|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Internet Porn
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
This lust something that most people feel on a regular basis. Good chance that they would have acted on it if they could have got away with it.
If you're saying what you look to be saying, it's crap. It's quite possible -- and I imagine millions of people do it every day -- to see someone good looking and think, "va va voom" and let the mind drift, but not be at all interested in actually transferring that into action, even if they could get away with it.
Total tangent from someone who hasn't entirely been following the thread: a major benefit of being homosexual is that you can SAY the equivalent of "va va voom" to your partner and find out if they were thinking the same thing. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
This chap seems to have found a solution.
Jesus is more pleasurable than pornography
Mark Betts [[ LIKED ]] this.
I did browse through the article, and it seemed good to me. I liked the guy's honesty and humility, that he's not somehow morally superior to the rest of us.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's quite possible -- and I imagine millions of people do it every day -- to see someone good looking and think, "va va voom" and let the mind drift, but not be at all interested in actually transferring that into action, even if they could get away with it.
Total tangent but...
I've had interesting "She looks a bit of all right" type conversations with a lesbian colleague.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I suspect that very little is going to be done about restricting porn, except in relation to computer controls, where some kind of blocks are already in place, or at least, potentially in place.
I suppose we just live in permissive times, where many people may disapprove of porn, and of other things, but are reluctant to approve actual censorship.
Generally, I think the move away from censorship, for example, in the theatre or in print, has been good, and I would also be reluctant to go into reverse gear.
I suppose a standard liberal view is that porn is not all that wonderful, but is not also all that bad. This actually sounds a bit wet!
Of course, it's possible that some kind of counter-movement may occur, a kind of Mary Whitehouse renaissance. I would not rule this out.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
On the other hand, speaking as the father of two young children, it irritates me that they will forever be one wrong click away from porn every time they use the Internet.
I recall a previous discussion on the Ship concerning a girl who googled "pussy makeover". The general response was that she could have found the information she wanted by searching for some other term, or alternatively, filters should have been installed. Frankly, that was not only glib but it completely missed the point. The Internet is just about the only place where the onus is on parents to keep their children away from inappropriate material. It is unfortunate that this should be so.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, it's possible that some kind of counter-movement may occur, a kind of Mary Whitehouse renaissance. I would not rule this out.
I doubt that will ever happen. There has been a sea-change in attitudes to sex. Quite simply, whereas previously it was regarded as in some sense unclean, now it is just a (rather enjoyable) bodily function, albeit it one normally expressed within committed relationships.
Porn use really just follows on from that. It has gone from being indecent, to something that is simply human. Quite simply (to use a common scenario), where is the harm in a bored, lonely single man using a pictures of naked women to get himself off? Is it true that he'll be unable to relate to women because of this, or feel impelled to move onto more extreme images? For the overwhelming majority, the answer will be No.
There's probably more actual and potential harm in a bottle of alcoholic drink.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
FWIW intentional (as opposed to inadvertant) copyright infringement is a crime in most places and it would be very surprising if the UK was an exception.
I've just done a little more reading. In general what I've said is true, but there is a criminal offence involved if there is deliberate large scale commercial exploitation using that breach of copyright. Basically file sharing is a civil matter, knowingly flogging knock-off DVDs is a criminal matter. In the context of the discussion at hand it is the former that is significant.
True, practically speaking. The normal situation is that any copying of material known to be under copyright is criminal. However, the authorities are (in general) unlikely to be interested unless the copying is generating signficant revenue.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Serious question - is it possible for men to wank and get the physical pleasure of orgasm without the visuals (imagined or real)?
I know it is for (some) women - thus making life much simpler. No visualising other people = no guilt.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
He is a self-repressed homosexual so I don't think much wisdom can come from that source.
Is he gay? Even if he is, I don't see why we shouldn't respect his wisdom for what it is.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Is he gay? Even if he is, I don't see why we shouldn't respect his wisdom for what it is.
Do you think it's wisdom? Can someone who's constantly "smacked with a crashing avalanche of guilt and confusion as soon as I shut my laptop. It ends the same way every time I give in---with me confused, doubtful, fearful and depressed"
impart much wisdom?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, it's possible that some kind of counter-movement may occur, a kind of Mary Whitehouse renaissance. I would not rule this out.
I doubt that will ever happen. There has been a sea-change in attitudes to sex. Quite simply, whereas previously it was regarded as in some sense unclean, now it is just a (rather enjoyable) bodily function, albeit it one normally expressed within committed relationships.
Porn use really just follows on from that. It has gone from being indecent, to something that is simply human. Quite simply (to use a common scenario), where is the harm in a bored, lonely single man using a pictures of naked women to get himself off? Is it true that he'll be unable to relate to women because of this, or feel impelled to move onto more extreme images? For the overwhelming majority, the answer will be No.
There's probably more actual and potential harm in a bottle of alcoholic drink.
I agree with nearly all of that. Well, OK, all of it. I think there are problems to do with the women (and men) who are models for porn, (exploitation and so on), but the actual imagery of porn does not seem to me to be a big deal.
I think we have seen a reduction in guilt over sex in the last 50 years. I suppose some people confuse guilt with morality.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
He is a self-repressed homosexual so I don't think much wisdom can come from that source.
Is he gay? Even if he is, I don't see why we shouldn't respect his wisdom for what it is.
What Boogie said.
His website/blog is all about the Holy Spirit saves him from homosexuality (he isn't 'gay', he is homosexual. 'Gay' is a term generally reserved to happy, well-adjusted, out and proud types and for those on the journey towards such.
He is on a journey of repression through unaffirmative religion.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Is he gay? Even if he is, I don't see why we shouldn't respect his wisdom for what it is.
Do you think it's wisdom? Can someone who's constantly "smacked with a crashing avalanche of guilt and confusion as soon as I shut my laptop. It ends the same way every time I give in---with me confused, doubtful, fearful and depressed"
impart much wisdom?
I'm not saying we should be crippled and overcome by guilt all the time, but for a christian to believe they should have no sense of guilt or shame, and therefore be able to do as they please would be... er... very unwise.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm not saying we should be crippled and overcome by guilt all the time ...
No, but this bloke is. He needs to deal with the behaviour which causes him such guilt and distress. Or, better still, go to the roots of his distress - which seems to be in a repressive religion.
I see no wisdom in doing neither.
Of course we need to feel guilt when we have harmed others - and put right, to the best of our ability, what we have done wrong. But that's not what we are discussing here.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's an interesting line of discussion, as it is deconstructing the idea that porn should elicit guilt and shame, at least for the Christian.
Is this correct? Maybe not. Maybe it's the guilt and shame which are the problem, not the porn.
But all of this seems quite fluid and unclear to me, as we are negotiating between different types of morality, I suppose.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Was listening to CBC radio and caught a piece about human sex worker trafficking. It occurred to me to ask: how many of the internet pornography images are of young women who've been offered 'a better life' only to be raped as their intro to the world of "sex work", brutalized and traumatized as apparently the trafficker-pimps do as a matter of course, kept under close guard and forced to have sex for the one-handed internet surfing pleasure of unthinking people who like having impersonal imagined sex with their left hands?
The discussion on the radio made me consider that disclaimers about consent, agreed to appear, legality of images and other such things escapes completely the actual issues for the young women involved. How many of the women are from eastern Europe, Asia, and other places with no connections, can't speak the language, make a naive agreement and are sold for serial rape, kept in the "business" by deep fear and threats of violence, and are the subject of these videos and photographs? There's definitely a moral and ethical issue beyond the viewer that has yet to be discussed in this thread.
[ 31. August 2012, 02:20: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
On the other hand, speaking as the father of two young children, it irritates me that they will forever be one wrong click away from porn every time they use the Internet.
Last month our church had copies of a petition against online pornography, which church members were encouraged to sign. It stated that "one in three 10 year olds have stumbled on pornography online." My teens (18 and 16) remarked that neither of them had ever "stumbled on" pornography, though both use their computers extensively. They've both "stumbled on" inappropriate images (eg my daughter, googling for materials for a Girl Guide Thinking Day service came across a website selling "uniforms" for "naughty girls") but actual pornography - no. They both said that if they wanted to view porn, they'd be perfectly capable of accessing it, but they were both sceptical about it being "stumbled on."
It occurred to me that I've never "stumbled on" porn either. (Inappropriate images, yes, porn, no) Is it really that easy to "stumble on"?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Was listening to CBC radio and caught a piece about human sex worker trafficking. It occurred to me to ask: how many of the internet pornography images are of young women who've been offered 'a better life' only to be raped as their intro to the world of "sex work", brutalized and traumatized as apparently the trafficker-pimps do as a matter of course, kept under close guard and forced to have sex for the one-handed internet surfing pleasure of unthinking people who like having impersonal imagined sex with their left hands?
The discussion on the radio made me consider that disclaimers about consent, agreed to appear, legality of images and other such things escapes completely the actual issues for the young women involved. How many of the women are from eastern Europe, Asia, and other places with no connections, can't speak the language, make a naive agreement and are sold for serial rape, kept in the "business" by deep fear and threats of violence, and are the subject of these videos and photographs? There's definitely a moral and ethical issue beyond the viewer that has yet to be discussed in this thread.
Good point.
We might differ over the morality and effects of watching porn, but this is an issue on which we can all agree.
I fear that we men have an infinite capacity for self-deception in this area.
If a girl is performing a sex act online with a big beam on her face, then it's: "Look at that! Wow, what a good-time chick! She loves it! She's probably doing it for nothing because she enjoys it so much, and she'd jump at the chance of doing the same thing with me".
The idea that her beguiling nymphomaniac smile is attributable to her having been threatened with a beating if she does not portray sufficient enthusiasm in front of the camera is something that we would rather not think about.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I can't believe this has only just occurred to you no prophet. Plus I and others have raised this on porn threads on the ship more times than I care to remember.
It is my primary objection to photographic and filmed porn - someone has to do that and they are unlikely to be involved because they had loads of other better choices.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
North East Quine wrote:
quote:
Is it really that easy to "stumble on"?
Not easy, but not impossible, particularly these days. 10+ years ago then yes, you could stumble upon stuff, because a lot of the salacious sites used deceptive tactics to try and hook people in, and you'd have the nightmare of endless spawning pop-ups etc. if you inadvertently clicked on the wrong thing.
Since then, though, a number of things have happened:
- search engines tend to default to a "safe" search
- browsers have integrated pop-up protection, as does most common AV/security software
- the porn sites themselves wised up to the fact that their behaviour was just pissing people off, and that's bad for business. I loosely know someone who was (probably still is) involved in such things, and in many ways it's a remarkably strong self-policing community in that regard. They have to balance peddling the flesh with not pissing off too many people too much and thus getting unwanted attention
So in the current climate I'd venture to suggest that in the general case you will only "stumble across" porn if:
a) you have a very, very loose definition of what counts as porn
b) you actively take steps to facilitate it
c) you click on an obfuscated link sent by a friend without realising what it is you're about to see (and for youngster this is probably most likely)
I do know a few adults who've genuinely come unstuck when Googling "watersports" etc. but that was pre "Safe Search".
Otherwise, in 15+ years of dealing with this stuff professionally and privately for friends I can count on the fingers of one hand the genuine "stumblings". The vast majority of incidents were quite deliberate.
The one mitigation is that it's quite easy to go looking for some mild titillation and rapidly find yourself presented with significantly more extreme material than you ever intended to see. That's not exactly stumbling upon it though, more blundering into it naively.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Thanks, snags. My teens were very sceptical about the petition, which read
quote:
“We are deeply concerned about the impact of
online pornography on our children. Studies show that the single largest group of
internet pornography consumers are children ages 12-17; 81% of 14-16 year olds
regularly access explicit photographs and footage on their home computers; and
one in three 10 year olds have stumbled upon pornography online. In order to
preserve the innocence of our children and to protect them from material that could
cause physical, mental or moral harm we are calling on the Government to make it
compulsory for Internet Service Providers to block pornography at source so that
pornography can only be accessed by an adult exercising an active choice.”
We have a fairly elderly congregation and lots of shocked old ladies signing the petition, but my internet-savvy 18 year old felt that whoever had produced the petition had an agenda, and that pornography is already accessed only by active choice. From what you say, I gather you would agree with my son?
Does anyoner know which study produced the one-in-three 10 year olds figure?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's quite possible -- and I imagine millions of people do it every day -- to see someone good looking and think, "va va voom" and let the mind drift, but not be at all interested in actually transferring that into action, even if they could get away with it.
Also, everyone who has had a relationship in which they decided to wait - whether that's until marriage, or a second date, or whatever - knows that it is possible to feel sexual attraction, even intense attraction, even combined with falling in love, and still choose not to have sex.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Serious question - is it possible for men to wank and get the physical pleasure of orgasm without the visuals (imagined or real)?
It's possible for most men to have an orgasm without it even waking them up. Orgasms aren't that special. They are (or can be) a purely physical response, with no necessary link to any visual or fantasised imagery.
But, if I can trust my own experience, fantasising is pretty much the whole point of self-stimulation. I could masturbate without using my imagination, but I wouldn't bother - I'd get more purely physical pleasure from a nice mug of hot chocolate. Not masturbating (and I don't) is easy compared to not having sexual fantasies (which I do). It seems to me that the important thing is to sort out what kinds of sexual thoughts one considers to be immoral or shameful or unhelpful, and why, and avoid those. For me, that excludes just about everything that would normally be described as pornography.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I have realized now that the phrase 'Studies show that ...' in relation to porn, and indeed, many other things, should be treated with extreme caution.
Certainly, if presented with such a preamble, one should demand that the studies are linked to, that they are serious professional studies, not anecdotal, not unsupported assertions, and not something cobbled together in the Daily Mail, all of which, unfortunately continue to dog the discussion of porn.
On the other hand, I think there is a place for anecdote and gossip. Why not? But probably we should not think of basing actual legislation on it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
You may think me extreme but I think that all porn sites,should be banned, also a ban on filthy langauge on TV. I get fed up of turning quite interesting prigrammes off because of the bad words used especially after the wAtershed. Bring back censorship.YES
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
[ quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
It occurred to me that I've never "stumbled on" porn either. (Inappropriate images, yes, porn, no) Is it really that easy to "stumble on"? [/QB]
My son, then six years old (almost) has. He was searching for online sports games, and on one of the (many) websites that hosts such things, found a number of games in the "Meet and Fuck" series which appeared (from the thumb-nail sketches) to involve cartoon depictions of sexual activity. I suppose you could call that ‘porn' (I'm not sure I would, at least, not unqualified, as it seems to me that drawing racy pictures isn't really equivalent to getting real people to perform sex acts for the gratification of others).
This was not a genre of game I had previously been aware of, and I was quite surprised to see these openly available on a website with entirely non-adult games. Most games sites don't appear to have anything like that.
I wasn't particularly disturbed by it. My boy, being six, had no interest whatever in games in which not a single piece of sports equipment seemed to be in use, and made no objection when I closed the offending site and logged on to one I knew better. But even if he had seen and paid attention to a cartoon willy, I doubt he would have been traumatised.
I've seen the petition you refer to (not at my church, though) and declined to sign it on freedom grounds. It would be, in practice, a restriction on what people can view online to have an ‘opt-in' standard for viewing porn. For example, there are three adults in my house, only two of us related to one another. I don't particularly want my wife to look at porn, but if she chooses to, I don't see why she should be obliged to advertise the fact to me* by enabling our home internet connection. And, of course, it is absolutely none of my business what the other adult resident chooses to view on her computer.
(*and any of our friends who ever use our computer and wonder whether we have opted in, which some of them probably would)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
prigrammes
Love the neologism.
"Prigramme" : noun, a media broadcast which satisfies barrea's censorship test of appropriate content.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
You may think me extreme but I think that all porn sites,should be banned, also a ban on filthy langauge on TV. I get fed up of turning quite interesting prigrammes off because of the bad words used especially after the wAtershed. Bring back censorship.YES
I don't think that's particularly extreme. I would resist it, as I have a great fear and horror of being told by someone else as to what I am permitted to read, watch, say, and so on. Of course, context is all, so there is an argument for restrictions in certain areas.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
North East Quine, let's just say I'd want to see some references and detail before signing up ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Thinking back to my childhood, most of my (male) peers had seen the odd "girlie mag" by the time we were in low double figures (i.e. about the time you start to get interested in the idea). And that was in a world where unless you could nick your dad or big brother's copy you had to resort to finding them lying discarded in the bushes. So it wouldn't surprise me to learn that a lot of young-ish boys go looking at filth on t'Internet, as it's a lot easier to satisfy your prurient curiosity.
I would still take the "stumble upon" bit skeptically, though, overall. And in many (not all, c.f. Eliab) cases where it does happen, would suspect that the stumbling would be through other avoidable causes/side effects rather than porn being out there waiting to mug the unsuspecting.
All of that said ... I do fundamentally believe that porn/the porn industry (at least in so far as visual/live action stuff) is an essentially unhealthy thing. I also believe it will always be with us, for obvious reasons :/
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Thanks, snags. My teens were very sceptical about the petition, which read
quote:
“We are deeply concerned about the impact of
online pornography on our children. Studies show that the single largest group of
internet pornography consumers are children ages 12-17; 81% of 14-16 year olds
regularly access explicit photographs and footage on their home computers; and
one in three 10 year olds have stumbled upon pornography online. In order to
preserve the innocence of our children and to protect them from material that could
cause physical, mental or moral harm we are calling on the Government to make it
compulsory for Internet Service Providers to block pornography at source so that
pornography can only be accessed by an adult exercising an active choice.”
We have a fairly elderly congregation and lots of shocked old ladies signing the petition, but my internet-savvy 18 year old felt that whoever had produced the petition had an agenda, and that pornography is already accessed only by active choice. From what you say, I gather you would agree with my son?
Does anyoner know which study produced the one-in-three 10 year olds figure?
I stumble on porn on the google images site all the time. I once typed the keyword, "dogs," and got graphic pictures of women having sex with dogs. I was shocked, but then I'm an old lady and not a savvy 18 year old. As for having an agenda, of course they do, seldom is a petition started without an agenda behind it. However if you follow the money, it would cetainly seem like there would be more of a financial agenda invested in showing porn than in not showing it.
I would sign that petition. I'm much more concerned with the freedom of little kids to safely surf the net than the freedom of some man to watch porn without his wife's knowledge.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Twilight, do you have "Safe Search" set to "Off", "Moderate" or "Strict"?
Even with it "off" here, "dogs" produces, well, dogs. "Dogs f***ing" (without the stars) produces some decidedly tasteless results on "Off", fairly tasteless on "Moderate" and utterly pure on "Strict".
It's not that it can't happen, it's just that it's not that hard to set things so as to minimise/all but eradicate it.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I stumble on porn on the google images site all the time. I once typed the keyword, "dogs," and got graphic pictures of women having sex with dogs.
Just tried that. (on my work PC no less) There was nothing pornagraphic in the results. The most "adult" images were a couple of cheerleaders posing with a pet dog and a poster for the movie "Resevoir Dogs". This was with safesearch set to Moderate.
It sounds like you've got safesearch off. Under the search box, to the right you should see a box for "safesearch" choose "moderate" or "strict" and you shouldn't have this problem in future.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm much more concerned with the freedom of little kids to safely surf the net than the freedom of some man to watch porn without his wife's knowledge.
It's not about "little kids". Little kids, primary school age and below, don't care about porn. They won't do more than have a bit of a giggle at pictures of people in the nude, nor do I think that any but the most extreme stuff is going to do them much harm. They're more likely to be upset by a mainstream news prigramme, frankly.
It's adolescents that are the primary target of this censorship. That's the audience that are most likely to have their viewing desires frustrated by the restriction. There is, of course, an argument that this is a group that is forming its ideas of what sexual relations are about, and whose attitudes might be affected most by porn, and to a certain extent I share that. I'm going to be much more concerned with what my kids might find online when they are in their teens than I am now. But it is a complete misrepresentation of the issues to say this is about little kids' "freedom". It is about controlling what adults and (especially) adolescents can view.
(Also - why did you reverse the genders of the parties from my example? Is it because what I was actually talking about, namely that a porn-disapproving man like me should not be able to regulate what the women in his household choose to view, wouldn't have had quite the same rhetorical effect?)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Just tried that. (on my work PC no less) There was nothing pornagraphic in the results. The most "adult" images were a couple of cheerleaders posing with a pet dog and a poster for the movie "Resevoir Dogs". This was with safesearch set to Moderate. .
Yep. I just did that too. Hundreds of pictures of dogs. There was a David Bowie album cover over a hundred pictures in, and a couple of Reservoir Dogs film posters. After over three hundred pictures one of a quite attractive young woman, fully clothed, standing next to a dog. And that's with the search set to "moderate", not "strict".
With safe search "off" I get pretty much the same pictures with the addition of a couple of others.. A dog with a bottle of beer on the first page. A dog biting a man on the second. A very large great Dane sitting on a fully clothed woman's lap on a sofa - I suppose you could get some sort of sexual fantasy out of that if you were that way inclined. A couple of pictures of dogs with erect penises - which you can see any day in a public park if you want to. The most human flesh on display (other than the Bowie album cover) was one picture of two young women wearing bikinis or maybe some sort of underwear sitting on a sofa with a dog in between them. Nothing pornographic at all. You could see more human anatomy watching the Olympics on TV.
Out of more than a thousand pictures, almost all of, well, dogs. Mostly quite cute and fluffy ones, but some more ordinary looking ones. I suppose it might be quite arousing for someone who fancied dogs. But not for the average teenager.
I think you'd have to try a lot harder thatn that to be shocked.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I can't believe this has only just occurred to you no prophet. Plus I and others have raised this on porn threads on the ship more times than I care to remember.
It is my primary objection to photographic and filmed porn - someone has to do that and they are unlikely to be involved because they had loads of other better choices.
It hadn't been raised on this thread, and I was not really attending to it. So your incredulity is appropriate. Of course it has occurred to me, but the CBC radio piece with actual interviews with women really hammered it into my consciousness last evening. There's knowing and then there's really paying attention. My failure is with the latter and I take the criticism as completely justified.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bob Two-Owls
Shipmate
# 9680
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Just tried that. (on my work PC no less) There was nothing pornagraphic in the results...
Doesn't Google tailor the results towards your own previous searches and your location? Google in the US will throw up very different sites to Google in the UK and if you have clicked on a few "adult" sites by accident in the past then they may me added into what is considered acceptable without the safesearch filter. We had problems with a PC in the office that had been brought in by a former member of staff and abandoned. Deleting all the internet history and cookies stopped it throwing up porn during searches once we figured out what was wrong.
Posts: 1262 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
We had problems with a PC in the office that had been brought in by a former member of staff and abandoned. Deleting all the internet history and cookies stopped it throwing up porn during searches once we figured out what was wrong.
That's why sensible people use different browsers for work, rest, and play. And why they default to having cookies turned off and only turn them on for sites they know, trust, and intend to re-use. And why they use web browsers with "private browsing" turned on. And why they regularly delete their entire browsing history and cache. And why they use different usernames and passwords for different online activities (including "anonymous" if they are ever so foolish as to try to post on 4chan). And why pop-ups are turned off, firewalls are turned on, spam is never replied to, and if they are looking at anything they suspect of being dodgy they turn off scripting as well. And why they never use PayPal at all, and never are reluctant to use a credit card onine (really only for paying people they have heard of and have a street address for and never for porn or anything even a little dodgy) and why they never sign up or register for any porn site even if it claims to be free, and why they never look at anything dodgy with an iphone or similar. And why they regularly and frequently go over their computers with anti-virus and anti-adware and anti-trojan programs. And so on and on and on....
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I stumble on porn on the google images site all the time. I once typed the keyword, "dogs," and got graphic pictures of women having sex with dogs.
Just tried that. (on my work PC no less) There was nothing pornagraphic in the results. The most "adult" images were a couple of cheerleaders posing with a pet dog and a poster for the movie "Resevoir Dogs". This was with safesearch set to Moderate.
It sounds like you've got safesearch off. Under the search box, to the right you should see a box for "safesearch" choose "moderate" or "strict" and you shouldn't have this problem in future.
I just tried that too. Pages of really cute dogs (awwwww). Safesearch OFF, and I was logged in to my google account, from which I regularly search for actual porn, so you would think that if there was any tailoring of results, then it would push the porn further up. But nope, couldn't replicate your result there, sorry.
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Twilight, do you have "Safe Search" set to "Off", "Moderate" or "Strict"?
Even with it "off" here, "dogs" produces, well, dogs. "Dogs f***ing" (without the stars) produces some decidedly tasteless results on "Off", fairly tasteless on "Moderate" and utterly pure on "Strict".
It's not that it can't happen, it's just that it's not that hard to set things so as to minimise/all but eradicate it.
I nearly always have mine set to "strict." The other day I googled images of some actress or something to see if I recognized her (and if she was cute, I'll be honest) and got nothing but nudie shots. I checked to be sure, and I was in fact on strict. As an experiment I put it onto "off" and the results were indistinguishable.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm not saying we should be crippled and overcome by guilt all the time, but for a christian to believe they should have no sense of guilt or shame, and therefore be able to do as they please would be... er... very unwise. [/QUOTE]
Guilt and shame are not the only driving forces. There's reason, empathy, knowledge of cause and effect, pride in doing what you believe is right, humanity. We don't desend to doing anything we please because of a lack of guilt and shame. At least I don't.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm not saying we should be crippled and overcome by guilt all the time, but for a christian to believe they should have no sense of guilt or shame, and therefore be able to do as they please would be... er... very unwise.
Guilt and shame are not the only driving forces. There's reason, empathy, knowledge of cause and effect, pride in doing what you believe is right, humanity. We don't desend to doing anything we please because of a lack of guilt and shame. At least I don't. [/QUOTE]
Good point. It seems that some Christians see shame and guilt as the actual forces which hold us back from a kind of moral anarchy. If I didn't feel guilty and ashamed, I would do what I want.
I suppose in relation to porn, therefore, this view would argue that not feeling shame and guilt over porn is itself, well, wrong.
This makes me feel dizzy, as it is such a negative view of humans.
I suppose it is loosely classed as 'repressive religion', or fear-based religion? Thank goodness that it is diminishing.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A further point which I forgot to make is that it may well be shame and guilt which make people behave badly. In other words, if you feel unloved, worthless, devalued, and so on, you are more likely to not care about others, and treat them badly.
I think Freud says somewhere that criminals are not guilty because they are criminal, but criminal because they feel guilty.
Rather a controversial point, but it is a useful corrective to arguing that shame and guilt are actually in part foundations of morality.
There is also an issue about the 'internal goods' involved in being virtuous, but hang on, this is going wildly off-topic, although oddly, I feel no shame or guilt.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
It's OK mousethief, we know Josephine might read this thread too.
In contrast, I normally run Google with safe search set to off, and rarely see anything untoward unless I use a phrase which is deliberately suspect. No system is 100% perfect, but I can count on the fingers one one foot the times I've had filth back from a search engine when it hasn't been self-evidently likely from the search term/settings.
So, anyway, this actress, was she cute?
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Sorry for the tangent but I just wanted to add that from early 2001 to very recently I had always asumed that mousethief was a woman.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Twilight, do you have "Safe Search" set to "Off", "Moderate" or "Strict"?
Even with it "off" here, "dogs" produces, well, dogs. "Dogs f***ing" (without the stars) produces some decidedly tasteless results on "Off", fairly tasteless on "Moderate" and utterly pure on "Strict".
It's not that it can't happen, it's just that it's not that hard to set things so as to minimise/all but eradicate it.
I nearly always have mine set to "strict." The other day I googled images of some actress or something to see if I recognized her (and if she was cute, I'll be honest) and got nothing but nudie shots. I checked to be sure, and I was in fact on strict. As an experiment I put it onto "off" and the results were indistinguishable.
That happens to me a lot because I watch old 40's movies and then Google on the actresses to see whatever happened to them. It seems every Lana Turner or Ava Garner has a porn star named after them.
I never dreamed my dog story would result in so many people working so hard to prove me a liar. I did say, "I once Googled on dogs," etc. It was years ago,so don't expect the same result today.
As for Ken's complicated plan to keep my internet safe. That sort of thing only works if you are the only person using the computer. Whether you're talking about eleven year old kids, teens, or somebody's wife, not everyone has total control of their computer. Everything you learn to set your teenager can learn to unset.
I would sign that petition without a bit of worry over people telling me what to read or write. Porn isn't allowed on my TV and I haven't felt like I've lost any essential freedoms over it. Our freedom of speech was designed to ensure that we could say what we wanted to about religion and politics, it was never meant to force us to read/see things we don't want. People who simply must have porn can still get it, just not on such a shared medium.
One thing I really dispute is that ten year-old kids stumbling on hard core porn are just going to "giggle and move on." I think they find it disturbing and that it stays with them.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
One thing I really dispute is that ten year-old kids stumbling on hard core porn are just going to "giggle and move on." I think they find it disturbing and that it stays with them.
Really?
I remember the porn that did the rounds of my school when I was 11-13. Some of it (people having sex with animals) was pretty gross, and got passed around for shock value, curiosity, and the excitement of possessing contraband. "Giggle and move on" is exactly what the normal reaction to it was. I was unusual in not wanting to look at it at all, but I didn't know anyone who was disturbed by it.
Do I want my children to see such material? No, of course I don't. It is clearly not appropriate for children and as a parent I should not expose them to it. That does not mean that I should run around as if the sky were falling, and the only thing to keep it up were to control what everyone in the whole country is allowed to look at unless they specifically select their ISP's Masturbation Package.
I think we as adults owerestimate how significant sex is from a child's perspective. As an example, I remember, at about age 10-11 (pre secondary school anyway) reading John Norman's Gor books. I didn't think, even then, that they were especially well written, but some of the images - the Tarn cavalry, the city states with their home stones, the deadly tribes of the wagon people, the sinister priest-kings - stayed with me. I was aware that in the society described, many women were slaves, and most slaves were women, but that made very little impression, and didn't seem very important.
I re-read one of the books for ideas for a D&D campaign some years later, and realised that it was essentially bondage porn. The whole female submission thing is what the author most wants to say. But I missed that, as a pre-adolescent, not because it wasn't there, or I couldn't understand, but because I didn't care. The (obnoxious) sexual dynamics were just padding between the (to me) interesting "strange new world" bits and fight scenes. It would be impossible for an adult to read books like that without a reaction to the sexual elements - but that is a child's natural reading.
Young children are naturally insulated against pornography. I'm not saying that they should be allowed free access to it, or that they cannot be damaged by abusive exposure, but I also don't think the risk of great harm resulting from accidentally viewing some tasteless images on the internet is one that's worth losing much sleep over. Turn on your parental controls, keep the PC in the living room, and you can supervise perfectly well without telling anyone else what they are allowed to look at.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Twilight,I wasn't trying to prove you a liar, more demonstrate that in the here and now you can do a lot without special good to avoid accidental exposure (as it were). Legislating now, based on how things used to be, is not wise.
As for youngsters, the best control isn't a systems one, which will never be totally effective. It's to have the family computer in a 'public' space, and to make it clear that they can talk about anything disturbing and won't be in trouble.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Twilight wrote:
Our freedom of speech was designed to ensure that we could say what we wanted to about religion and politics, it was never meant to force us to read/see things we don't want. People who simply must have porn can still get it, just not on such a shared medium.
I'm not sure where you get the idea of being forced to read something? It conjures up bizarre images of people actually chained to a book or a screen.
Anyway, in relation to the UK, I would dispute your definition of free speech. One of the key landmarks in the recent history of free speech was the Lady Chatterley trial, which permitted the sale of that famous novel by Lawrence.
Of course, there were those who said that Lady Chatterley was filth, porn, and so on, because it described sex explicitly, and used four-letter words, but thankfully this was refuted.
I have no doubt that some people were genuinely shocked and horrified by this novel, and I would think that some still are, but should this mean therefore that it should be banned? I would say no.
Of course, as kids, we all knew where the sexy bits were in the novel, and those pages were well-thumbed - I seem to remember that page 217 was a corker - but I don't think that constitutes an argument against its publication.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
quote:
Last month our church had copies of a petition against online pornography, which church members were encouraged to sign.
I hope they remove the rude bits from Song of Solomon while they're at it ! My Calvanistic church parents caused problems by removing me from sex education because of nude images. When I reached puberty I spent a few weeks worrying what the hell was going on. But for some mates with porn mags I wouldn't have known anything about sex. The Samaritans were I believe set up after a girl committed suicide when her periods started, and didn't know what was happening to her.
How well would the church deal with sex education ? Some denominations are stuck in the old gnostic heresy sex=bad celebacy=spiritual and obsessed with nudity and sexual sin. I think at New Frontiers porn was the 'sin' most often mentioned. Good to control the flock with accountability to a spiritual 'father'. Total crap theologically of course. The only verse they have from Matthew is IMO wrongly translated and isn't about general sexual attraction and lust at all. Its about the process of taking another's spouse, just as anger may lead to murder (and adultery in Jesus' day was defined in a polygamous society totally different to the way we now define it, which is often forgotten by most modern Christians)!
IMO some parts of the church have done much more harm to people's sexuality than porn due to being overly prudish and mistakenly thinking they had any justification in scripture for doing so. Generations of Christians have had false guilt inflicted on them for masturbation, lust, and their sexuality. I find that Roman and Greek artwork from the 1st century is every bit as pornographic as most images on the internet and yet it was a non issue for the early church. Not one single petition or rant from St Paul about it.
I sometimes wonder if these churches would prefer it if we all got our genitals chopped off. Then we'd be super spiritual wouldn't we ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
