would obviously bring up lots of contrary examples - but this is how I'd imagine things to be in general, even if both sexes are gradually becoming more liberal on these matters.
As for UKIP, have they said that they're anti-porn, or worried about children, etc.? This doesn't sound like something they've given a lot of thought to.
[ 23. July 2013, 17:04: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
No, I'm not making a crude link - UKIP is anti-porn, therefore Cameron has got this policy going. It's not that simplistic. The Tories have been worried about natural Tories peeling off to vote UKIP, so how can they be brought back?
Of course, there are a number of possible ways, but it looks as if they are playing the dog whistle game. We are the party who will castrate the unions, make the rich richer, ban porn, so your kids are safe, tell the Europeans to naff off, blah blah blah. It might work.
Look at yesterday's Daily Mail - those are the kind of headlines that Cameron needs, and lots of them.
[ 23. July 2013, 17:11: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Look at yesterday's Daily Mail - those are the kind of headlines that Cameron needs, and lots of them.
Heh. Trying to find out exactly what the Daily Mail's headline was, I went to their website, and found this. (probably NSFW)
The Mail, of course, being the paper that Cameron cited as his inspiration for the opt-in policy.
[ 23. July 2013, 17:21: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Heh. Trying to find out exactly what the Daily Mail's headline was, I went to their website, and found this. (probably NSFW)
Bad link. This should work.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quetzalcoatl
That's beginning to sound like just another anti-Tory rant. Try to maintain your objectivity! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
To be honest, I think left-wing folk need to try to appeal to the mothers (or 'soccer moms'), since they seem to be your 'problem'. Rather than accusing them of being Daily Mail-reading, Tory-voting, '50 Shades'-reading repressed reactionaries, you need to convince them in a caring way that the easy availability of porn isn't harmful to their children, despite some of the reports they may have read. Perhaps there needs to be a widespread campaign to encourage and enable techno-phobic parents to apply parental controls to family computers, etc.
Arguing against motherhood and apple pie isn't going to help your cause. (The whole thing makes me glad I'm not a mother, though. Pressure on all sides.)
[ 23. July 2013, 17:24: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Svitlana
What's wrong with an anti-Tory rant?
I'm not worried about soccer moms; I just hate censorship.
I also think it's quite likely that Cameron's move will backfire - the filters won't work, the ISP companies will be fed up, people will resent having a compulsory filter for legal material, and lots of voters will wonder, why is he going on about porn, when there are millions of kids living in poverty?
And see the Mail stuff about Lady Gaga above, for an example of the hypocrisy surrounding the whole thing.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Heh. Trying to find out exactly what the Daily Mail's headline was, I went to their website, and found this. (probably NSFW)
Bad link. This should work.
Thanks! I think my link is up and running now, though.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
I'm not worried about soccer moms; I just hate censorship
For the record, as the person who(I think) introduced the phrase into the thread, I was trying to use it in a gender-neutral manner, not specifying women in particular. Sorta like "John Q. Public" means people in general, not just men.
That said, I do realize its original usage in the 90s was meant to indicate a female demographic.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
you need to convince them in a caring way that the easy availability of porn isn't harmful to their children, despite some of the reports they may have read.
I agree that the easy availability of porn is harmful to children. But as the parents of those children, it's primarily up to them to protect their kids from this kind of influence.
To start with, who says that their kids need wide-open and unmediated access to the internet? It's the same issue as TV; if you really believe that things shown on television are bad for kids or people in general, then don't fricking own one.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But dad, I have to have a smartphone with full and immediate access to the internet, and all those luscious porn sites, cos all the other kids have one, and you don't want me to feel out of it, do you, dad?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Svitlana
What's wrong with an anti-Tory rant?
I'm not worried about soccer moms; I just hate censorship.
I also think it's quite likely that Cameron's move will backfire - the filters won't work, the ISP companies will be fed up, people will resent having a compulsory filter for legal material, and lots of voters will wonder, why is he going on about porn, when there are millions of kids living in poverty?
And see the Mail stuff about Lady Gaga above, for an example of the hypocrisy surrounding the whole thing.
Yes, the DM is rather hypocritical. Nice and gossipy, though. And the majority of its readers are women.... (Why would a man who wants 'proper' porn go to the DM for a boring photo of a naked LG?)
My point is, if mothers are the ones being targeted by the PM, then they'e the ones he thinks will be the most likely to be supporting this move. People whose disapproval of censorship is their priority need to jump in there and reach those women with an alternative. That's what I would have thought.
As I said above, though, I don't think this is really going to get anywhere, because society has changed. Parents are already tolerant of quite a lot when it comes to their children.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Oh, and here's a suggestion to peel away UKIP support for the proposed opt-in...
Spread a rumour that the list of people people requesting porn will be turned over to Brussels!
I say this only half in jest, because I know of at least one small but very vocal group of right-wingers in Canada who REALLY despise the anti-hate speech laws, especially as they are applied on the internet. To the point where they are now convinced that government-mandated porn filters are a trojan-horse to implement technology designed to spy on right-wingers.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I remember my son had a phase of watching porn films, when he was about 17, so I thought I'd better have a decko, just to check them out (!), anyway, they were mostly a series of glum-looking German couples screwing rather joylessly in bland-looking hotels, so I thought the main danger was that he might think sex was so miserable. Well, he didn't.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
To start with, who says that their kids need wide-open and unmediated access to the internet? It's the same issue as TV; if you really believe that things shown on television are bad for kids or people in general, then don't fricking own one.
I said 'in a caring way'!!! That sounds like irritation to me!
Of course, even if you don't have internet access at home, your kids will go to school and see what other kids are watching on their smart phones, because almost everyone else has one. Unless you police your kids' social life ruthlessly, they'll probably end up watching all sorts of things on other people's TVs. If your kids are in a 'nice' area and attend a 'nice' school, this sort of policing might be easier, because lots of other parents will be looking out for the same things, but if you don't then you'll have to let a lot of things slide, because otherwise your kids won't have much of a life. Either that or you'll have to be the kind of really strict parent that everyone hates.....
But we all have to do what we think is best for our families. I don't think we can rely on this PM or any other as some kind of 'family champion'.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But dad, I have to have a smartphone with full and immediate access to the internet, and all those luscious porn sites, cos all the other kids have one, and you don't want me to feel out of it, do you, dad?
Get yourself some real problems, son.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
There is also a basic point about talking to your kids about relationships and intimacy and sex. I didn't worry about my son watching porn, as I knew he was a solidly-grounded and caring person, who just would not abuse anyone.
Actually, it's not just about talking to them about it, but living it! If the parents' relationship is caring and non-abusive, if they can guess that your sex life is ditto, and of course, if you treat them caringly and non-abusively, I feel that they will tend to turn out OK, porn or no porn.
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Hawk: Or it's farmed out to a little committee of experts, which is far more likely.
"Alright, we are now opening our committee meeting. Mr. Jones, show us the PowerPoint of the images you got from the internet this week. All committee members, raise your hand if you're excited yet."
This was notorious in the 80s and 90s, when there were big anti-porn movements in the US; and periodically, they would hold conferences and meetings, to decide future policy. Part of these was the screening of various porn films and other stuff, in order to check out what the state of the market was.
So of course, many jokes went around about this. Some of the anti's became very knowledgeable about women's genitals, and various stages of erection. I suppose it could be useful knowledge.
I IMMEDIATELY think of Bill Hicks's material re porn...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There is also a basic point about talking to your kids about relationships and intimacy and sex. I didn't worry about my son watching porn, as I knew he was a solidly-grounded and caring person, who just would not abuse anyone.
Actually, it's not just about talking to them about it, but living it! If the parents' relationship is caring and non-abusive, if they can guess that your sex life is ditto, and of course, if you treat them caringly and non-abusively, I feel that they will tend to turn out OK, porn or no porn.
This is what someone needs to explain nicely to the 'moms', then. It's not as easy as it sounds, clearly, or else we wouldn't be reading about how reluctant many parents are to have these conversations.
In terms of relationships, many children are being raised by just one parent. That's surely very challenging. Many people can't model 'caring' relationships, although ideally they have friends and family members who can.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't really know how many moms are worried about porn. Does anyone? I saw one poll by the Babycenter website, which asked about watching porn, and if they minded their other half doing that, and the largest response was 'I watch it too!' I've seen a Gallup poll showing a 64/36 disapproval rating of porn in the US.
There is a weird kind of substitute parenting going on here, though, isn't there? I can't handle my kids' use of porn, so I want Mr Cameron to do it for me.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Well, as you say, the PM hopes to get a few votes from this, which means someone must care. Probably not to the extent that he thinks, though. And those who have educated and detailed objections to it already have the skills and the confidence to protect their own children, so they don't have a personal investment in what the PM does or doesn't do. As I said above, I think it's the more powerless people (again, I think mostly women) who'd like the state to help them proactively with their parenting. But they probably don't vote much anyway.
The USA seems to be a curious case re porn culture. Apparently, around half of all divorces are linked to porn. That's no small thing. (Perhaps it's due to those repressed mums?) But the USA is a totally entrepreneurial culture, so I don't imagine that any realistic American, right-wing or otherwise, seriously expects the govt to censor it, even though American websites express a lot of concern about its impact among Christians.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
'Linked to porn'. I wonder what that means. Does it mean that Joe and Mary's marriage was brilliant, it's just that Joe liked looking at porn, therefore Mary wanted a divorce. I don't know.
Possibly a symptom not a cause?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'Linked to porn'. I wonder what that means. Does it mean that Joe and Mary's marriage was brilliant, it's just that Joe liked looking at porn, therefore Mary wanted a divorce. I don't know.
Possibly a symptom not a cause?
A dubious statistic in any case, since no-fault divorce is available in all fifty states. Given that there's no legal requirement to state a reason for divorce beyond "we no longer want to be married", I'm not sure how that statistic could be compiled.
[ 23. July 2013, 20:07: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'Linked to porn'. I wonder what that means. Does it mean that Joe and Mary's marriage was brilliant, it's just that Joe liked looking at porn, therefore Mary wanted a divorce. I don't know.
Possibly a symptom not a cause?
I'm thinking too that it might have something to do with divorce laws.
I know nothing about American divorce laws, but I believe they vary from state to state. If some stlll mandate that the divorce has to be someone's "fault", then maybe the litigating person will just throw porn in as a factor, along with other things. Even if there were other factors that would have been sufficient, in the absence of porn consumption.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Everything's possible, and I'm sure these things are often quite complicated. But a divorce is a divorce, and even if porn is just one of many factors (including repression, etc....), it's still a factor. Too much banana cake and custard for afters could also be a 'factor'!
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-porn-addiction/201112/is-porn-really-destroying-500000-marriages-annually
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Well, Croesos pretty much blew me out of the water.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
So cultures/countries which ban porn should have lower divorce rates? Trouble is, there are so many variables, it's a nightmare to change correlation into causation.
I've seen headlines that 'many divorces are linked to Facebook use', and I suppose it used to be alcohol or overwork.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, Croesos pretty much blew me out of the water.
Well, available in all fifty states isn't the same as the only option in all fifty states. Assigning fault can sometimes expedite the timeline of a divorce or explain why you're entitled to a larger share of the joint property. Still, I suspect (without any statistics ready to hand) that the majority of divorces in the U.S. are filed on a no-fault basis because of the simplicity.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, Croesos pretty much blew me out of the water.
Well, available in all fifty states isn't the same as the only option in all fifty states. Assigning fault can sometimes expedite the timeline of a divorce or explain why you're entitled to a larger share of the joint property. Still, I suspect (without any statistics ready to hand) that the majority of divorces in the U.S. are filed on a no-fault basis because of the simplicity.
Thanks for the further clarification.
According to the Psychology Today article, the 50% stat comes from a survey of divorce lawyers. 2/3 of them reported that the internet played a role in "the divorces", and of those cases, 50% of them involved porn.
But it's the bit about "the divorces" that's confusing. If a lawyer has one case, and one case only, that involved porn, does he get lumped in with the 50%?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
According to the Psychology Today article, the 50% stat comes from a survey of divorce lawyers. 2/3 of them reported that the internet played a role in "the divorces", and of those cases, 50% of them involved porn.
But it's the bit about "the divorces" that's confusing. If a lawyer has one case, and one case only, that involved porn, does he get lumped in with the 50%?
And do those responses represent an actual reality (porn causes divorce) or a tactical preference by attorneys (if I cite 'porn' as the cause the settlement will be larger, as will my percentage-based fee)?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
And now I'm wondering if the pornography cited in the Psychology Today article includes things like "the video I found of my husband having sex with the babysitter"? That would indeed be pornography, and it would certainly be a factor in a divorce, but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that can be resolved via internet censorship.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
This writer has a a few interesting comments on the filter.
He makes the point that anti-filtering technology will be enhanced by people immediately figuring out ways to get around the opt-in system.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'Linked to porn'. I wonder what that means. Does it mean that Joe and Mary's marriage was brilliant, it's just that Joe liked looking at porn, therefore Mary wanted a divorce. I don't know.
Possibly a symptom not a cause?
Almost certainly a symptom and not a cause.
If the husband is spending all his free time looking at porn and not his wife, or looking at porn and not interested in sexual intimacy with his wife, then most likely the porn is not the root problem. There is something else going on in the marriage, and possibly the husband is using porn as a way of avoiding closeness to his wife.
Thinking that banning porn is going to solve this problem is just naive. It could be model trains or Civil War reenactments just as easily.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I was born in the 40s and grew up in the 50s, and the censorship and restrictions were absolutely asphyxiating. I remember the 60s with great pleasure, as things opened up, one could say things more openly, gays were no longer imprisoned, new kinds of literature and music were around. Don't want to go back to all that philistinism and sheer drabness.
None of us can turn the clock back .
I think cameron is trying to capitalize on a feeling of the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater, and that childhood innocence needs to be recaptured and protected.
I agree this measure could be seen as ham-fisted as it makes legitimate porn use appear suspect . Rather like if someone goes into a newsagent to buy a magazine off the 'top-shelf' and the shopkeeper takes down their name and address before selling it to them.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, Croesos pretty much blew me out of the water.
Well, if you have pictures or a video, I'd get it out there on the net while you still can!!
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... The USA seems to be a curious case re porn culture. Apparently, around half of all divorces are linked to porn. ...
It only takes about ten seconds of thought to figure out that such a statistic is impossible to calculate. It's just a vague, scary statement with a number thrown in to make it sound truthy. It's a very common claim in conservative religious circles - I've seen in on the Ship before as well.
Other technological problems for parents besides kids watching porn: $3,000 iTunes bill Another family went on vacation to Mexico, and the kids incurred massive roaming charges while playing games on their techno-toys. A screen is a really crappy - and sometimes very expensive! - babysitter.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Well it's obvious enough that Cameron proposing a ban is about UKIP not morals. But that is besides the point. There are votes in it, some people want it, so there is a serious question to discuss.
My question is: what about material which, although erotic, can't be considered indecent and therefore can't be considered porn?
The images at Daily Mail links above are examples. I had to check them a couple of times to be sure - but no matter how hard I looked, I didn't see any uncovered naughty bits. Yet they can be accused of the same sins as porn, particularly objectification of women, promotion of body insecurity amongst girls and so on.
Also how far would a ban logically extend? Non-indecent images that are intended to be erotic? Images that might conceivably cause arousal? I understand that back in Ireland in the 1950s an Irish bishop took some newspaper to task for displaying a picture of a young woman modelling underwear. The problem? The mons pubis was detectible.
Finally, where is the actual proof that pornography causes demonstrable harm (other than to certain people's feelings)?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
This writer has a a few interesting comments on the filter.
He makes the point that anti-filtering technology will be enhanced by people immediately figuring out ways to get around the opt-in system.
I think the techies are loving this, as they will have a good market in teaching people how to set up proxy breakers, VPNs, and so on; not that they're that difficult to do. Most kids will work it out in about ten minutes.
And probably private porn networks will proliferate - I suppose privatization is a Tory hard-on!
I think people in the Middle East use this stuff to get around internet blocks. Maybe China as well.
Last year, I did switch on my broadband's filter, not to stop porn, but I'd had a horrible malware attack. However, the filter was appalling, and proceeded to block tons of innocent stuff, and slowed everything down. Absolutely useless.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
There is an interesting argument that Christianity (and other religions) have contributed to the development of porn.
The argument is roughly like this: Christianity has viewed sex and the human body with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it has celebrated sex in marriage, but none the less, feelings of fear, shame and guilt have surrounded sexual feelings and sexual activity.
Thus, such feelings and fantasies have been repressed. Freud has the interesting phrase 'the return of the repressed', which means roughly that although you can shove stuff down into the unconscious, and forget it, it always comes back to you.
Hence, porn shows the return of the stuff, which religions have repressed.
This is expressed fairly crudely, and leaves out more refined arguments - for example, it is arguable that concealment is linked to revealing - for example, that clothing both conceals and reveals; hence, you could argue that hiding something is part of the sexual charge, (or if you like, that repression valorizes). Well, OK, but this does't affect the main argument.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The BBFC is not the government. They don't also control the police and armed forces, and they have no jurisdiction over anything other than movies. To compare the two is ludicrous.
Sounds like you're imagining the government will do the porn classification and banning themselves. As though Dave has nothing better to do than sit writing algorithms and rating websites. I'm not sure why you're labouring under this misunderstanding. The way it will work in the UK is to get the industry to regulate themselves with a non-governmental organisation. This is how it currently works with films, video games and television. It's the go-to model with all industry regulations and from Dave's actions recently it looks like he's aiming for exactly the same model for the internet, if he can ever get any agreement on it.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And by the way, they don't censor films, they merely give them a rating that says which age group is allowed to watch.
And they censor films by either rating them R - to only be sold in licensed sex shops, or by not awarding them a rating, making it illegal to sell them entirely.
For more information on the BBFC and their own dealings with the wonderful world of sex and censorship, read this article from Empire Film magazine.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hawk,
The conversation has been going on for centuries. Nothing has changed.
This is not about ending pornography, the sex-slave trade or anything else. Except cheap, political points.
I'm pretty sure lots of things have changed in the last couple of centuries, especially in regards to sex and censorship. The invention of the internet has changed things even more. I'm really not sure what you mean here.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yet Dave already seems to be exempting various kinds of images, such as page 3 girls, written porn such as '50 Shades', and presumably the Daily Mail brand of 'oops, here's an actress with her bra falling off' article.
I guess then that Dave is working with some kind of criteria in mind - I wonder if he is going to share them with us?
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
Of course, it's quite possible that there won't be an agreed standard about what constitutes porn. 'All' ISPs will be required to block porn, but will be left to their own devices to define it.
They aren't actually being required to do it. They're being politely asked to. Hence there can be a lack of clarity about what they've been asked to do. And Dave, inaccurately, believes they've agreed.
And it only affects the set of ISPs that currently use the IWF's services. Smaller ISPs aren't affected as the Government can't be bothered to talk to them.
And this will end up being just like the IWF's list for child porn. It's not designed to protect children, it's designed to protect ISPs. Everyone knows it won't stop most of the stuff you might expect it to stop. Everyone knows it can be worked round. But that's only a problem if you think its job is to block stuff. Its job is to prove that the ISP has made industry standard best efforts to block stuff.
Quetzalcotl raises a good point about false positives. Any discussion of porn blocking that doesn't raise the question of what other stuff will be blocked by accident is clearly dominated by people who don't understand technology.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
In relation to the "What should Christians think of porn" line of thought, why is there any difference between looking at a picture of a consenting person with his clothes off and imagining a consenting person with his clothes off?
I tend to take the view that the man who preached the Sermon on the Mount wouldn't make distinctions between these. The point is that viewing a person purely as on object of lust - and using that perspective for sexual stimulation - is wrong whether it's a real person, an imaginary person or a picture of a person.
The existence of porn is a symptom of our rejection of that teaching, not the cause of it.
So I'm comfortable that someone who identifies as Christian can think that the important issue here is preventing government censorship, while at the same time looking to do far more effective things to address the root causes, rather than the symptom.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yet Dave already seems to be exempting various kinds of images, such as page 3 girls, written porn such as '50 Shades', and presumably the Daily Mail brand of 'oops, here's an actress with her bra falling off' article.
I guess then that Dave is working with some kind of criteria in mind - I wonder if he is going to share them with us?
I think he's just guessing. He has no criteria himself and he's probably just reacting to Daily Mail headlines for ideas. Since the Mail is schizophrenic about it (hating porn for degrading women while posting pics leering at women in bikinis and sunbathing) he's probably not going to be very consistent.
Basically though, all he can do is guess what the ISPs are going to do, rather than saying what the criteria he's going to implement is. Since he has no powers to censor anything himself, and he isn't looking to write any into law.
[ 24. July 2013, 10:51: Message edited by: Hawk ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Of course, it's quite possible that there won't be an agreed standard about what constitutes porn. 'All' ISPs will be required to block porn, but will be left to their own devices to define it.
They aren't actually being required to do it. They're being politely asked to. Hence there can be a lack of clarity about what they've been asked to do. And Dave, inaccurately, believes they've agreed.
And it only affects the set of ISPs that currently use the IWF's services. Smaller ISPs aren't affected as the Government can't be bothered to talk to them.
And this will end up being just like the IWF's list for child porn. It's not designed to protect children, it's designed to protect ISPs. Everyone knows it won't stop most of the stuff you might expect it to stop. Everyone knows it can be worked round. But that's only a problem if you think its job is to block stuff. Its job is to prove that the ISP has made industry standard best efforts to block stuff.
Quetzalcotl raises a good point about false positives. Any discussion of porn blocking that doesn't raise the question of what other stuff will be blocked by accident is clearly dominated by people who don't understand technology.
Well, a friend of mine who is a pagan has her own web-site blocked, as it's 'the occult'. OK, at the moment, that is the decision of a private company to do that. But is the government now saying that they prefer such filters to be on? But the filters block perfectly legal material.
Of course, some people argue that it's paranoid to worry about censorship, and the possibility of mission creep. Is it?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yet Dave already seems to be exempting various kinds of images, such as page 3 girls, written porn such as '50 Shades', and presumably the Daily Mail brand of 'oops, here's an actress with her bra falling off' article.
I guess then that Dave is working with some kind of criteria in mind - I wonder if he is going to share them with us?
Most of the concern we hear about relates to images and videos of sexual acts, some of them extreme, that are easily accessed by children. Mere nakedness isn't the issue, as far as I understand. '50 Shades' doesn't contain any images. And Page 3 isn't an image of a sexual act, but of a woman in a fairly benign pose.
I'm not sure if there's much more to be said on this subject, really. We live in sexualised society, and most of us know full well that whatever our personal morality or ideology is, that's not really going to change. Informed and empowered parents will do okay; the rest will just be humoured by politicians occasionally. The strong will survive, as ever.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, Svitlana, that is a reasonable distinction, but Cameron seems to be operating with a covert set of criteria. He may well be using that kind of distinction - harmless nudity, versus harmful sex acts - but maybe this should be made explicit, and also openly and widely discussed? Do we just take it on trust that the government knows best? Are his views based on actual research, or on Daily Mail editorials?
I think an earlier poster said something like, 'it disgusts me, therefore it should be banned'. I'm afraid I don't find that very reassuring as the foundation for censorship.
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
There's a reasonable article on how the page blocking will work here
The most interesting news is that the government most likely to end up with a list of every website you visit is the Chinese one, not ours. All ISPs seem keen to point out that it's easy to turn off. It's also easy to circumvent.
It also seems very clear that the government has, by and large, 'forced' the ISPs to do something they'd already independently decided to do anyway. (And only 'forced' them after checking they were already going to do it)
The definition of 'porn' will be up to ISPs. Whose main concern is actually profitability (i.e. whatever definition is cheapest to run is the one that will be used)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I was chatting with my wife about this, and she got very angry, and said that she thought that page 3 girls and the Daily Mail sleaze was worse than porn, as it normalized the regulation of female sexuality and female bodies. In other words, the fact that Cameron said, 'oh, this stuff is OK', is part of the problem.
I have no idea if this is correct or not - but it's an interesting view. I suppose porn has traditionally been seen as deviant, (but maybe not now), whereas the danger in the 'soft' stuff is that it inculcates certain attitudes to sexuality, without us really realizing it. We spot porn, but do we spot the covert regulation of female and male sexuality in the culture at large? Does Cameron?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I would agree with your wife. (That's a statement, not necessarily advice, BTW )
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
I can see that. The thing about porn actors is that they've agreed to have their bodies scrutinised - that's the job that they do. What probably has a more harmful effect on women in general is the way in which the media routinely judges every woman's appearance whether it's relevant to her job or not. The Daily Mail is particularly awful when it comes to keeping women in line by posting snarky comments about any woman in the public eye who dares not be young, skinny and beautiful in an unthreatening way.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I can see that. The thing about porn actors is that they've agreed to have their bodies scrutinised - that's the job that they do. What probably has a more harmful effect on women in general is the way in which the media routinely judges every woman's appearance whether it's relevant to her job or not. The Daily Mail is particularly awful when it comes to keeping women in line by posting snarky comments about any woman in the public eye who dares not be young, skinny and beautiful in an unthreatening way.
Yes, you could see the outrage over porn by right-wing people as a smoke-screen, which disguises the normative regulation of female sexuality and female bodies. This is just fed to people via the popular media, and it's really only feminists and maybe some lefties who analyze it.
Of course, a page 3 girl or the Daily Mail 'here's another girl with a bra bulging in the wrong places', just seems mild and unexceptional, yet that is the problem.
Another point is that much porn is fantasy; whereas the soft stuff is more like ordinary reality, and therefore, possibly, more damaging to women. I would also add a point here about male bodies being fetishized also, but I don't want to head off in another direction, (but they are).
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I don't think this is a right-wing issue. Go to the Guardian, read some of the articles in Comment is Free and see what is being said. Plenty of articles criticising porn use and advocating its restriction because it is harmful to women. Yes, there are "think of the children" articles too; but they merely express the perspective that exposing children to porn damages equal rights for women.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Hmm. I think there is certainly a section of the right-wing press behind this, but I share Cod's reserve about labelling the whole thing "right-wing". It seems to transcend several boundaries, the political being one of them.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I didn't think I was saying that whole thing is right-wing. I said 'you could see the outrage over porn by right-wing people as a smoke-screen'.
That to me does not suggest that only outraged right-wing people object to porn.
The Daily Mail and Cameron strike me as fairly right-wing!
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
OK quetzalcoatl, it probably just came over that way because you've posted on it several times. Though there were also some famous names in second-wave feminism (so-called) who had pretty uncompromising views on pornography and controlling pretty well all sexuality. I suppose there is a case for calling them aberrant right-wingers though I'm not sure I would buy that.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, but that particular post was a reply to Liopleurodon, who had commented that the Daily Mail was notoriously critical of women's bodies. So I was making the point that the right wing get very uptight about porn - see the DM front page this week over Cameron's plans - yet ignore the everyday regulation of female sexuality which can be found throughout society.
Now, yes, there are also liberal opponents of porn, and probably left-wing opponents, and non-political ones, and maybe anarchist ones, and so on.
But I didn't think that I was saying 'all opposition to porn is right-wing'.
I mean I've been talking mainly about Cameron and the Daily Mail - surely it's reasonable to say that they are right-wing?
If I'd wanted to talk about Guardian readers' opposition to porn, I would not have called them right-wing at all.
It's just that if one spells out all these details explicitly, posts become huge, as this one is threatening to do.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I don't think this is a right-wing issue. Go to the Guardian, read some of the articles in Comment is Free and see what is being said. Plenty of articles criticising porn use and advocating its restriction because it is harmful to women. Yes, there are "think of the children" articles too; but they merely express the perspective that exposing children to porn damages equal rights for women.
Well, I might as well be thorough about this. Why do you think that I was saying that anti-porn is only a right-wing issue?
I can't see how you get that from my post above. I was replying to Liopleurodon, who had made some comments about the Daily Mail, which is surely right-wing?
Of course, there are non-right-wing opponents of porn - I know that very well, as I took part in the Great Porn Wars in the late 80s and early 90s, when the anti-porn movement was very wide in political terms, and it still is.
My point was that the right-wing make a hue and cry about porn, but ignore (and in fact, support) the widespread regulation of female sexuality found in society.
Now again, I'm not saying that other opponents of porn don't also ignore (and support) this. But this week, I've been talking mainly about Cameron and the Daily Mail, who to me are right-wing.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Of course, there are non-right-wing opponents of porn - I know that very well, as I took part in the Great Porn Wars in the late 80s and early 90s, when the anti-porn movement was very wide in political terms, and it still is.
I came of age politically in late-80s Canada, and I can say that, at least in left-wing circles(closely analagous to British Labour), it was pretty much a given that you were supposed to be anti-pornography.
Of course, people tried to do the old trick with the cake by claiming a distinction between erotica and pornography, and saying they had no problem with the former. But insofar as we were talking about anything in the general vicinity of Playboy, Penthoouse, or even the local strip joint, you were generally expected to register an unambiguously negative opinion.
Years later, I got into reading some of the anti-porn Second Wave feminists like Dworkin and Robin Morgan. One of the themes I picked up was that the feminist anti-pornography movement emerged in large part as a reaction to allegedly misogynistic tendencies on the New Left, ie. guys using "free love" rhetoric as a cover for sexual harassment and exploitation. This probably accounted at least in part for the willingness of some feminists to ally with the right on pornography, since, from their perspective, the left was no better, and probably worse.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Goodbye To All That
Robin Morgan's attack on left-wing misogyny, especially in the "underground" press.
In 2008, Morgan wrote a sequel, published in the Guardian, using the same analysis in support of Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama. Which I suppose might give some hint as to the kind of left-wing politics she espouses.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I remember that in left-wing groups in the 70s, women were asked to make the tea. That did change!
The right-wing are hypocritical about porn, since they routinely support the regulation of female sexuality. I assume that liberals and left-wing anti-porn people are less hypocritical.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
I assume that liberals and left-wing anti-porn people are less hypocritical.
Well, except for the aformentioned distinction between porn(which was bad), and erotica(which was good; "healthy" being the commonly applied adjective). That always struck me as a lot of special pleading.
I suppose the people who made the distinction might have sincerely believed it. By the same token, though, a Daily Mail reader might sincerely believe that the photo of Lady Gaga qualifies as newsworthy, whereas a similar photo on an "adult" site would qualify as child-endangering smut.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, Kenneth Clark, the art historian was given this question as to how porn is defined, and of course, he had written a very famous book on 'The Nude', which had the interesting sub-title, 'a study in ideal form'. Anyway, in this interview, Clark had a stab at defining porn, and made the usual points about it arousing sexual feelings, whereas the nude was a contemplative art form!
However, this distinction begins to sag a bit, when you look at some Victorian paintings, which to us look semi-pornographic, yet also beautiful. See for example, the stuff by Waterhouse, as in this legendary painting of St Eulalia, an amazing picture, in terms of composition and colouring, but none the less, a picture of a semi-naked teenage girl.
Well, porn is the for the plebs; erotica is for posh people.
http://tinyurl.com/l2klvmr
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
This is a more standard Victorian nude, it's kind of deniable as porn, I suppose, just a classical study really, very contemplative for the Victorian gentleman! I always wonder if the servants averted their eyes, when they came in the room? But maybe they didn't really see it as a naked woman.
http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/one-of-finest-victorian-nude-paintings.html
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
See for example, the stuff by Waterhouse, as in this legendary painting of St Eulalia, an amazing picture, in terms of composition and colouring, but none the less, a picture of a semi-naked teenage girl.
Hmm, yeah. And if read about what was done to her before that scene took place, the painting could qualify as rather violent. Whether it's "violent porn" or "violent contemplative art" I will leave to Professor Clark!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Actually, she's supposed to be 12. It is a very beautiful painting, I sometimes look at it in the Tate, the colour of browney purple is picked up in her hair and clothes, and then at the back; plus the snow falling, and the pigeons (representing her soul, I suppose), and the Roman soldier framing the right-hand side. Awesome really.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I don't think this is a right-wing issue. Go to the Guardian, read some of the articles in Comment is Free and see what is being said. Plenty of articles criticising porn use and advocating its restriction because it is harmful to women. Yes, there are "think of the children" articles too; but they merely express the perspective that exposing children to porn damages equal rights for women.
Well, I might as well be thorough about this. Why do you think that I was saying that anti-porn is only a right-wing issue?
I can't see how you get that from my post above. I was replying to Liopleurodon, who had made some comments about the Daily Mail, which is surely right-wing?
I didn't have you in mind. However, I went back through your numerous and entertaining posts on this thread, and observed a repeated thrust noting this was driven by the Tory right wing. I don't think only right-wingers get exited about porn. Certainly Tory ones probably prefer receiving a good old-fashioned beating. The porn debate doesn't concern the political left or right hand. Feminists on the left are against it. Libertarians on the right aren't. Many parents on both left and right are against it; others, probably a bit quieter, don't mind. AFAIK Labour also support Cameron's proposed policy. The political climate is that it's a bit indecent not to support it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Fair enough. The point I was making to Liopeurodon was that Cameron and the Daily Mail combine a hostility to porn with a disregard for the 'normal' ways in which female sexuality, female bodies, and in fact, female identity, are regulated and degraded in society. I suppose this is why Cameron could shrug off comments about page 3 girls. In fact, they would probably see that critique as raving mad left-wing nonsense, wouldn't they? What's wrong with a bit of tits 'n' ass on the 'sidebar of shame'?
I suppose one could list all the ways in which various groups, such as left-wing feminists, and right wing libertarians, do or don't match up to these criteria, but 'twould be tedious.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Not all left-wing feminists are opposed to porn!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Good point. In the 90s, there was an anti-anti-porn movement amongst some feminists, for example, Lynne Segal and Linda Williams. Actually, they published some excellent analyses of porn, a bit more sophisticated than the usual 'it objectifies women' kind of stuff.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Not just the 90s. There is still a "Feminists against Censorship" group (which I think Lynne Segal might be associated with though I'm not sure)
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Good point. In the 90s, there was an anti-anti-porn movement amongst some feminists, for example, Lynne Segal and Linda Williams. Actually, they published some excellent analyses of porn, a bit more sophisticated than the usual 'it objectifies women' kind of stuff.
The academic groups and protest groups are in wild disagreement about the effects of porn. It is a contentious topic as can be seen from this article from the Guardian. Personally I believe the anti-porn campaigners such as Gail Dines more than the pro position.
What can easily be seen is that any study carried out in the 90's or before is so out of date it probably isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The type, degree, and availability of porn has exploded and massively changed only in the last few years.
quote:
What people don't realise, she says, is how much pornographic material now is violent. Rape Crisis South London carried out simple research that involved typing "rape porn" into Google and then quantified the results: 86% of sites that came up advertised videos depicting the rape of under-18s, 75% involved guns or knives, 43% showed the woman drugged, and 46% purported to be incest rape.
All but one of the top five results on Google are for mainstream porn sites that host videos – ...Some of the videos are "simulated", acted, and some of them aren't. They show actual women being actually raped...
"Rape porn", and then two clicks of the mouse, and that's what's there. It's not skulking in some dark recess of the internet, it's a dropdown box on one the most popular porn sites in the world, but my experience – of not knowing, and not really wanting to know – is not unusual. There's a collective, willed ignorance of porn.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's also notorious that everybody finds what they want to about porn. So many studies seem biased to me, either already predisposed to find it violent and harmful; or predisposed to find it mild and non-harmful.
I get tired of 'simple research', which usually amounts to lots of Googling.
What's really interesting is how you would set up a non-biased study, and what methodology you would use. It's not an easy thing to set up at all, as first, you need to sit down, as a team, and discuss the hidden prejudices of the team, and how they are to be counteracted.
Of course, then you might go on to define what porn is, and what it isn't, and then the real arguments begin! I spent some time in a gender studies group, and there are formidable obstacles for anyone wanting to study porn.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
You can't have an unbiased or remotely scientific study into such things. No chance.
Also the argument isn't really, or isn't only, about how bad porn is. It's about how bad censorship is. Authoritarian-minded people might have a much lower threshold of harm before they feel they want censorship. (Giveaway clue: the "decent people have no need to worry about this law" argument)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, agree. I think the argument is about authoritarianism, not porn.
Every night, my TV screen is filled with simulated scenes of killings, torture, violence, often macabre and ghoulish, and this is in mainstream TV thrillers. I find this amazing and puzzling - but do I want it censored? No thank you.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, agree. I think the argument is about authoritarianism, not porn.
Every night, my TV screen is filled with simulated scenes of killings, torture, violence, often macabre and ghoulish, and this is in mainstream TV thrillers. I find this amazing and puzzling - but do I want it censored? No thank you.
What if that stuff wasn't fictional simulations of such acts but recordings of real people being tortured, killed and beaten? What if the revenue from those recordings meant more and more people were being tortured, killed and beaten as a result since it is such big business?
Personally I'd want that censored.
We're not just talking about the right of the viewer to watch, think, or do what they choose. On the other end is the big business of woman and men being paid to demean, degrade and physically injure themselves, sometimes fatally (i.e. HIV infections) for money.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That's a strange 'what if' argument. Thrillers are fictional. Also, I realized a while ago, that my TV has this built-in filter - called an off switch.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Also, I realized a while ago, that my TV has this built-in filter - called an off switch.
My TV has an even better filter — I don't have one.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I always think there's an element of pseudo-argument which goes on about porn. Some people just don't like it, or find it disgusting, or whatever. And some of them think it should either be illegal, or they like Cameron's 'default-on' idea.
Well, that's fair enough. My own view is that I don't like censorship. I remember the trial of 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' and it was kind of embarrassing that this great novelist (then dead, of course) was subject to this farcical trial, including the prosecutor asking the jury if they would allow their wives or servants to read it.
Christianity has helped to produce porn, for God's sake, because of its dislike of sex and the human body. Repression leads to derepression.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally quoted by Hawk:
quote:
What people don't realise, she says, is how much pornographic material now is violent. Rape Crisis South London carried out simple research that involved typing "rape porn" into Google and then quantified the results: 86% of sites that came up advertised videos depicting the rape of under-18s,
And right there, I'm going to call bullshit. 86% of sites that can be found through a simple Google search are showing illegal pornographic images of minors? Yeah right. Police forces the world over have whole departments devoted to finding and shutting dowm child pornography rings, and this person is trying to tell us that if they just did a Google search they'd find thousands? That's not even slightly credible.
quote:
quote:
75% involved guns or knives, 43% showed the woman drugged, and 46% purported to be incest rape.
That might be what they claim to be, but it doesn't mean they are. Unless Lord of the Rings means Elijah Wood really is a sword-wielding, ring-bearing hobbit.
quote:
quote:
All but one of the top five results on Google are for mainstream porn sites that host videos – ...Some of the videos are "simulated", acted, and some of them aren't. They show actual women being actually raped...
Again, I am highly dubious. For a start, there is a whole subindustry called "reality porn" that claims to show "normal" people in various pornographic situations, but it's all just as scripted and acted as any of the rest of the industry. Secondly, if they were genuine rapes and the videos are so easily available why are they not being used to prosecute the offenders? Surely the police could just log on, save a copy of the latest videos then pop out and arrest the men concerned?
I do not find this quoted account credible in the slightest.
[ 25. July 2013, 15:15: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What if that stuff wasn't fictional simulations of such acts but recordings of real people being tortured, killed and beaten? What if the revenue from those recordings meant more and more people were being tortured, killed and beaten as a result since it is such big business?
Personally I'd want that censored.
...
Given that all those acts are already illegal, isn't censoring them just closing the barn door after the horse kicks you to death?
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's a strange 'what if' argument. Thrillers are fictional. Also, I realized a while ago, that my TV has this built-in filter - called an off switch.
I think you probably just misunderstand my 'what if'. I was asking what if the TV violence you claim to abhor was actually the same thing as pornography rather than apples and oranges. If it was the same then it would be real people doing real things. Since TV violence is not the same, and only fiction, then your argument about personal choice to watch or not watch fiction isn't applicable.
The anti-authoritarian argument is blinkered and too narrow for the question IMO. Using it in this situation ignores the suffering of others to stand on the principle of one's own freedom to enjoy the products of that suffering. Hardly a moral argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally quoted by Hawk:
quote:
What people don't realise, she says, is how much pornographic material now is violent. Rape Crisis South London carried out simple research that involved typing "rape porn" into Google and then quantified the results: 86% of sites that came up advertised videos depicting the rape of under-18s,
And right there, I'm going to call bullshit. 86% of sites that can be found through a simple Google search are showing illegal pornographic images of minors? Yeah right. Police forces the world over have whole departments devoted to finding and shutting dowm child pornography rings, and this person is trying to tell us that if they just did a Google search they'd find thousands? That's not even slightly credible.
That's not what it said. It says that's what's advertised. As you go on to say, it's largely (I'd like to believe solely, but its hard to tell for sure) simulated. It may be illegal if they are really under 18 or really being raped, but if its a young-looking 19 year old dressed in school clothes so they look like children its perfectly legal. And very profitable.
The argument being made in the article isn't that these are real videos and that makes them bad. It's that they are propogating and stimulating a dangerous fantasy.
The evidence that this prevelence of rape fantasy actually incites, influences, or causes rape is questionable though. There is a correlation perhaps but not causation. I don't think this is the reason to oppose pornography though. For me, pornography is primarily a bad thing because of its appalling working practices and the effects it has on the performers rather than the influence it has on the viewer.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What if that stuff wasn't fictional simulations of such acts but recordings of real people being tortured, killed and beaten? What if the revenue from those recordings meant more and more people were being tortured, killed and beaten as a result since it is such big business?
Personally I'd want that censored.
...
Given that all those acts are already illegal, isn't censoring them just closing the barn door after the horse kicks you to death?
Bringing the analogy back to porn, the acts are taking place in a jurisdiction where they are legal, and it would be impossible to enforce any ban. But censoring would decrease the profit of the companies carrying out the acts and hopefully discourage the continuation of their business financially. It's not perfect but it's the best that can be done.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
One thing I will say for porn today, compared with 20 years ago, is that it has become diversity affirmative!
Whereas the old magazine porn involved a lot of similar looking actors, today you can find a huge spread of stuff - fat porn, hairy porn, old porn, disabled porn, gay porn, lesbian porn, straight female porn, small dick porn, big dick porn, smoking porn, blah blah blah.
I guess this is the result of equal opportunities or something.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I am really out of touch with developments in feminism today. Anyway, is this a fair assessment of currents view of porn in feminism?
1. Those feminists who see porn as objectifying and degrading women and want it banned.
2. Liberals, who don't like porn, but see it as a free speech issue.
3. Pro-sex feminists who want a pornography made by women for women, and see it as potentially liberating of female sexuality.
I guess there are many overlaps here and fusions, but any corrections gratefully accepted.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One thing I will say for porn today, compared with 20 years ago, is that it has become diversity affirmative!
Whereas the old magazine porn involved a lot of similar looking actors, today you can find a huge spread of stuff - fat porn, hairy porn, old porn, disabled porn, gay porn, lesbian porn, straight female porn, small dick porn, big dick porn, smoking porn, blah blah blah.
I guess this is the result of equal opportunities or something.
Or the ability of Internet content providers to gauge demand and supply accordingly.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Years later, I got into reading some of the anti-porn Second Wave feminists like Dworkin and Robin Morgan. One of the themes I picked up was that the feminist anti-pornography movement emerged in large part as a reaction to allegedly misogynistic tendencies on the New Left, ie. guys using "free love" rhetoric as a cover for sexual harassment and exploitation. This probably accounted at least in part for the willingness of some feminists to ally with the right on pornography, since, from their perspective, the left was no better, and probably worse.
I think what changed that was that most feminists were appalled once they realized that for the religious Right, banning pornography went hand-in-glove with criminalizing gay sex, restricting access to birth control, and overturning Roe v. Wade.
For me, although I realize that those things are social evils to one extent or another, I balk at the idea that we have to enlist the repressive force of the government to stop them. It doesn't seem to have been very successful in doing so in the past, and there tends to be a lot of collateral damage which doesn't serve the cause of justice.
Besides which, forcing people to behave like Christians doesn't make them Christian.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
If anyone is worried aboutupsetting images on-line then go to YouTube (which doesn't carry prOn) and search for "Spain Train crash". If you really want to you can then see the moments in which dozens of people lost their lives.
Anything except "snuff" is pretty insignificant by comparison. YMMV, but I'd love to know why.
Posted by David Matthias (# 14948) on
:
I like the concept of you have to opt in, rather than opt out.
I think that makes it more proactive to access.
If people want it, then it is not censored. But neither can your 14 year old son access free simulated rape within 10 seconds of opening a web browser. And by simulated rape I am not showing a prudish attitude to porn, I mean porn that actually deliberately simulates the forceful rape of women.
If that stuff gets hidden behind some sort of security cordon I don't see the problem. The fact it is currently freely available with no cost and no age restriction is just crazy.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am really out of touch with developments in feminism today. Anyway, is this a fair assessment of currents view of porn in feminism?
1. Those feminists who see porn as objectifying and degrading women and want it banned.
2. Liberals, who don't like porn, but see it as a free speech issue.
3. Pro-sex feminists who want a pornography made by women for women, and see it as potentially liberating of female sexuality.
I guess there are many overlaps here and fusions, but any corrections gratefully accepted.
I would say that's a pretty accurate summary. The first group are loud but relatively rare - radical second-wave feminism has a lot of issues with transphobia so it has really fallen out of favour in most feminist circles. I would hesitantly put myself in the second group, but my objection to the proposals are more about the double standards (re Page 3 etc, which I object to rather more because it's seen as harmless) and also the fact that it won't work.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Hawk wrote:
quote:
What if that stuff wasn't fictional simulations of such acts but recordings of real people being tortured, killed and beaten? What if the revenue from those recordings meant more and more people were being tortured, killed and beaten as a result since it is such big business?
Personally I'd want that censored.
In fact, there is currently a case in Canada in which the owner of a shock-website has been charged with hosting a real video of a man being dismemebered, made by the alleged killer himself.
Thing is, though, the only law the authorities could find to charge him under was some rarely used, creaky old statute about "corrupting morals".
All this has led to arguments about just how a gore website like that differs from a tabloid paper which splashes stuff like this on the front page. Or, for that matter, high-minded war photographers who earnestly endeavour to "bring the reality of war home to our readers".
[ 25. July 2013, 19:52: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am really out of touch with developments in feminism today. Anyway, is this a fair assessment of currents view of porn in feminism?
1. Those feminists who see porn as objectifying and degrading women and want it banned.
2. Liberals, who don't like porn, but see it as a free speech issue.
3. Pro-sex feminists who want a pornography made by women for women, and see it as potentially liberating of female sexuality.
I guess there are many overlaps here and fusions, but any corrections gratefully accepted.
I would say that's a pretty accurate summary. The first group are loud but relatively rare - radical second-wave feminism has a lot of issues with transphobia so it has really fallen out of favour in most feminist circles. I would hesitantly put myself in the second group, but my objection to the proposals are more about the double standards (re Page 3 etc, which I object to rather more because it's seen as harmless) and also the fact that it won't work.
Thank you for that. Would you really say that group 1 are rare? My impression 20 years ago, were that in the US, they were numerous, and 2 and 3 were smaller; in fact, group 3 were tiny in number.
But I think someone has already mentioned that possibly in the US group 1 began to shrink, once feminists appreciated fully that the religious Right not only wanted to ban porn, but also abortion and contraception, and wanted 'male headship' and so on. You might end up with no porn, but also with patriarchy triple strength espresso.
[ 25. July 2013, 20:09: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am really out of touch with developments in feminism today. Anyway, is this a fair assessment of currents view of porn in feminism?
1. Those feminists who see porn as objectifying and degrading women and want it banned.
2. Liberals, who don't like porn, but see it as a free speech issue.
3. Pro-sex feminists who want a pornography made by women for women, and see it as potentially liberating of female sexuality.
I guess there are many overlaps here and fusions, but any corrections gratefully accepted.
I would say that's a pretty accurate summary. The first group are loud but relatively rare - radical second-wave feminism has a lot of issues with transphobia so it has really fallen out of favour in most feminist circles. I would hesitantly put myself in the second group, but my objection to the proposals are more about the double standards (re Page 3 etc, which I object to rather more because it's seen as harmless) and also the fact that it won't work.
Thank you for that. Would you really say that group 1 are rare? My impression 20 years ago, were that in the US, they were numerous, and 2 and 3 were smaller; in fact, group 3 were tiny in number.
But I think someone has already mentioned that possibly in the US group 1 began to shrink, once feminists appreciated fully that the religious Right not only wanted to ban porn, but also abortion and contraception, and wanted 'male headship' and so on. You might end up with no porn, but also with patriarchy triple strength espresso.
Since intersectional feminism (feminism which recognises interlocking spheres of oppression based on gender, race, sexuality, class etc rather than only patriarchal oppression) has grown, group 1 has really shrunk - they are very anti-intersectionality. They're loud, but to be honest porn isn't on the radar much even for them, it's gender and LGBTQ issues. Porn has been an issue within feminism because of issues surrounding gay porn, and the LGBTQ community's links to the BDSM community, but protection of porn actors and other sex industry workers is the main isssue rather than porn itself being harmful to women.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was chatting with my wife about this, and she got very angry, and said that she thought that page 3 girls and the Daily Mail sleaze was worse than porn, as it normalized the regulation of female sexuality and female bodies. In other words, the fact that Cameron said, 'oh, this stuff is OK', is part of the problem.
This amused me slightly. I imagined a 'Mums for Porn' campaign with fliers and paraphernalia, attempting to liberate porn and censor The Sun and the Daily Mail!
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
I imagined a 'Mums for Porn' campaign
The Daily Mail is already on the case!
(at your own risk)
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What if that stuff wasn't fictional simulations of such acts but recordings of real people being tortured, killed and beaten?
... the acts are taking place in a jurisdiction where they are legal ...
Wow. Either you're claiming that assault and murder are legal in some jurisdiction, or the answer to your "what if" is "it ain't".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Cameron - tough on masturbation, tough on the causes of masturbation.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What if that stuff wasn't fictional simulations of such acts but recordings of real people being tortured, killed and beaten?
... the acts are taking place in a jurisdiction where they are legal ...
Wow. Either you're claiming that assault and murder are legal in some jurisdiction, or the answer to your "what if" is "it ain't".
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What if that stuff wasn't fictional simulations of such acts but recordings of real people being tortured, killed and beaten?
... the acts are taking place in a jurisdiction where they are legal ...
Wow. Either you're claiming that assault and murder are legal in some jurisdiction, or the answer to your "what if" is "it ain't".
I'm really not thick, but like Soror Magna, I don't know what you're trying to say.
The participants in making porn are as consenting as actors making a thriller (subject to the whole issue as to whether consenting to sex work is ever true consent)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
And the issue of whether consenting to anything is true consent. I don't think that we know the answer to that.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And the issue of whether consenting to anything is true consent. I don't think that we know the answer to that.
And the issue of whether one can consent to torture.
In the UK we know someone cannot, as evidenced by R v Brown
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
The participants in making porn are as consenting as actors making a thriller
Consent is not the issue. Employees may consent to work in harmful, unhealthy work, but that is no excuse for the employer. The Victorian social reformers cried out against workplaces where women and men were working in filthy, degrading, harmful conditions. The workers all consented to these conditions by entering the workplace, and taking the wages offered. That was no excuse.
From Gail Dines' blog:
quote:
The Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation, a non-profit organization that serves the sex industry, states that women in pornography are at risk for Chlamydia and gonorrhea of the throat and/or eye/and or anus, hepatitis B, and vaginal and anal tears.
I don't think actors making a thriller are at risk of that on a daily basis. Is this the kind of work where getting an employee to sign their consent is enough for us all to shrug and turn a blind eye? In employment law there is a long history of employee consent being no excuse for employee abuse. Yet in the porn industry this policy is ignored routinely.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
California’s Condoms in Porn Bill
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I have long argued that the porn industry should be unionized, with high rates of pay, excellent working conditions, and free and frequent health checks, all paid for by the employer.
To suggest that it should be banned, reminds me of Prohibition - it will just go underground, and will be run by the gangsters. Then pay rates will plummet, working conditions will be abysmal, and health checks non-existent.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Then pay rates will plummet, working conditions will be abysmal, and health checks non-existent.
So no change then.
I don't think anyone's campaigning for outright prohibition on all porn though. Its too big a market to stop altogether. People will, for better or worse, always want to pay for images of sex. It can be made cleaner, safer, and less degrading though. The Victorian social reformers didn't ban people from running mines or factories. They just passed strict laws to ensure that doing so didn't exploit, degrade, or harm their workers.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have long argued that the porn industry should be unionized, with high rates of pay, excellent working conditions, and free and frequent health checks, all paid for by the employer.
This will never happen while people are paying for and deriving pleasure from debasing those employees though. You can't spend all day degrading someone, yelling abuse at them, slapping them and treating them as sub-human, and then care about their worker's rights as well.
The only way to imporve conditions in the porn industry is financial sanctions on performing degrading acts through censorship of the market for them. If the only legal market is for clean, safe porn rather than derogatory, abusive porn, then it will be far more likely that anyone cares about the rights of the performers.
This obviously involves making value judgements about what constitutes degrading material. Most posters here I guess would refuse to make such judgements, or deny that they could be made. I think they can and should be made.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But actors also spend a lot of time doing violent and abusive things to each other. Does that mean that they are not professionals, who deserve professional treatment?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Then pay rates will plummet, working conditions will be abysmal, and health checks non-existent.
So no change then.
I don't think anyone's campaigning for outright prohibition on all porn though. Its too big a market to stop altogether. People will, for better or worse, always want to pay for images of sex. It can be made cleaner, safer, and less degrading though. The Victorian social reformers didn't ban people from running mines or factories. They just passed strict laws to ensure that doing so didn't exploit, degrade, or harm their workers.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have long argued that the porn industry should be unionized, with high rates of pay, excellent working conditions, and free and frequent health checks, all paid for by the employer.
This will never happen while people are paying for and deriving pleasure from debasing those employees though. You can't spend all day degrading someone, yelling abuse at them, slapping them and treating them as sub-human, and then care about their worker's rights as well.
I can't believe that I'm actually defending this stuff, but Hawk, you do realize that those people are actors, don't you? What people see when they look at porn is primarily performance. It's real only in the sense that the sexual acts are not being faked.
Which, of course, is part of the problem. Porn presents an absurdly unrealistic picture of what sex is like, and raises expectations that in most cases can't be met by normal people. That, and the way that it turns us into voyeurs who prefer watching others having sex to real intimacy with another person, is the real tragedy here : an endless circle of desire with no real satisfaction.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Although some people argue that therefore porn is a perfect reflection and symbol of capitalism itself - i.e. that it presents various images of desire, in a commodity form, which cannot really be satisfied; or if they are, we are immediately plunged into a new gnawing sense of dissatisfaction.
In other words, we sit in a sort of existential void, peering at these bright new toys, which a deranged capitalism shows to us in the shop window, and yet which deep in our hearts, we know are unreal and shadowy. What should we do, we have murdered God?
'What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?'
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Hawk wrote:
quote:
I don't think actors making a thriller are at risk of that on a daily basis. Is this the kind of work where getting an employee to sign their consent is enough for us all to shrug and turn a blind eye?
List Of Film Accidents
I haven't gone through the whole list, and admittedly its a pretty tiny fraction of the films that have been produced in the 90 plus years covered.
Nevertheless, even some of our biggest crowd pleasers have listings for "seriously injured" "permanent brain damage", "left a parapalegic", and the ultimate notch on the bedpost: "killed".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm beginning to think that Hawk thinks it's all real, and that porn actors are not really actors, so that 'middle-aged housewife porn' actually involves middle-aged housewives.
[ 26. July 2013, 16:59: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Um, I'm pretty amazed I'm discussing this too, but there's a supply and ways to market home-made porn - getting money for it, apparently, is more difficult.
I'm not googling further than asking the question, but I thought I'd overheard conversations about what was available along those lines from the teenage boys I usually work with (I do work with disaffected and dysfunctional kids usually) and putting "homemade porn" into google gets a lot of discussion on how to sell it and that there's so much available free that it's difficult.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm beginning to think that Hawk thinks it's all real, and that porn actors are not really actors, so that 'middle-aged housewife porn' actually involves middle-aged housewives.
Some of it does. But generally those video are the ones that the housewives have filmed and uploaded themselves - the real amateur stuff.
An analysis of exactly who is exploiting whom in such cases would be very interesting to read...
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I found this Radio 4 programme interesting. It is presented by a feminist who dispproves of porn; she asked whether porn should be censored on the basis that it causes harm.
Her verdict? Not proven.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Let's just make the K a theocracy, so that agreement can be found in simplistic answers to complex questions. Then we'll have total agreement on "I know it when I see it"
Bloody Mary proved the value of that.
Now, how do we determine WHICH theocracy will be in the ascendant? Will the BHA be allowed equal access with the Muslims, the Hindus and all the various permutations of Christian sects/denoms.
How do you determine the winner?
And what happens to the losers? Do they just submit placidly or do they demand their right to be heard?
Hey, come on, Mudfrog! You appear to know the answer. Is the SA any safer than the BHA at determining the standard which everyone else will follow rigorously?
I happen to think that the adulation of bankers and venture capitalists is pornographic, as well as unbiblical.
I'm not sure about the public discussion of the sex lives of the Royal Family, particularly the fetish for tampons.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Going back to page 1:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think the main motivation is against child pornography. The problem is that most accessors of porn seem to want their 'models' to look ever younger and it is sometimes (so I believe) difficult to ascertain whether some models just look young or are actually underage.
You don't search for 'child porn' through google, and any child porn sites are hidden away from google's all-seeing eye.
This is just a case of Cameron, being ineffectual in all other areas of politics (you know, the ones that actually matter), trying to sound like he's doing something.
But a 'porn block' won't work. Either it'll be too draconian, and sweep up an untold number of porn-free websites along with it, along with sites-with-porn-but-not-porn-sites, or it'll be too lax and therefore useless. Hopefully the experts he's said he'll now consult with (as opposed to talking to them first, duh) will tell him it simply can't work. (my bold)
Like the ship?
It seems the government's porn wall will reach far beyong porn and terrorist websites, but also include web forums. https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/sleepwalking-into-censorship
Plus there's the catch all of "Esoteric material" which is code for "anything else we hadn't thought of."
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm beginning to think that Hawk thinks it's all real, and that porn actors are not really actors, so that 'middle-aged housewife porn' actually involves middle-aged housewives.
Some of it does. But generally those video are the ones that the housewives have filmed and uploaded themselves - the real amateur stuff.
An analysis of exactly who is exploiting whom in such cases would be very interesting to read...
More relevantly, does the proposed law apply to sending a sexy pic or video to your spouse?
Interestingly, the largest current threat to the professional porn industry seems to be not government regulation or censorship, but the flooding of the market by free content from enthusiastic amateurs. When there's a camera in everything you own, the barriers to production are quite low. Ironically this proposed law would probably be a boon to professional pornographers since commercial enterprises usually find it easier to work around regulatory barriers than hobbyists.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
On 'esoteric content', I can't remember if I've mentioned that a friend of mine has a blog, which is mainly about pagan ideas, and it is blocked by some filters.
I'm curious to know who has decided that pagan ideas should be censored. But it shows the obvious danger of mission creep, as can be seen with anti-terror legislation, which was applied to an 80 year old at the Labour Party Conference. He had committed the grievance offence of shouting 'nonsense' at Jack Straw.
Also, ironically, he was a refugee from Nazi Germany in the 30s.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
1. Those feminists who see porn as objectifying and degrading women and want it banned.
I would say that's a pretty accurate summary. The first group are loud but relatively rare - radical second-wave feminism has a lot of issues with transphobia so it has really fallen out of favour in most feminist circles.
My impression from skimming the Guardian Comments articles over the past year or so is that feminist opposition to porn is becoming more common again. Unlike David Cameron, it doesn't miraculously exempt Page Three, and does widen out to include more 'acceptable' depictions of sexualised female bodies. Whether it goes so far as legal banning is another matter.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I think many feminists don't isolate porn as demeaning to women; they would argue that there is a whole industrial complex which regulates and degrades female bodies, female sexuality and female identity - it includes the fashion industry, the various newspapers which objectify women's bodies, cinema and TV, which often treat them as mutilated bodies, and so on.
For example, there is much concern today about the anxiety shown by young girls about their appearance, their attractiveness, their diet, clothes, sexuality and so on.
It seems unlikely that all of this can be dealt with by banning stuff. Rather, one must identify it, object to it, educate about it, debate about it, and make a huge fuss about it.
But of course, politicians are not interested in such a project, as they help to maintain this system.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The Woman's Hour interview with David Cameron was challenging this, and referring to a Fourth Wave of Feminism.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, one of the tests is to use the word 'patriarchy', or if you want to be more explicit, 'the patriarchal oppression of women'. Watch the politicians' eyes glaze over, and their attention wander, as most of them don't want to go there, with a few honourable exceptions.
That's why Cameron immediately started to exempt various stuff such as page 3, soft porn, and the Daily Mail 'sidebar of shame'.
Yet as I said, ages ago, well, several days, it's possible that they are worse for women than porn, as they are the tip of a huge iceberg of the demeaning/degradation of women.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Apologies if I've missed a reference, but I haven't seen anyone mention that Australia had this debate ticking along for 5 or 6 years.
Because that's how long it was our government's policy to implement an ISP filter system that would block really bad websites. NB This is a left wing government.
And they finally shelved the idea because it was deeply unpopular with anyone who had a clue about the Internet, including many of the ISPs that were supposed to implement it. Not only was it going to be an added expense, but it slowed the Internet down and fundamentally it achieved nothing.
The biggest nail in the coffin, though, was when a trial version of the secret blacklist was leaked. Of course, the blacklist HAS to be secret because otherwise you are providing free publicity to child porn and the like.
Unfortunately, the blacklist included such horribly offensive things as a small dental surgery in Queensland.
The most frustrating thing about the debate was that the Minister driving the idea would immediately paint anyone who opposed his plan as supporting child porn. Which is just bullshit. Child porn is already illegal. The opposition was driven by the sheer impracticality of the idea.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Quetzalcoatl wrote:
quote:
I'm curious to know who has decided that pagan ideas should be censored. But it shows the obvious danger of mission creep, as can be seen with anti-terror legislation, which was applied to an 80 year old at the Labour Party Conference.
When the PMRC(Tipper Gore's outfit) released their categories for labeling offensive songs back in the 80s, one of the caregories listed was "occult". Obviously, the "concerned parents" were meant to understand this as Ozzy Osbourne and whatnot, but a quick trip to any conservative Christian bookstore would reveal just how loosey-goosey the concept is.
And it's funny now to see Twisted Sister's We're Not Gonna Take It listed as "Violent" on the PMRC list. The slapstick carnage in the video is on about the level of The Three Stooges.
And now for another delightful Pond interlude...
In the USA, the term "occult", used politially, is obviously a dog-whistle to the Religious Right, and conjures up images of Ouija Boards, D&D, and heavy metal albums. Does "Esoteric" as used in the UK, reference the same sorta menu of concerns? Or are the fearful over there more worked up about upper-level Rosicrucianism and Kabbalistic formulations?
[ 27. July 2013, 17:00: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Orfeo wrote:
quote:
The most frustrating thing about the debate was that the Minister driving the idea would immediately paint anyone who opposed his plan as supporting child porn.
That's interesting. Because Vic Toews, Canada's Minister Of Public Safety(yeah I know; Robespierre's old job title), made made pretty much identical remarks when defending similar legislation proposed by his Conservative government.
This hardnosed stance came back to bite the government in the bottom a few months later, when Tom Flanagan, a leading Conservative ideologue and former advisor to the Prime Minister, expressed fairly heterodox opinions on child pornography. The Safety Minister's previous remarks certainly enjoyed a second-round of mocking publicity.
[ 27. July 2013, 17:15: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm beginning to think that Hawk thinks it's all real, and that porn actors are not really actors,
I believe it because it's true. They are really having sex, not pretending. They are really doing everything they are doing, not simulating it. The situations and characters are fake but everything else is really happening. The porn industry has convinced everyone to call their employees actresses rather than sex workers as a propaganda tool and most people have fallen for this hook, line and sinker.
In terms of what its really like to work in the industry rather than the glamorous myth the industry likes to portray here is an interview with two ex-performers. Its quite shocking in places but important to listen to.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On 'esoteric content', I can't remember if I've mentioned that a friend of mine has a blog, which is mainly about pagan ideas, and it is blocked by some filters.
I'm curious to know who has decided that pagan ideas should be censored. But it shows the obvious danger of mission creep
Filters can be set to block anything the user wants to block. Mine has the option of blocking occult websites, among many other categories. I don't bother doing so but the technology is available. Just because its available doesn't mean it will be used though.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
In terms of what its really like to work in the industry rather than the glamorous myth the industry likes to portray here is an interview with two ex-performers. Its quite shocking in places but important to listen to.
Interesting interview, from what I've listened to so far.
But let's be honest here. If it was a male porn star recounting his bad experiences in the biz, he would not likely be getting much sympathy from anyone, even if he came from a broken home and had lived in mental hosptials. The general attitude would be "Oh well, if he didn't like getting paid to have sex, why didn't he go do something else?"
And I couldn't help but notice that once again, someone who(from what I can understand) entered the porn industry as an adult is referred to as a "young girl".
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
1. Those feminists who see porn as objectifying and degrading women and want it banned.
I would say that's a pretty accurate summary. The first group are loud but relatively rare - radical second-wave feminism has a lot of issues with transphobia so it has really fallen out of favour in most feminist circles.
My impression from skimming the Guardian Comments articles over the past year or so is that feminist opposition to porn is becoming more common again. Unlike David Cameron, it doesn't miraculously exempt Page Three, and does widen out to include more 'acceptable' depictions of sexualised female bodies. Whether it goes so far as legal banning is another matter.
I wouldn't consider the Guardian Comments section to be a hotbed of actual feminism (pop culture 'feminism' like Caitlin Moran yes, but not actual informed feminism). Feminist opposition to the sexual exploitation and objectification of women, yes, but objection to advertising and lads' mags is more of an issue than porn IME. With porn, the entire purpose is getting off. What I and other feminists object to is the objectification of women in areas where people don't want to get off, areas like journalism.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Heh. Bit off topic, but I've been checking out Shelley Lubben's Pink Cross website. Their Recent Articles section includes the following...
quote:
The Pornography Pandemic - A Message for Christians
quote:
The Pornography Pandemic - A Message to Catholics
Looks like they got their own Dead Horses forum!
EDIT: Contrary to what I implied above, the Pink Cross blog contains testimonials from male porn stars. I also notice that they supported the Measure B mandatory condom-law in LA.
[ 27. July 2013, 18:37: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
re Esoteric Material. If you read the link that Balaam posted, there is a comment that points out that this probably is an import of Orange's French filtering operations, which would cover - quote:
Sects: Websites on universally acknowledged sects. Within this category URLs are included on organizations that promote directly or indirectly: (i) group, animal or individual injuries, (ii) esoteric practices, (iii) content that sets a bad example for young children: that teaches or encourages children to perform harmful acts or imitate dangerous behaviour, (iv) content that creates feelings of fear, intimidation, horror, or psychological terror, (v) Incitement or depiction of harm against any individual or group based on gender, sexual orientation, ethnic, religious or national identity.
To be honest it's so vague it could cover anything.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Honest Ron:
Thanks. The definition of sects covers all the subcategories listed, but Esoteric as a subcategory remains undefined. I guess I'll just concur with you and Balaam that it means something like "Okay, they're not telling you to kill animals or attack minorities, but darn it, we all know they're bloody weird, so let's give them their own category anyway."
[ 27. July 2013, 19:40: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think some heavy metal albums used to have lurid 'Parental Advisory Warning' labels on them, didn't they? I suppose they were worried about lyrics about skulls and masturbation and bondage. My memory is that the warning labels attracted kids, and were like a badge of honour. Kids, eh?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
I think some heavy metal albums used to have lurid 'Parental Advisory Warning' labels on them, didn't they?
Yep.
quote:
My memory is that the warning labels attracted kids, and were like a badge of honour.
That may very well be true. Though since the recording industry opposed labelling, we can probably surmise that they, at least, thought the labels would take a bite out of their profits, notwithstanding the appeal of the forbidden.
Anyway, it seems there is controversy around the company that runs the filter praised by Cameron.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Surely, Mr Cameron will welcome Chinese involvement in filtering systems - after all, they have long experience in blocking the internet. Who better to block our view of it?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Just noticed that Huawei (the company which runs TalkTalk's filter system), has a blacklist of 65 million websites. Gordon Bennett, can I just have a quick look at it?
Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on
:
I just believe censorship is bad in principle. Sorry if that makes me a bad person. Allow government to start censoring stuff and there's no end to it. They begin with something many agree with, and then go on from there, until you end up with stuff being censored that the government finds inconvenient, or that some random minority finds distasteful.
People with children really ought to be making their own arrangements. This is the equivalent of expecting the government to send a man round to everyone's house to check that the pills and sharp knives are all kept on high shelves.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes. Or it's like banning cars, so that kids can cross the road safely. Well, yes, that would work.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Cars are possibly not the best analogy. There are other reasons: pollution, overuse of resources, traffic problems, for banning cars over and above the risk to pedestrians.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
... This is the equivalent of expecting the government to send a man round to everyone's house to check that the pills and sharp knives are all kept on high shelves.
Actually, it's worse: it's the equivalent of the government banning the purchase of knives and pills, unless we have asked for and been given permission to buy them.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Curiosity
There are other reasons for banning porn, apart from pearl clutching, and 'oh, only think of the children', aren't there? For example, to protect the porn actors; because porn is immoral; because public sex is icky; because gays have infiltrated it, and gays are icky; because it disgusts me; because it might get a few votes; because secretly, it excites me, which is awful, etc.
[ 28. July 2013, 13:35: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
In theory, this isn't about banning porn, but banning violent porn portraying illegal acts, specifically child pornography and rape, isn't it? Because we need to think of the children.
I guess it's a knee-jerk reaction from the Government following a couple of recent high profile cases, the murders of Tia Sharp and April Jones, where the perpetrators, Stuart Hazell and Mark Bridger, are known to have accessed violent porn before committing the murders. Which is being extended to all porn because of the above reasons.
The problem that the feminists are highlighting, the objectification of women, particularly by tabloid newspapers and advertising isn't going to be touched by this ban.
It's awfully reminiscent of the Dangerous Dogs Act.
(How about that for a better analogy )
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Not bad.
One thing I've noticed about opponents of porn is their talent for goal-post-moving.
Only think of the children! (Pearl-clutching).
But it's disgusting also.
But think of the poor porn actors!
It degrades women.
I secretly like it.
It's full of gays and lesbians, who are icky.
It will make God angry, and then there will be more earthquakes.
Etc.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
So what are the issues that need to be tackled?
The ISPs pledged last month to block the harmful images and CEOP will become part of the NCA from October, which is being plugged as progress, although the figures of 50,000 known abusers and 192 arrests that have been bandied about in the last few days have concerned many.
Parents inability to set up their household computers to prevent their children accessing any sites on the internet?
I'm working with a family with a teenager who spends 18 hours a day unsupervised and unchecked on the internet. We have seriously suggested that the computer be moved to a family room and an administrator account set up, with the teenager only having a supervised sub-account. This would allow parental controls on internet access and time spent on the internet. However, the parents don't have the knowledge to set this up, and I suspect would hand the administrator password over to the teenager the minute there was a problem. Which would give him even more control over the situation than he has currently.
So perhaps what needs to be in place is support for parents to help them take control of computers and access to the internet of their children?
Smart phones being put into the hands of children without any controls in place?
So maybe what needs to be in place is a discussion as to whether children need smart phones and/or the ability to control accounts of children on smart phones - by limiting what can be accessed by the parents who pay for the accounts.
Support for people who are sex trafficked or in poverty so that they don't get forced into working for the porn industry? Not sure how you're going to tackle that poverty issue in the UK currently. Porn you're not going to ban, not when there's so much home-made free stuff on the internet and the evidence to prove the harm of porn is difficult to find.
An unworkable internet ban seems to be going the wrong way about dealing with this
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Surely that all requires too much hard thinking for many politicians? They are after quick sound-bites, which will get them a big headline in the tabloids, and hopefully a few votes.
Maybe not even that, since Labour will probably come scuttling after the Tories. In fact, I'm amazed Blair didn't try this, it's classic nanny state politics.
I suppose it's also a consequence of the surveillance state, since it seems that the big internet companies already monitor the web-sites we use, as maybe GCHQ and PRISM do. Violence - bad; terrorism - bad; porn - bad; eating disorders - bad; evading computer blocks - bad; esoteric - bad; gays - bad; lesbians - bad. Have a nice day.
[ 28. July 2013, 15:28: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
In theory, this isn't about banning porn, but banning violent porn portraying illegal acts, specifically child pornography and rape, isn't it? Because we need to think of the children.
Which are already illegal.
So what in effect the government are saying is that they are going to make it illegal to access things on your computer which are already illegal to access on your computer.
Which is a pointless exercise,
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Quetzlcoatl(referring to the opinions of porn opponents) wrote...
quote:
I secretly like it.
I did once read a critique of porn from a conservative Christian, who wrote something to the effect of "Look, I'm not saying I'm morally better than anyone else, in fact, one of the reasons I'm against this stuff is because I recognize my own capacity for sin."
Which, I suppose, is pretty much in line with what a Christian SHOULD be saying, going by Christ's numerous injunctions against self-righteousness. However, it also opens you up to the retort: "See? The only reason you want to censor porn is because you can't control yourself, and expect the government to do it for you."
quote:
But think of the poor porn actors!
That for me is the most compelling argument against porn: the direct effect on the people who are involved in making it. If my sister or daugher were doing porn, I'd probably consider it a bad thing. And a unionized industry and safety standards probably wouldn't make much difference to me.
But I admit my reasoning there has a tinge of sexism about it, since(as I suggested earlier about porn opponents in general) I don't think I'd be nearly as upset if it were a male relative doing it.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... So perhaps what needs to be in place is support for parents to help them take control of computers and access to the internet of their children? ...
There is. It's called "customer support". The less polite or more frustrated use RTFM.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Stetson wrote:
That for me is the most compelling argument against porn: the direct effect on the people who are involved in making it. If my sister or daugher were doing porn, I'd probably consider it a bad thing. And a unionized industry and safety standards probably wouldn't make much difference to me. But I admit my reasoning there has a tinge of sexism about it, since(as I suggested earlier about porn opponents in general) I don't think I'd be nearly as upset if it were a male relative doing it.
But the argument is whether we should ban bad things, isn't it?
It's a very slippery pig argument, I suppose. We do ban bad things, e.g. heroin (that works really well); murder; slavery; and so on.
When you come to sexuality, it all becomes very relativistic, I suppose. Sodomy used to be a capital offence in the UK, and probably other countries. Menstruation used to be considered scandalous; ditto masturbation. Lady Chatterley's Lover was prosecuted at the Old Bailey for obscenity - can you believe it? Mary Whitehouse complained about Pinky and Perky.
I guess it's just really hard to draw boundaries, but do we really need the government to do it for us?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Soror Magna, The problem with that is that too many people lack in confidence with computers and would not be spending their leisure time debating on an internet bulletin board.
Current teenagers can often get away with a lot on computers because their parents are scared of the internet and don't know how to handle it, don't know what to block, or how to override the net nanny when it's too draconian, so end up doing without, wouldn't know how to check for browsing history, hate having to use computers in work and only cope with the minimum.
RTFM assumes a certain amount of base knowledge.
edited to refer to the poster I was answering
[ 28. July 2013, 16:10: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
I guess it's just really hard to draw boundaries, but do we really need the government to do it for us?
Yeah, I guess I was thinking of my own personal porn consumpation, which is pretty much non-existent now, since I live in a place where any films or magazines above softcore are illegal, and I do all my internet stuff at cafes.
But if I were in a more liberal jurisdiction, I might look at more porn, but always with the nagging feeling that such consuption violates the Golden Rule.
And I agree. "I wouldn't want my sister doing that!" is a pretty weak agrument for government regulation.
(Editted for a typo)
[ 28. July 2013, 16:30: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Roger Scruton has an interesting take on it:
To free oneself from moral norms is to surrender to the state. For only the state can manage the ensuing disaster.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
To free oneself from moral norms is to surrender to the state. For only the state can manage the ensuing disaster.
So, basically, personal self-restraint is the toll we pay for avoiding state tyranny.
Kinda like a prinicipal who tells the students that they can do anything they want during break, but if too many of them end up going to the local mall to play pinball instead of studying in the library, he'll make studying mandatory.
Not sure what to think about that. I guess liberals imply a similar idea with their "marketplace of ideas" argument, ie. if all forms of expression are permitted, there's no need to worry about the really bad ones gaining traction, since they'll be easily rebutted by the good ones.
I guess the difference is that the liberal thinks the bad stuff will just die a natural death, whereas conservatives like Scruton think people need to be goaded into rejecting it, via the threat of state intervention.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
OK, so the problem is that young Master Fred might watch porn using the Internet service Fred's parents paid for, on the iPad Fred's parents bought for him, in the house Fred's parents own, because Fred's parents haven't a clue and won't be getting one any time soon.
Why is that my problem (and if government gets involved, everyone's problem) and not Fred's parents' problem? Would Fred's parents be happy if we all decided that there were other disturbing things Fred shouldn't be exposed to, such as the Old Testament or Toddlers and Tiaras?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Why is that my problem (and if government gets involved, everyone's problem) and not Fred's parents' problem?
An analogy might be the 9pm "watershed" for British broadcast television. Before 9pm, one is supposed to be able to be sure that the TV will not contain graphic violence, explicit sex or particularly offensive language, as the assumption is that children might be in the audience.
The proponents of the filter-by-default approach would like to be able to consider "the internet," by which they mean the web, as a child-friendly zone, so they don't have to sit beside their kids when they're online, just as they feel safe leaving their children watching TV while they cook dinner in another room, or how they feel comfortable sending their children to the library without worrying that they will find bound volumes of back issues of Playboy.
I think there's a fairly fundamental technical flaw with this wish, but that doesn't make the desire itself evil - just a bit futile.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
To free oneself from moral norms is to surrender to the state. For only the state can manage the ensuing disaster.
So, basically, personal self-restraint is the toll we pay for avoiding state tyranny.
Kinda like a prinicipal who tells the students that they can do anything they want during break, but if too many of them end up going to the local mall to play pinball instead of studying in the library, he'll make studying mandatory.
Not sure what to think about that. I guess liberals imply a similar idea with their "marketplace of ideas" argument, ie. if all forms of expression are permitted, there's no need to worry about the really bad ones gaining traction, since they'll be easily rebutted by the good ones.
I guess the difference is that the liberal thinks the bad stuff will just die a natural death, whereas conservatives like Scruton think people need to be goaded into rejecting it, via the threat of state intervention.
I think the flaw in Scruton's sentence is that morality is not dying, it's just changing. So to say that we are becoming 'free of moral norms' is just his interpretation. Of course, there are still moral norms, they are just not the ones he likes.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
The 9 oclock watershed doesn't generate a list of people who choose to watch TV after 9. The opt-out filter would.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But they don't have to sit with their kids, when they're online; they switch on the extant filters.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
I think the flaw in Scruton's sentence is that morality is not dying, it's just changing. So to say that we are becoming 'free of moral norms' is just his interpretation. Of course, there are still moral norms, they are just not the ones he likes.
Well, if we are inclned to help Scruton out, we could perhaps re-work his formulation to "radically changing moral norms" as opposed to "becoming free of moral norms".
Because I think for most people, there are certain moral norms that they feel such a strong attachment to that they would consider changing them to be as disastrous as abandoning morality altogether.
Most of us on the Ship are probably happy that it's now considered unacceptable for politicians to make openly racist comments. If that taboo were to disappear, I don't think it would be much consolation for us to think "Oh well, at least people still believe in other forms of morality."
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
OK, so the problem is that young Master Fred might watch porn using the Internet service Fred's parents paid for, on the iPad Fred's parents bought for him, in the house Fred's parents own, because Fred's parents haven't a clue and won't be getting one any time soon.
Why is that my problem (and if government gets involved, everyone's problem) and not Fred's parents' problem? Would Fred's parents be happy if we all decided that there were other disturbing things Fred shouldn't be exposed to, such as the Old Testament or Toddlers and Tiaras?
That's the whole point of many of our objections. There is a problem with children being able to access porn on the internet. There are problems with what is available on the internet, that is being tackled by an agreement with the ISPs to filter illegal content - the current situation. But letting the Government filter "adult content" is not the solution.
It goes alongside the computerisation of many services in this country and the insistence that everyone has to be on-line and connected. We must think of our children and provide them with the access to the internet for their homework ...
but you have to be a geek to know to put an admin account on to a computer or laptop or iPad or iPhone and to set up parental controls ... and willing to google to find out how to, and not give said equipment to minors until such protections are put in place.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't think you have to be a geek to put filters on. Every time I get a bill or an email from TalkTalk, there is a clickable box saying 'online security'. When you click on that, you get a big box, saying 'Activate HomeSafe now'. So if you click on that, you are shown how to activate it.
You can also phone TalkTalk (for free), and I'm sure they would guide you through it. Are some parents just too lazy?
Of course, HomeSafe is completely hopeless, as it blocks all and sundry, and is run by a Chinese company, plenty of experience then.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
You don't think you have to be a geek, and nor do I. But we're debating on an internet forum, which puts us into a far more computer literate group than most of the parents and teenagers I work with, and, to be honest, a significant number of my fellow education colleagues.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I suppose there are parents who don't care about online security for their kids - well, fair enough. I don't have a problem with that really.
Then there are parents who do care, and don't understand computer stuff, I suppose. Does this mean that they don't understand email, and so if they get an email from their internet company, they don't know how to open it? And don't know how to click on something that says 'click here for online security?'
I suppose there are such people, but you would think, that if they do care about it, they would make a little bit of effort. For example, with TalkTalk, it might involve making one phone call, and listening to the guy on the other end. Wow, really hard.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
There is the additional aspect that the original letter sent to the ISPs seems to acknowledge that the whole thing is a bit of PR posturing anyway:
"Without changing what you will be offering (ie active-choice +), the prime minister would like to be able to refer to your solutions as 'default-on',"
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I actually bought a Kindle tablet recently, and after switching on, almost the first message on the screen is: do you want parental controls on? And you just click to OK it. Is this really hard?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Do we give kids the car keys before they are taught how to to drive? Nope. Do all parents know how all the component parts of their vehicle work? Not usually. And yet, somehow, their kids learn to drive. My parents taught me to drive, some of my friends took driver ed in high school, and others took private courses. Even though most parents are neither auto mechanics nor NASCAR drivers, their kids learn to drive.
How is it that such inexpert parents can do this? (I would hope) It's not just because the government insists we have drivers' licenses, it's because they want their kids to be safe.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I know it's easy. But I also know a lot of adults who have to ask the teenager in the house to sort out the technology because they get brain freeze and panic when faced with computers. So said teenager gets to set up the Kindle or whatever. A bit like all those people on the Ship and elsewhere asking for suggestions for easy to use kit for their parents and setting it up for them. Is every teenager setting up the household technology going to turn on the parental controls when asked?
It's a generational thing that will go away when the current teenagers become parents and put all the controls in place, remembering what they got up to, not wanting their children to do the same and knowing their way around the technology. But until that happens we're stuck with this position where "something needs to be done" which means Cameron can make noises about being helpful while putting universal censorship in place.
A bit like the twitter button.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
It's not just in the home. Any IT techie will tell you that even in business you will have directors who have to be told "click on start - that's the button in the bottom left with "start" on it - no, single click..."
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
How is it that such inexpert parents can do this? (I would hope) It's not just because the government insists we have drivers' licenses, it's because they want their kids to be safe.
Its actually because the technology of cars is over a hundred years old. Parents were well trained in how to drive when they were young, and their parents before them. When cars were first invented young people raced around the roads at 'dangerous' speeds and their parents had no idea how to make them safer.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You don't think you have to be a geek, and nor do I. But we're debating on an internet forum, which puts us into a far more computer literate group than most of the parents and teenagers I work with, and, to be honest, a significant number of my fellow education colleagues.
Yeah, but in the absolutely WORST CASE what the parent has to do is ring up the IT Tech Support and get them to turn a filter on. Seriously, this is no less complicated than ordering your connection to start with.
Also, EVEN with these filters there is no suggestion that the internet will suddenly become pre-watershed. Absent porn, there is still loads of stuff on the internet that young children shouldn't see.
[ 30. July 2013, 12:10: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, that puzzles me. How on earth do these technophobe parents set up broadband? I suppose they get their 8 year old children to do it.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not just in the home. Any IT techie will tell you that even in business you will have directors who have to be told "click on start - that's the button in the bottom left with "start" on it - no, single click..."
That's just pulling rank. Being a "techie" is a low-status function for the accountants or lawyers or marketing people who run large companies. They're probably perfectly competent at home. Having people round them to do menial jobs boosts their status in their own eyes.
Also its not cool to be clever. Or not to be seen being clever in public anyway.
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on
:
People who think filters on individual devices actually work are dreaming. I used to work at a public library and even in the mid-2000s it was pathetically easy for our non-techie patrons (homeless people and inner-city teenagers, for the most part) to get around our filters and view porn.
With social media it's even easier. Filters are generally set up to block specific sites. If people e-mail pictures or videos to each other or share on social media, there's nothing the filter can do about it because the site just comes up as Gmail or Facebook or whatever.
Claiming that porn is an issue of individual parents' responsibility isn't going to work. We are going to have to re-make the habits of our whole society, considering that two-thirds of children have a TV in their own rooms and half of all teenagers own a smartphone. How easy is it for you as an individual parent to keep your child completely isolated from something that half of their classmates own, and can easily bring to school?
I honestly think that changing children's media usage, porn included, is going to take a huge public education campaign like the anti-smoking or anti-drunk driving movements (which after almost fifty years of effort are still struggling). Too many parents either believe that technology is beneficial, or are hooked on the virtual babysitting.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But many feminists would argue that porn is the tip of an ice-berg, whereby patriarchal society systematically regulates and degrades female sexuality, female bodies, and female identity.
It's a bit like pulling at a thread in a sweater - the whole thing starts to unravel.
That's one reason that censorship worries me, as you would have to censor books, newspapers, TV, cinema, as well as the internet.
Who is going to do that? And how? I don't see it as a practicable thing. Or if it was, it would become a new puritanism.
The alternative of course is re-education, and 'contestation', that is, an articulate opposition to prevailing attitudes.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that puzzles me. How on earth do these technophobe parents set up broadband? I suppose they get their 8 year old children to do it.
Setting up our wireless router was as difficult as plugging it in, putting a CD into the computer, and giving it a name for the network and a password when it asked for one.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that puzzles me. How on earth do these technophobe parents set up broadband? I suppose they get their 8 year old children to do it.
Setting up our wireless router was as difficult as plugging it in, putting a CD into the computer, and giving it a name for the network and a password when it asked for one.
Sure - and setting up parental filters is as easy as making a single call to ISP support and asking them to turn it on.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
Everyone here on the ship is relatively tech savvy or they wouldn't be here in the first place... they know how to operate a computer, they know what to do with a mouse and a keyboard, etc. But there are people out there who are not and who can't even figure the first thing out by themselves. I have taught computer classes to such people and the level of ignorance and, to be honest, lack of intelligence, are appalling. These are people who not only wouldn't be able to get around a filter, they wouldn't understand how one worked in the first place.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that puzzles me. How on earth do these technophobe parents set up broadband? I suppose they get their 8 year old children to do it
Pay for a company set up service
Ask a friend
Ask a neighbour
Use the 8 year old's older teenager brother
Surprising how many home computer setup services there were when I googled. Rather suggestive that a market exists.
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
The problem is that ISP authentication servers only have the router's ID and password. For granular access control to be provided - the filter belongs BEYOND THE CUSTOMER'S ROUTER.
I envisage the following solution..
ISP ----- Wired router at user's home
Wired router in home ----- Content filter,
Content filter ---- baby hub
baby hub ---- RADIUS server, wireless access point, Ethernet port.
User accounts can be set up for each person - meaning that filtering can be set up appropriately per person.
The non-techies in Govt runnign with this have forgotten that unlike back in the 90s (when the Web was more of a wild west), people no longer dial in and authenticate individually for a session. Instead, the ISP can ID your CONNECTION - the login and password your router may send - but they will NOT know you individually, except for an application session (such as your IMAP account). Connections are no longer set up and torn down per person as in the old Prestel/AOL/dialup days.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Stetson: quote:
But think of the poor porn actors!
That for me is the most compelling argument against porn: the direct effect on the people who are involved in making it.
To me too.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
But think of the poor porn actors!
That for me is the most compelling argument against porn: the direct effect on the people who are involved in making it. If my sister or daugher were doing porn, I'd probably consider it a bad thing. And a unionized industry and safety standards probably wouldn't make much difference to me.
But I admit my reasoning there has a tinge of sexism about it, since(as I suggested earlier about porn opponents in general) I don't think I'd be nearly as upset if it were a male relative doing it.
For me, if a male relative were doing it I'd be even more appalled. He wouldn't just be working in a degrading industry, he'd be actively degrading others through his actions. A far more actively culpable position IMO, and worthy of greater social censure.
This may seem sexist, to portray women as vulnerable victims and men as the perpetrators, but much of the porn world is overtly sexist, enjoying the promotion of such portrayals since it sells more. The porn industry mainly plays to the worst impulses of humanity after all. Why else would one of its most popular genres be the overtly racist black men on white women pair ups. A genre far more popular in America than anywhere else - for obvious and depressing reasons.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The porn industry mainly plays to the worst impulses of humanity after all. Why else would one of its most popular genres be the overtly racist black men on white women pair ups. A genre far more popular in America than anywhere else - for obvious and depressing reasons.
OK, I've got to know - where does one go to find statistics on porn genre popularity, broken down by consumer nationality?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Prestel
Now, there's a word I haven't heard in a while...
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Why is that my problem (and if government gets involved, everyone's problem) and not Fred's parents' problem?
An analogy might be the 9pm "watershed" for British broadcast television. Before 9pm, one is supposed to be able to be sure that the TV will not contain graphic violence, explicit sex or particularly offensive language, as the assumption is that children might be in the audience.
The equivalent would be a default opt-in filter that automatically switched off at 9 o'clock. The fact this is not on offer suggests to me that "think of the children" is merely a fig-leaf for the real reason that some people find porn icky.
The only arguments for banning or restricting porn which really resonate for me are Christian ones. None of the others - exploitation, objectification of women, corruption of minors - really wash. Where is the proposal to ban or restrict clothing imports from Bangladesh? Nope, not there. Where is the proposal to ban or restrict non-pornographic media that objectifies women, e.g. fashion magazines? Nope, not there. Where are the plans to restrict the constant barrage of advertising aimed at children? No, not there either.
Exploitation, objectification and corruption of children are genuine problems, but there are far more obvious targets than porn. I genuinely doubt that workers in the porn industry, desirable as it is, are treated worse than workers in south Asia for example, or are more likely to suffer work-related injuries. I doubt that porn harms women more than the fashion industry or those evil gossip mags, and I doubt that potential exposure of children to upsetting material on the Internet poses a greater risk than the actual exposure to endless advertising.
What I suspect is really happening is that certain groups - chiefly concerned parents and feminists - have formed a group vocal enough to force politicians (and business) to respond. As (I imagine) the average member of this group will be a heterosexual woman, it is not suprising that porn has an extra 'ick' factor which does not get applied to Fifty Shades of Gray, for example. It has created the latest moral panic - before that it was obesity, before that; asylum seekers; before that, violent video games; before that, television; before that, rock music; and before that, uncovered piano legs I suppose.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Good post, Cod. Since the whole of culture is sexist, where do you draw the line? As you say, either where loud voices indicate, or where politicians might see votes.
I also cite the ever-present role of violence on TV and in the cinema, video games, and so on. Do we ban this?
Then the counter-argument of free speech seems very powerful to me.
Should we ban 'Lady Chatterley' again because it has its sex scenes, and its f****s and c****s?
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Lady Chatterley won't get banned. It doesn't have pictures of naked women in it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Just another form of English puritanism, isn't it? Naked bodies are bad; bodies doing sex are badder; and gay naked bodies doing sex, especially men, are baddest.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Our culture is soaked in sexually suggestive images - not just porn, but advertising, art and entertainment. We can't really determine how many people are watching porn, but advertisers know exactly how many people are watching a beer commercial, for example.
An internet porn opt-in system won't do anything about all this garbage.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Just another form of English puritanism, isn't it?
Some of us are indeed beginning get the feeling that a secular form of puritanism is creeping in through the back door, disguised as political correctness , aided and abetted by vocal minorities.
Or is it just us fellows mourning the passing of a male dominant society where the women folk were there simply to be protected, patronised or drooled over on the quiet ?
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I think talk of secular puritanism is perhaps a bit broad. There is no talk at all of restricting access to written porn, e.g. slash. My observation is that the ire is directed at porn that involves naked people, perhaps having sex, particularly when the naked people are female, as that perpetuates the patriarchy or / and causes body issues in girls (the boys aren't such an object of concern).
What about gay (visual) porn? ISTM that porn / ponographic images produced for heterosexual men are an easier target, but await correction.
[ 03. August 2013, 18:24: Message edited by: Cod ]
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Exploitation, objectification and corruption of children are genuine problems, but there are far more obvious targets than porn. I genuinely doubt that workers in the porn industry, desirable as it is, are treated worse than workers in south Asia for example, or are more likely to suffer work-related injuries. I doubt that porn harms women more than the fashion industry or those evil gossip mags, and I doubt that potential exposure of children to upsetting material on the Internet poses a greater risk than the actual exposure to endless advertising.
I disagree, I don't think they're even in the same league as porn. But if you do then fair enough, oppose those things as well. But the argument that X isn't as bad as Y therefore we won't care about either isn't a very good position IMO.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
That isn't my argument. My argument is that if ending exploitation etc is really the motive there are better targets than porn and that these better targets are overlooked indicates that exploitation etc isn't actually the motive.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
It is not a zero-sum equation.
Simply because other abuses exist, this does not mean working against porn is bad.
And I am fairly certain that the actual slavery used by some porn is difficult to top, abuse wise.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not a zero-sum equation.
Simply because other abuses exist, this does not mean working against porn is bad.
And I am fairly certain that the actual slavery used by some porn is difficult to top, abuse wise.
Exactly.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But Cod didn't say that. His/her point is surely that if exploitation is really the issue with porn, then we would expect that campaigners to be up in arms against other forms of exploitation, and working actively to end them. Maybe they are.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Just another form of English puritanism, isn't it?
Some of us are indeed beginning get the feeling that a secular form of puritanism is creeping in through the back door, disguised as political correctness , aided and abetted by vocal minorities.
Or is it just us fellows mourning the passing of a male dominant society where the women folk were there simply to be protected, patronised or drooled over on the quiet ?
At the Catholic schools I attended, mid-80s, liberal and feminist anti-porn arguments dovetailed well with the official Catholic line, at least post-V2. In fact, my feminist-ish religion teacher was much more uncompromising in her condemnation of porn than she was about abortion, on which we were allowed to discuss the merits of pro-choice arguments. Possibly this reflected a female-centric bias, since the pro-choice arguments usually focussed on the well-being of the pregnant woman.
And yes, I too conisder the anti-porn movement a modern-day version of the old anti-vice crusades, eg. prohibition etc, which overlapped majorly with feminism.
H.L. Mencken made an amusing observation about the women involved in those earlier movements. He opined that they had an exaggerated view of just how debauched the average male was, and that furthermore, they got this view partly from listening to male preachers. The preachers in turn derived their view from thinking, quite delusionally(in Mencken's view) "If I myself were not saved, I surely would be the biggest skirt-chasing rogue in existence".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Stetson
Yes, there seems to be a multi-layered structure of fantasies about porn. A lot of porn is fantasy stuff, well maybe all of it; and then there are numerous fantasies about what porn means, what its effects are, who uses it, its significance, and so on.
I think this is one reason that it is rather dizzying to deconstruct all of this. Linda Williams used to stop people in their tracks by asking, 'what does porn mean, and how do you know?' Well, there are some obvious answers to that, and maybe they are also fantasies.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
What about gay (visual) porn? ISTM that porn / ponographic images produced for heterosexual men are an easier target, but await correction.
I'm guessing 7 and 8 year olds viewing gay porn on their smart-phones is pretty much what Mr. C has on his mind, even though he's never going to admit to it.
The Western heterosexual man is taking a bit of a drubbing in general these days , so a small group of feminists taking away his page 3 lovelies is something of a side issue .
When it comes to porn and exploitation , (and it's something that crops up many times on these threads), who, exactly, is exploiting who ?
Surely it's simply just a supply and demand thing where the suppliers , provided they work in affluent areas, are handsomely rewarded.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't think anything being taken away is a side issue. It raises important issues about censorship and free speech.
Thus: who decides what is taken away? How is this decision arrived at? On what grounds? Is this all discussed openly in the 'public square', or is it hidden away in some political smoke-filled room? Who are the interested parties? Are the relevant discussions going to be published for public scrutiny?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I concede to using some flippancy on the 'side issue' bit . It seems though , as often is the case when hot topics are in the spotlight, more than one thing is going on , and pressure groups are keen to stamp out all the perceived embers.
The British appetite for titillation goes a long long way back, and the simplest antidote for the page 3 girl is a page 4 man IMO .
As for the psychological damage done to young minds from the continual viewing of hard-porn ,( provided there is evidence to support that), people are naturally going to look to their government in order to restrict it .
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, but the arguments over the damage done by porn tend to be ideological. If you already believe hard porn is a bad thing, then naturally you will find 'evidence' that it is damaging; if you don't, then you won't.
The arguments that it is sexist are different; but they have to answer the charge that great chunks of popular culture are sexist (e.g. the fashion industry).
I suppose then a critic might say, yes, but porn is worse. Now we are back to subjective interpretations, and you can argue the reverse, that page 3 and the Daily Mail 'sidebar of shame' is worse, because it is mainstream, and accepted by politicians.
Many of the arguments are suffused with political and ideological positions, which are often covert.
And then there is free speech.
Posted by Mogwai (# 13555) on
:
What about free speech?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
The British appetite for titillation goes a long long way back, and the simplest antidote for the page 3 girl is a page 4 man IMO .
Hm? The Sun papers in the UK don't already do that? Their imitators in Canada have been doing it since they set up shop in the 1970s.
Sunshine Girls
Ah. Looking for some Boy photos, I found out that the feature was discontinued in 2006. But the boy was a daily feature prior to that.
As for the Girl, at least in Edmonton, I think she's been moved to the sports page in the print edition. I'm not sure what section the boy was in.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Interesting point about young girls, some of whom (in England anyway), seem to be very anxious about their body image, diet, clothes, weight, sexuality, and so on. In more extreme cases, this can lead to eating problems, such as anorexia, or self-harming, and other symptoms.
Is this attributable to porn? Well, it might be, but one might also cite the fashion industry, the image of women in popular magazines and newspapers, the emphasis on female celebs, and so on.
Should we then make the fashion industry illegal? Unlikely. Of course, you can campaign against very thin models, and so on.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Interesting point about young girls, some of whom (in England anyway), seem to be very anxious about their body image, diet, clothes, weight, sexuality, and so on. In more extreme cases, this can lead to eating problems, such as anorexia, or self-harming, and other symptoms.
Is this attributable to porn? Well, it might be, but one might also cite the fashion industry, the image of women in popular magazines and newspapers, the emphasis on female celebs, and so on.
Based on my anecdotal(yet fairly consistent) experience as a male growing up in the 70s/80s, I'd have to surmise that the fashion industry is a far bigger influence on adolescent girls than porn is.
I knew quite a few girls who claimed to have looked at porn, but not many of them evinced anything like the interest that teenaged boys did. For most of them, it was just something they looked at out of curiousity, and the reactions seemed to run a rather narrow gamut between dismissive disgust and mild amusement.
Whereas I wouldn't have to present a very detailed case to prove that many girls were paying close attention to what the fashion industry was doing. Even if a few skin mags went overboard in emphasizing the "perfect figure" thing(and a lot of them didn't), they'd still be outnumbered by a far larger volume of such material coming from fashion publications and whatnot.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
And fashion seems to favour tall thin models, doesn't it? Well, my wife works with young women a lot, (as a therapist), and she thinks that some of them hate their bodies for being too fat. I don't think that would come from porn, would it?
The curious thing in England is that the Daily Mail (arch-enemy of porn), seems to reinforce this scrutiny of the female body! Well, not just the DM, of course.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
And fashion seems to favour tall thin models, doesn't it? Well, my wife works with young women a lot, (as a therapist), and she thinks that some of them hate their bodies for being too fat. I don't think that would come from porn, would it?
No, I don't think it would. Though, depending on what type of porn a girl is looking at(I'm thinking Playboy and Paul Raymond here), she might be getting misleading messages about "perfect" breasts or other body parts.
But that does not neccessarily correlate with thinness. And anyway, fetishization of body parts is such a major aspect of mainstream media, the stuff in porn would be a drop in the bucket.
Overall, I think the biggest psychological risk from porn would be that it presents wildly unrealistic sexual scenarios which naive individuals may take as accurate representations of reality. That probably applies more to males than to females.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Hm? The Sun papers in the UK don't already do that? Their imitators in Canada have been doing it since they set up shop in the 1970s.
Sunshine Girls
Those Sunshine girls look overdressed for The Sun in the UK. They would be topless, with a short titillating comment asking men to fantasise about them.
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Overall, I think the biggest psychological risk from porn would be that it presents wildly unrealistic sexual scenarios which naive individuals may take as accurate representations of reality. That probably applies more to males than to females.
Yeah- what men expect their female partners to do in bed is definitely changing because of porn. Anal and Brazilian waxes, 'nuff said. Boys being exposed to tons of porn before they have any experience with a real girl is also really warping their beliefs about what female bodies look like and what women enjoy in bed. I have heard stories of teenage boys shocked to find that girls actually have pubic hair.
I can speak to this one. I hope it's not TMI to say that my husband, raised by fundies who wouldn't let him date in high school or college, got all his sexual knowledge before marriage from viewing porn on the sly. He really believed that women wanted to be humiliated and treated roughly in bed. It was hard for us to work past.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Hm? The Sun papers in the UK don't already do that? Their imitators in Canada have been doing it since they set up shop in the 1970s.
Sunshine Girls
Those Sunshine girls look overdressed for The Sun in the UK. They would be topless, with a short titillating comment asking men to fantasise about them.
Well you know, Canada, despite all the largely self-showered congratulation about same-sex marriage, does carry a reputation for having inherited the most puritan aspects of British culture. This image has especially befallen Toronto, which for many years bore the weight of an unflattering epithet to that effect.
"Toronto The Good" more or less correlates with "Banned In Boston" as a cultural indicator. Interestingly, it was that other puritan backwater, Massachusetts, which was the first state to recognize same-sex marriages, even beating Canada as a whole in that regard.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well you know, Canada, despite all the largely self-showered congratulation about same-sex marriage, does carry a reputation for having inherited the most puritan aspects of British culture. ...
Maybe it's our Canadian puritanism that wants gay and lesbian couples to get married before having sex.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
That isn't my argument. My argument is that if ending exploitation etc is really the motive there are better targets than porn and that these better targets are overlooked indicates that exploitation etc isn't actually the motive.
Or alternatively it tells us that different people fight exploitation in different ways. Some people see one form as the worst and oppose that. Others fight other aspects. Personally I think sexual exploitation is far and away the worst form of exploitation, but others may think that people in Asia being paid less than we are is the worst.
I think they are being wrongheaded and their priorities are skewed, but I wouldn't sneer at their motives or say its all just Victorian prudishness.
Or at least not denigratively. We should be so lucky to have people like the Victorian social reformers in our own age. Stetson likens anti-porn campaigns to prohibition in an attempt to denigrate it. I would liken it to the factory and mine reforms or the anti-slavery movements of the 19th century. Standing up for moral campaigns is not a bad thing and its incredible that people mention prohibition or Mary Whitehouse and everyone assumes all moral campaigns are bad. Just because prohibition didn't work didn't mean their motives weren't right. It was an attempt to replicate the good work of the gin acts of the 18th century. Moral campaigners fight for the betterment of society and the people who live in it. The Victorians moral campaigners fought with courage and determination against entrenched ignorance and uncaring attitudes.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
When it comes to porn and exploitation , (and it's something that crops up many times on these threads), who, exactly, is exploiting who ?
Surely it's simply just a supply and demand thing where the suppliers , provided they work in affluent areas, are handsomely rewarded.
Pimps are rewarded. Prostitutes are beaten. Strip club owners are rich, strippers desperately scrounge for tips. To assume the money always trickles down to the worker is naive. If a sex worker, it is even more naive.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well you know, Canada, despite all the largely self-showered congratulation about same-sex marriage, does carry a reputation for having inherited the most puritan aspects of British culture. ...
Maybe it's our Canadian puritanism that wants gay and lesbian couples to get married before having sex.
Possibly something to that, actually, although not as directly as you jokingly suggest.
I don't know if you've ever read The Joy Of Presbyterian Sex by Camille Paglia, but she makes the argument that liberal protestant churches which were oh-so-happy to embrace gays in the 90s often did so, consciously or otherwise, by removing the more socially deviant(and in Paglia's view, vital) aspects of sex. To paraphrase: "They want nice, hand-holidng middle class gay couples, not leather men or toilet cruisers."
A brief summary of Paglia's essay
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Hawk wrote:
quote:
We should be so lucky to have people like the Victorian social reformers in our own age. Stetson likens anti-porn campaigns to prohibition in an attempt to denigrate it.
For the record, I wasn't really trying to denigrate the campaigns by comparing them to prohibition, I just thought it was historically accurate to posit the connection. Though I guess since prohibition is now recoginzed as a disastrous failure, the comparison is certainly open to a negative reading.
I do recognize that the prohibtionists were responding to genuine social problems. It's just that their solution amounted to a futile war against basic cultural tendencies(and let's be honest here, was more than a little informed by class and race prejudice). I think the same thing is more or less true of the left-wing anti-pornography movement.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
I would liken it to the factory and mine reforms or the anti-slavery movements of the 19th century.
Might be a workable comparison, if the anti-porn movement had confined itself to eliminating material that involved the use of actual people in its production.
However, that was never really their primary concern. They were essentially trying to eliminate the ideas that pornography conveyed. They objected to written and drawn material as much as they objected to photographs and movies.
It would be as if the factory-reformers in the 19th Century had busied themselves with trying to ban works of fiction that portrayed captains-of-industry in a positive light.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
There is also the phenomenon of moving the goal posts about porn. We see it here - first, it's 'oh think of the children', then it's the denigration of women via sexual imagery, then it's the exploitation of the porn actors, then it's personal disgust.
Kind of a moving target!
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There is also the phenomenon of moving the goal posts about porn. We see it here - first, it's 'oh think of the children', then it's the denigration of women via sexual imagery, then it's the exploitation of the porn actors, then it's personal disgust.
Kind of a moving target!
That's because its such a big problem with so many interconnected multi-faceted aspects. If you want to simplify all of that into one easily dismissed 'target' that's your lookout. Just don't expect other people to play your game.
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
...if the anti-porn movement had confined itself to eliminating material that involved the use of actual people in its production.
However, that was never really their primary concern.
Who's this 'they' you're referring to of which you have such a deep understanding of their motives and thoughts? I'm not aware of one homogenous group authority on anti-porn myself. Lots of different people and groups have lots of different ideas about it. Shocking I know!
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I do recognize that the prohibtionists were responding to genuine social problems. It's just that their solution amounted to a futile war against basic cultural tendencies
So is every moral campaign. Doesn't mean we shoudn't try and make things better though.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Hawk wrote:
quote:
Who's this 'they' you're referring to of which you have such a deep understanding of their motives and thoughts? I'm not aware of one homogenous group authority on anti-porn myself.
Well, you seemed to have a pretty clear handle on what the "factory and mine reforms" and "anti-slavery movemments" were all about...
quote:
Stetson likens anti-porn campaigns to prohibition in an attempt to denigrate it. I would liken it to the factory and mine reforms or the anti-slavery movements of the 19th century.
quote:
Just because prohibition didn't work didn't mean their motives weren't right. It was an attempt to replicate the good work of the gin acts of the 18th century.
So, you seem to think(quite reasonably) that we can talk about those C19 movements as having a consistent focus among their followers, even though there were many of them, and possibly some who didn't share all the stated goals of the movement overall.
I have read a fair bit of stuff written by feminist anti-pornography campaigners of the 1970s/80s. And I could give you a list of writers who thought that written and drawn material was as bad as photographed and filmed. This is because their main rationale for regulating it was not harm to the participants, but harm to the overall society.
I will say that my comments were largely about the feminist anti-pornography movement which had its glory days around thirty years ago. I think someone like David Cameron today is pursuing a slightly different agenda, the ideological underpinnings of which have been discussed elsewhere on this thread.
(edited for punctuation)
[ 05. August 2013, 19:16: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Overall, I think the biggest psychological risk from porn would be that it presents wildly unrealistic sexual scenarios which naive individuals may take as accurate representations of reality. That probably applies more to males than to females.
Yeah- what men expect their female partners to do in bed is definitely changing because of porn. Anal and Brazilian waxes, 'nuff said. Boys being exposed to tons of porn before they have any experience with a real girl is also really warping their beliefs about what female bodies look like and what women enjoy in bed. I have heard stories of teenage boys shocked to find that girls actually have pubic hair.
I can speak to this one. I hope it's not TMI to say that my husband, raised by fundies who wouldn't let him date in high school or college, got all his sexual knowledge before marriage from viewing porn on the sly. He really believed that women wanted to be humiliated and treated roughly in bed. It was hard for us to work past.
Not TMI and very relevant, in my opinion.
I imagine that the number of teenage boys who are shocked to discover pubic hair on women is probably pretty small. I reckon it would have caused more shock on wedding nights back in the Victorian age when porn wasn't available to many people at all.
The only exposure to porn I ever had when growing up was a) a half-glance at a magazine being chucked around on the train to school and b) the occasional Page 3. I remember being .. well, shocked and intimidated the first time I saw a naked woman - my girlfriend of the time in her bed as it happens.
I don't see that comparative ignorance of what the female body looks like is really preferable, and in any event, whether this is really a problem depends on what sort of porn is actually commonly viewed. An interesting point raised in the Radio 4 programme I referenced earlier is that according to Internet searches, the type of porn most commonly sought out isn't particularly unrepresentative of reality. Most commonly, it is young women of average slimness, and not just young women either. It appears that heterosexual men's taste in porn is surprisingly normal.
It was also pointed out that porn didn't seem to tie in with aggressive sexual behaviour except in those who appear to have had problems with aggression beforehand.
Another point worth noting is that when the topic of pubic topiary is raised on Internet forums, time and again, the men express no preference or, frequently, preference for au naturel.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
That isn't my argument. My argument is that if ending exploitation etc is really the motive there are better targets than porn and that these better targets are overlooked indicates that exploitation etc isn't actually the motive.
Or alternatively it tells us that different people fight exploitation in different ways. Some people see one form as the worst and oppose that. Others fight other aspects. Personally I think sexual exploitation is far and away the worst form of exploitation, but others may think that people in Asia being paid less than we are is the worst.
I think having a factory collapse on your head, or dying of silicosis is worse than being under the delusion that taking off one's clothes for the camera constitutes a decent day's work for substantially more than the minimum wage - if delusion it is.
I have no doubt that plenty of porn is produced through exploitation, and I believe more should be done to prevent this. However, the argument raised by anti-porn campaigners is that porn is necessarily exploitative of those making it. This argument, as far as I can tell, assumes that anyone involved in porn, down to the women on page 3 of the Sun are suffering from false consciousness, and if they were made aware of their true dignity they wouldn't do it. This is a very different definition of exploitation and one which, with respect, doesn't compare with those who toil in the garment factories of Bangladesh.
quote:
Stetson likens anti-porn campaigns to prohibition in an attempt to denigrate it. I would liken it to the factory and mine reforms or the anti-slavery movements of the 19th century. Standing up for moral campaigns is not a bad thing and its incredible that people mention prohibition or Mary Whitehouse and everyone assumes all moral campaigns are bad.
Naturally I think campaigns to promote the morals I believe in are good.
I think the proper equivalent to the very valuable factory and mine campaigns of the nineteenth century would be similar campaigns to protect the rights of people producing porn. I would absolutely support such a campaign.
Victorian reformers didn't advocate the closing down of industries - not even the white lead factories or match factories, which were particularly dangerous to work in.
quote:
Pimps are rewarded. Prostitutes are beaten. Strip club owners are rich, strippers desperately scrounge for tips. To assume the money always trickles down to the worker is naive. If a sex worker, it is even more naive.
For this point to have any value, you need to show that the porn industry is necessarily exploitative and cannot be any other way. Otherwise it is just a criticism of the sex industry as it is: in any event, prostitution raises a whole heap of issues that porn doesn't IMO.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
This is a very different definition of exploitation and one which, with respect, doesn't compare with those who toil in the garment factories of Bangladesh.
I agree they are very different types of exploitation and I would oppose both of them equally as separate evils. It’s very hard to compare apples and oranges and say one is worse than the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I think the proper equivalent to the very valuable factory and mine campaigns of the nineteenth century would be similar campaigns to protect the rights of people producing porn. I would absolutely support such a campaign.
Victorian reformers didn't advocate the closing down of industries - not even the white lead factories or match factories, which were particularly dangerous to work in.
You assume that working regulations are both enforceable and would remove the exploitation entirely. Personally I think paying people to have sex automatically leads to exploitation. I think combining sex with capitalism is unethical by its nature. But this is a personal opinion, and I would support more stringent workers’ rights and regulations. If the industry cannot be eradicated, the damage it causes can at least be moderated.
My own argument for a necessary and urgent first step would be to ban videos of the most overtly violent and degrading sexual acts from being sold or distributed. One method would be to ban the production of these but since porn is produced in numerous legal jurisdictions this is impossible for one country to enforce. The only method that would work is to create financial sanctions through censorship. If you remove the ability of the pornographers to sell into your market, they will be forced to produce more of the stuff that can be sold, and less of the stuff that can’t be. Censorship is the only practical option of regulating porn and improving workers’ rights in a global business.
It’s the same method that is used to improve workers conditions in Asia and similar places. We cannot legislate directly, but we can pressure them through market forces by for instance only buying clothes produced ethically, or shaming supermarkets that stock unethically produced clothes. If the government cared enough they could make this a national sanction rather than leaving it up to individuals to investigate the source of produce and attempt to do this on a small scale. Together we can be more effective, individually it will only ever be a piecemeal effect. For those who care about workers exploitation in foreign countries, perhaps the government should be put under pressure to do this nationally, perhaps by only allowing imports of ethically produced products.
And the Victorians did close down industries. Mills and factories that were bad enough were closed down. They banned women and children from working in certain industries entirely because they felt it was degrading (though they felt it was okay to degrade adult men apparently).
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
prostitution raises a whole heap of issues that porn doesn't IMO.
What is the difference between porn and prostitution for you and what issues does prostitution raise that porn doesn’t? Surely paying people to have sex is prostitution, whether you film it and sell the recording or not.
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Overall, I think the biggest psychological risk from porn would be that it presents wildly unrealistic sexual scenarios which naive individuals may take as accurate representations of reality. That probably applies more to males than to females.
Yeah- what men expect their female partners to do in bed is definitely changing because of porn. Anal and Brazilian waxes, 'nuff said. Boys being exposed to tons of porn before they have any experience with a real girl is also really warping their beliefs about what female bodies look like and what women enjoy in bed. I have heard stories of teenage boys shocked to find that girls actually have pubic hair.
I can speak to this one. I hope it's not TMI to say that my husband, raised by fundies who wouldn't let him date in high school or college, got all his sexual knowledge before marriage from viewing porn on the sly. He really believed that women wanted to be humiliated and treated roughly in bed. It was hard for us to work past.
Hmm - I'm still a virgin - but count me as one bloke who's turned OFF by signs of duress...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
prostitution raises a whole heap of issues that porn doesn't IMO.
What is the difference between porn and prostitution for you and what issues does prostitution raise that porn doesn’t? Surely paying people to have sex is prostitution, whether you film it and sell the recording or not.
By legal definition they are not the same.
In porn, everyone is being paid to perform, there is no physical interaction with the customer. In prostitution, there is direct interaction and one participant is paying the other.
An example might be paying to watch a boxing match vs. paying someone to beat you.
So, no, porn =/= prostitution.
Morally, one may feel differently. But morals are subjective.
Whilst both porn and prostitution can raise the same issues regarding exploitation, prostitution appears to have more problems with this on balance.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Cod wrote:
quote:
I imagine that the number of teenage boys who are shocked to discover pubic hair on women is probably pretty small. I reckon it would have caused more shock on wedding nights back in the Victorian age when porn wasn't available to many people at all.
John Ruskin's misadventures on his wedding-night come to mind here.
quote:
I think the proper equivalent to the very valuable factory and mine campaigns of the nineteenth century would be similar campaigns to protect the rights of people producing porn. I would absolutely support such a campaign.
Might have mentioned this earlier, but Los Angeles voters in the last American election passed a ballot measure mandating condom use in porn production.
The bill WAS opposed by most of the industry, not sure whether that was because they didn't like the extra costs, or because it would displease the customers. I seem to recall that the LA Times came out against it as well. And the inestimable Ron Jeremy made a TV ad against it.
And I was surprised to read in the article that the only two states where porn production is legal are California and...New Hampshire? Live free or die, I guess, but I was sure I'd heard Nevada at least as being one of them.
Hawk wrote:
quote:
What is the difference between porn and prostitution for you and what issues does prostitution raise that porn doesn’t? Surely paying people to have sex is prostitution, whether you film it and sell the recording or not.
Yeah, I agree, I don't see an ethical difference, but the law in some places does make a clear distinction between the two types of sex-for-cash. I guess it boils down to: If Person A pays Person B to have sex with Person A, it's illegal. But if a third party pays them both to have sex with each other, it's okay.
I really can't make any sense of that, except to think it's the same sort of inconsistency by which the law mandates seat-belts, but allows people to ride motorcycles, which don't have seat belts. "Okay, logically, we should outlaw motorcycles, but that's just not socially or economically feasible".
With porn, maybe it's just that some locales like the revenue, and it's now such an accepted part of the mainstream culture, the state doesn't want to give itself the headache.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Hmm, I seem to have cross-posted with the Buddha on the topic of porn vs. prostitution. One thing...
quote:
An example might be paying to watch a boxing match vs. paying someone to beat you.
So, no, porn =/= prostitution.
Actually, IS it illegal to pay someone to punch you in the face, if that's what you wanna do? I'm not sure what laws, if any, would cover that.
I'm still thinking that the continued legality of porn, in places that outlaw prostitution, has more to do with pragmatic politics and economic opportunism than with any clearly perceived ethical difference between the two.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Something I just thought of...
quote:
IS it illegal to pay someone to punch you in the face, if that's what you wanna do?
If I hire someone to be my boxing trainer, I am essentially paying him to punch me in the face. Or, at least, try to.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Personally I think paying people to have sex automatically leads to exploitation.
How? And why are we moving from porn to a particular subset of it?
quote:
I think combining sex with capitalism is unethical by its nature.
How? And what has that got to do with exploitation?
Leaving aside the question of not-for-profit porn, for want of a better expression.
quote:
My own argument for a necessary and urgent first step would be to ban videos of the most overtly violent and degrading sexual acts from being sold or distributed.
You move seamlessly from discussing porn to "overtly violent and degrading sexual acts" to...
quote:
since porn is produced in numerous legal jurisdictions
... porn generally, which suggests that you aren't making any important distinction between, on the one hand, simulated rape and a woman on Page 3 on the other.
quote:
And the Victorians did close down industries. Mills and factories that were bad enough were closed down. They banned women and children from working in certain industries entirely because they felt it was degrading (though they felt it was okay to degrade adult men apparently).
So what entire industries (as opposed to individual mills and factories) did they close?
Arguably they didn't even stop the slave trade. Consider the working conditions of Chinese immigrants to South Africa in the early twentieth century. They were no better than slaves.
As for the banning of women and children working in certain industries: that was for a variety of reasons, including education and domestic life, but the main one was reducing exploitation.
quote:
What is the difference between porn and prostitution for you and what issues does prostitution raise that porn doesn’t? Surely paying people to have sex is prostitution, whether you film it and sell the recording or not.
Well to start with, porn doesn't have to involve sex, merely sexual expression.
And if you can't see the difference between watching a person having sex and actually having sex with that person, I am ... surprised.
Posted by Mogwai (# 13555) on
:
quote:
And if you can't see the difference between watching a person having sex and actually having sex with that person, I am ... surprised.
I would imagine the point being suggested is that there's no moral difference between the two. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Personally I think paying people to have sex automatically leads to exploitation.
How? And why are we moving from porn to a particular subset of it?
Most porn involves paying the performers. There are other types such as voyeuristic porn (i.e upskirt, revenge videos, etc.) and that is also exploitative but since it is done without the consent of the person being filmed it is rarely defended. That is why I’m talking about porn that is transactional. Because some people consider anything okay if the parties consent. My point is that just because the parties consent, that doesn’t mean everything’s okay. Even with consent there is still rife exploitation.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What is the difference between porn and prostitution for you and what issues does prostitution raise that porn doesn’t? Surely paying people to have sex is prostitution, whether you film it and sell the recording or not.
Well to start with, porn doesn't have to involve sex, merely sexual expression.
And if you can't see the difference between watching a person having sex and actually having sex with that person, I am ... surprised.
As Mogwai explained, I don’t mean the physical difference. What is the moral difference? You are still paying someone to provide you sexual favours, even if those sexual favours are enjoyed voyeuristically rather than physically. Morally speaking paying a woman to have sex with another man for your sexual pleasure is the same as paying her to have sex with you for your sexual pleasure. You’re still paying for sex, and she’s still having sex with someone for money.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
So, then, what about amateur porn? People who film themselves having sex and then trade/distribute it for free?
You are alright with this, yeah?
[ 08. August 2013, 16:13: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
If no exchange of money is involved whatsoever and no other conditions are imposed then I would have thought it not to be a moral issue at all. A legal matter maybe , if someone wants to press charges over indecent exposure.
Prior to to the Fall there was no sin in Adam and Eve gazing on each-other's nakedness . Living post-Fall as we do, things have a little more awkward where such things are concerned.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Honest question for the anti-porn side: what about popular non-porn movies based on best-selling books that are loaded with violence and sex?
quote:
Nope, too disgusting for me to quote. Read the parent advisory, which is NSFW.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
That movie grossed $10,095,170 in the USA, in it's original Swedish version. The Hollywood remake grossed $102,515,793 in the USA.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
So do you think there is no moral difference between paying a prostitute for sex and buying a pornographic magazine from the local newsagent?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
...she’s still having sex with someone for money.
In porn, so is he. Why do you focus only on the women?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
So do you think there is no moral difference between paying a prostitute for sex and buying a pornographic magazine from the local newsagent?
There is, but I would say the difference is quantitative and not qualitative. In both situations someone is being paid to perform a sexual act; the difference is mainly in the consumer's degree of removal from that act.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I suppose one could say that all sin is sin and murder is only qualitatively different from stealing 50 cents. I'm not sure such an approach is particularly illuminating.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I suppose one could say that all sin is sin and murder is only qualitatively different from stealing 50 cents. I'm not sure such an approach is particularly illuminating.
Well, this might be a better comparison...
A. I get off on saeing people murdered, so I hire a hit man to kill people in my basement while I watch.
B. I get off on seeing people murdered, so I buy videos from the hit man, that he has already made, of himself murdering people.
Now, I personally don't have an ethical problem with people paying for sex. But if one does have such a problem, then Example A, insofar as we are talking about proximity to the immoral actions, is akin to prostitution. Example B is comparable to pornography.
And as someone who DOES have a problem with people being murdered for money, I'd rank the customer in A as roughly on par with the customer in B. Though I do recognize that the law might make a neccessary distinction, to the benefit of the B customer.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I suppose one could say that all sin is sin and murder is only qualitatively different from stealing 50 cents. I'm not sure such an approach is particularly illuminating.
You might be able to make such an argument, but you couldn't make it using the reasoning I applied to prostitution and pornography.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Both examples are only qualitatively different in the sense they are both sin.
The better question is to ask whether there is nothing else that distinguishes between the two activities.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Dragging up an old thread here, but I couldn't resist a recent example of filter-bollocky-itis. A guy in the British Library wanted to look up a quotation in 'Hamlet', and used the inhouse wi-fi, which returned the helpful message, 'request blocked - violent content'.
And of course, it is a violent text, and has the c-word in it as well. Avoid, if you are of a delicate disposition.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
You got the Open Rights Group newsletter too?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
No, I saw it in the papers. I'm sort of making a casual collection of odd things blocked by filters - so far, the Bible is the corker, but also Hamlet, this forum, a ton of other forums, a friend's pagan website, martial arts websites, and a video of an Andy Williams Christmas Special. Reason given for that one? - hate. And the Horniman museum.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Hate and the Horniman don't belong in the same sentence.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0