|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The government, porn and censorship
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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'.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
'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 can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Well, Croesos pretty much blew me out of the water.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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%?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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)?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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 have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
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!!
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
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)?
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
