1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Porn to be opt-in only with UK's biggest ISPs

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by arcticstoat, 11 Oct 2011.

  1. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    5,234
    Likes Received:
    420
    QFT, kids really shouldn't have pc and tv in there rooms.

    the only pcs kids should be allowed to use are ones in exposed locations where they can't hide anything.
     
  2. 3lusive

    3lusive New Member

    Joined:
    5 Feb 2011
    Posts:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    45
  3. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    315
    I lol'd at this, and subsequently read the article, only to find that it is littered with just the sort of BS I expected to see.

    This is from the article, but also Greg's response on the first page in which he claimed that porn hasn't left him scarred. The unpleaseant truth is that porn can and does destroy people's relationships and people's lives; it certainly doesn't keep marriages going, lol - just ask a marriage counsellor or family therapist and they will tell you of the damage porn can do.

    The article also fails to mention that internet porn in particular is dangerously addictive (which has been concretely proven) and, like any other addiction, is destructive.

    This is typical liberal thinking - "sexual desire needs to be acted upon, not suppressed."

    Anyways, I totally agree that the parents should take the responsibility of controling what their kids see. To say that "parents aren't tech-savvy" is a cop-out and an invalid excuse: if you truly love your children, you will go to whatever lengths necessary to protect them from something you think can be extremely harmful to them.
     
  4. StingLikeABee

    StingLikeABee New Member

    Joined:
    17 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    562
    Likes Received:
    23
    So therefore, most parents would welcome this useful tool then right?
     
  5. Krazeh

    Krazeh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    2,111
    Likes Received:
    56
    Is it not possible that porn can do both depending on the situation?

    Is that a problem? Are we wanting to live in a society where sexual desires which don't cause harm to or take advantage of others are suppressed?
     
  6. rogerrabbits

    rogerrabbits New Member

    Joined:
    24 May 2011
    Posts:
    577
    Likes Received:
    11
  7. pendragon

    pendragon I pickle they

    Joined:
    14 May 2004
    Posts:
    717
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    I'm not the Pendragon you are looking for. Move along. Move along.
     
  8. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    315
    Some parents will - I personally see no problem with it, and my wife is all for it. On the contrary, I don't for a second think that this should be considered a substitute for proper parenting.

    The addictiveness of porn doesn't depend on the situation, nor does the effect it has on viewers. Porn has been shown to damage individuals and damage relationships... the claim that it can somehow assist a relationship is entirely fallacious. You will never see an article like this being written by a counsellor or therapist who has seen the damage that porn can do in relationships and (particularly) in children.

    It's not the sexual desires themselves that cause harm; it's the outworking of these desires that can cause harm. Sexual desire should (ideally) operate under higher values of love, self-control, fidelity and respect... but unfotrunately we belong to a society which regards sex as a purely mechanistic outlet for sexual desire, a thing that you do simply to scratch an itch.

    Admittedly the question "is porn good or bad for society" should be dealt with in a separate thread; I was merely responding to the article posted by elusive.
     
  9. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,657
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    So can alcohol. So can gambling. So can computer games, on-line social networks and even cheesecake. As always: adults only/parental supervision required; enjoy responsibly.

    No, porn can be addictive. It is all about the function it serves.

    As opposed to repressed? As an immigrant coming from a sexually liberal country like the Netherlands, which has the lowest teen pregnancy rates in Europe, coming to a sexually repressed country like the UK which has the highest, I see how well that is working out.

    I agree that sexual desire does not need to be acted upon in an uncontrolled manner, but neither can it be denied. It is a part of our biological drives, like eating, drinking, sleeping, the urge to feel safe, in control, loved, part of a group. So it needs to be managed in a responsible manner.

    Like with alcohol, it depends on its function. People are attracted to pornography for different reasons. Some couples use pornography for arousal and inspiration; some use it to gratify a sexual need. It is a mood altering substance, so to speak. Addiction is determined by how large that alteration of mood is, and how much its pursuit affects other important functional life activities and needs.

    It also depends on the type of pornography. In alcohol there is a good quality wine, and there is cheap hooch. In pornography there is violent and degrading pornography and there is non-violent, 'egalitarian' erotica (i.e. material depicting consensual non-aggressive sexual acts). Research shows that erotica has no negative effects. But even with regards violent and degrading pornography not all researchers agree that it inevitably produces antisocial effects.

    As long as the participants both make an informed decision that that is what they are doing, there is no problem with that.

    My problem with pornography is that there is often a lack of professional boundaries in the industry. But this is found much more in the industry that produces violent and degrading porn, than in the industry that produces erotica (where it still occurs, but to the same extent as in e.g. fashion photography. I know a few models. I could tell you stories).

    My main problem is that although society has a big problem with showing sex: the act of one, two or more people enjoying themselves, it has very little problem with showing violence: the act of people inflicting suffering and damage on each other. We wouldn't let children watch porn. We will let them watch films depicting acts of violence. We wouldn't want them to play doctor, but we will let them play soldiers. In the US, parents who would get an anaphylactic shock at the thought of their children being told what a uterus is and where the cock actually goes, have no problem with taking them to the shooting range.

    This kind of gives a mixed message to those exposed to violent and degrading porn. How is imagery of violence and degradation of other people OK, but as soon as there is a nipple in the shot, it isn't? It's OK to depict soldiers shooting people, but showing them raping the victim is not? What's the difference, might the violent porn consumer argue? And they would have a point.

    The way to deal with porn is not to ban it, but to appropriate it; bring it into the fold of the positive, friendly and mutually enjoyable ways in which people socialise and relate to each other. Like alcohol should be enjoyed over a good dinner with friends, and not as a binge-fest in a seedy pub (with bar brawl to follow), the message to children should be that sex is a consensual, non-violent, egalitarian and enjoyable way in which adults relate to each other --and that it is enjoyed responsibly.
     
  10. DC74

    DC74 Doh!

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2011
    Posts:
    71
    Likes Received:
    2
    `Earlier this year, David Cameron wrote to the Mother's Union chief executive, Reg Bailey'

    A male chief exec of the Mother's Union? wow thats equal oportunities for ya.

    Shame the same choice isn't going to be given to the populace. If you want to look at porn you should be able to, as far as i'm concerned there's enough parental control stuff out there that anyone with half a brain can use.

    Trouble is, there's too many doo gooder types with the ear of a middle England Tory MP, that whinge as much as possible, then the nanny state acts rashly throwing up some hastily arranged knee jerk legislation, which takes years to be sorted out properly as its often interpreted incorrectly.
     
  11. erratum1

    erratum1 New Member

    Joined:
    30 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    68
    I think this has to happen and it's not a big deal to just simply opt in if you view such material.

    You can stumble across all sorts on the net and they all give 'high definition samples', I wouldn't let kids anywhere near a pc on there own to be honest.
     
  12. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    315
    @ Nexxo - you make some good points, but stop playing semantics: porn IS addictive, even though not everybody who views it becomes addicted to it... much the same as alcohol IS addictive, but not every drinker is an alcoholic. Moreover, an alcoholic cannot "enjoy responsibly" as you suggest, so to say that porn is for adults and should be enjoyed responsibly isn't quite addressing the issue: many people cannot (or should not) look at porn because of the damage it has done in their lives.

    I still fundamentally disagree that "repressing sexual desire" is equal to "denial" as you say, because we are not always in a position where we can (freely) act on our sexual desire. Sexual desire needs to be kept in check and controlled, which much of the time means it shouldn't be acted on (even responsibly). People who regularly view porn will claim adamantly that they are in complete control of their sexual desire, but the reality is that they aren't controlling their sexual desire as much as it is controlling them, and this has been proven.

    As for porn being like a fine wine - nonsense! Wine in moderation nourishes the body; porn in any amount objectifies women and dehumanises sex, and has been shown to lead to emotional impairment (in both men and women) and a distorted view of relationships particularly in men.
     
    Last edited: 13 Oct 2011
  13. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,657
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Defining terms is not semantics; it is the first step in informed debate. To say that something IS addictive implies that this is always the case. Clearly alcohol is not by definition addictive as plenty of people drink alcohol without developing a dependence on it. Porn is not by definition addictive as plenty of people have been exposed to porn and have not developed a dependence on, or even an interest in it (else those unenviable police officers who as part of their job have to watch child porn material for submission as evidence for prosecution would be in some dire trouble!).

    The way I understood it, we both agreed that sexual desire needs to be expressed responsibly, which does indeed mean that there is a time and a place where you do it, and a time and a place where you don't. To "act responsibly" implies what you do as well as what you refrain from doing.

    And no, that people who watch porn are not in control of their sexual desire has not been proven, as far as I know. But I'm prepared to be proved wrong with a link.

    Yeah, again: there's violent and degrading porn and there is erotica. Or do you think we should torch all those paintings by Rubens or Renoir? Or Albert Moore's A Bathing Place? Sir Lawrence Alma Tadema's A Sculptor's Model? Klimt's Adam and Eve? And let's not stop at paintings; there's books to burn! There's D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterly's Lover; Aubrey Beardsley's Under the Hill, and even the Bible. Hey, it has some pretty racy content if you ask me:

    "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies." (Song of Solomon, 4:5)

    The picture is a bit more nuanced than you think. Repeating yourself and dismissing the exact definition of terms as semantics does not change that.
     
    Last edited: 13 Oct 2011
    LennyRhys likes this.
  14. adidan

    adidan Guesswork is still work

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    14,194
    Likes Received:
    1,696
    Emotional impairment? Interesting, could you link me to some studies please?
     
  15. Ayrto

    Ayrto New Member

    Joined:
    20 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    255
    Likes Received:
    3

    Nexxo, I think it's pretty pointless arguing with angry repressive people like this. They don't accept that sexual desire and servicing of said desire are a healthy part of the human condition. They're often quite misanthropic sorts , who have their own guilt issues with sex and then enjoy trying to make other people feel ashamed or guilty too, about simply being a normal human being. We should blame their parents, for bringing them up with distorted views !

    From the earliest cave drawings, that celebrated fertility and the female form, to the Kama Sutra, it's nothing new. Apart from castrating every male, a desire to seek out visual representations of this stuff, in all forms will always exist, from maturity onwards. Prudish(often very hypocritical) people trying to cast shame on others are the real obscenity. There are too many in the UK.
     
    Last edited: 13 Oct 2011
  16. Krazeh

    Krazeh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    2,111
    Likes Received:
    56
    I'm intrigued. Why exactly should sexual desires not be acted upon if it's possible to do so responsibly? And tbh keeping them in check and controlled to the point of not acting on them most of the time sounds an awful lot like denial to me.
     
  17. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    315
    It's nitpicking IMO, but fair enough. :)

    We are talking at cross purposes then - I am of the mind that sexual desire doesn't "always" need to be expressed, responsibly or otherwise. I could express my sexual desire responsibly right now by having sex with my wife... but I'm quite happy not to. Am I being repressive/denying myself by making that choice? It's more complicated than a simple "yes, you are," as I'm sure you'll agree.

    It's not about proving anything; it's about keeping an open mind (more on that later, as per other responses to my post). I read this article recently which I found very insightful, and all my quotes are taken from here. As I say, nothing is concretely proven (nor can it be), but the arguments in favour of the damaging nature of porn are quite compelling IMO.

    Sexual desire becoming a controlling factor:

    "The problem with pornography begins when, instead of being a temporary stop on the way to full sexual relations, it becomes a full-time place of residence." Morgan's experience of counselling men addicted to porn has convinced him that "the more time you spend in this fantasy world, the more difficult it becomes to make the transition to reality. Just like drugs, pornography provides a quick fix, a masturbatory universe people can get stuck in. This can result in their not being able to involve anyone else." (Ed Marriott citing David Morgan, Consultant Clinical Psychologist & Psychoanalyst @ Portman Clinic, London)

    Porn dehumanises sex:

    "This dehumanising aspect is an important part of pornography. It dehumanises the other person, the relationship, and any intimacy." (Estela Welldon, author)

    "It got to the point where I considered having sex the way most people consider getting a hamburger. But when you try to give it up - that's when you realise how addictive it is, both for consumers and performers. It's a class A drug, and it's hell coming off it." (Kelly Cooke, porn actress)

    Porn can cause (I'm learning) emotional and relational impairment:

    Lost in a world of pornographic fantasy, men can become less inclined, as well as increasingly less able, to form lasting relationships. In part, this is due to the underlying message of pornography. Ray Wyre, a specialist in sexual crime, says pornography "encourages transience, experimentation and moving between partners". Morgan goes further: "Pornography does damage," he says, "because it encourages people to make their home in shallow relationships." (Ed Marriott citing Ray Wyre and David Morgan)

    There are obviously countless other articles and studies (far too many to cite here) but I have included these simply to show that there are strong arguments from authoritative sources on the damage that porn can cause even outwith addiction.

    Totally agree, but it's about as far from porn as you can get - the Song of Solomon is a love poem about husband and wife honouring each other (and honouring God) with their bodies; there's nothing smutty or lustful about it. Pornography (including erotica) centres on lust and self-gratification, which are the antithesis of the Bible's portrayal of a loving sexual union between husband and wife.

    Anyway, keeping religion out (lest I incite a riot), I also agree that the bigger picture is extremely nuanced, which is why there are so many different stances on the issue. I'm not trying to say that porn is wrong per se (I quietly subscribe to my own stance on that), but I am a firm believer that it can be very destructive and causes a lot more harm than people realise or are prepared to accept - whether through lack of proof, as per this thread, or sheer bloody-mindedness. :)

    Saying anything negative about porn on an internet forum is bound to put me at odds with the vast majority of members - so be it. As I hope I have demonstrated in this post, I'm not emotionally burdened to pontificate vacuously about my opinions; my opinions have been formed over many years of experience with other people, and citations from psychoanalysts, psychologists, authors and (even) porn stars corroborate what I'm saying.

    Agree and disagree - prudes are annoying and hypocritical, but not all people who oppose porn are prudes (oh, it's generalisation again: retract those spines!); many people oppose porn because they know only too well the damage that it can cause. Look at David Morgan, who counsels men whose lives have been marred and sometimes destroyed by porn, and all the other therapists and counsellors who try to patch broken relationships. They ain't prudes. :)

    As for obscenity - man buggered by pig, or two girls one cup... that's obscene (and there's far worse). :nono:
     
    Last edited: 13 Oct 2011
  18. Sloth

    Sloth #yolo #swag

    Joined:
    29 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    208
    So when in doubt make personal attacks? Please consider the hypocrisy of this: Your own post is an attempt to shame LennyRhys and any who share a similar mindset.

    In many ways I can see where he's coming from, albiet not in entirety.
    This comment in particular struck me as interesting. Specifically the way it's worded, there's no middle ground: you must either choose to act or suppress. This indeed seems to be the mentality that many have, control is equated to denial and that assumed denial is percieved as a threat to one's freedom to act. This threat is answered by simply doing the opposite: embracing action in all cases.

    It's seen with all desires: a suggestion of restraint is met with "you can't tell me what I can and can't do". Even in situations where the risks of not practicing restraint are well documented and understood people will continue to exercise their right to do as they please. Obesity (poor diet), liver failure (excessive alcohol consumption), heart disease (more dietary), cancer of various sorts (various causes), preventable head injuries (wear your helmets, kids!), there are an infinite number of side effects relating to an infinite number of desires and choices. LennyRhys's complaint seems to be more with this mentality of spiting any restraint rather than with acting at all. No one here's arguing for abstinence and whether or not someone likes porn is more a matter of opinion.
     
    LennyRhys likes this.
  19. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    315
    I should have hired you to write my post :D This is pretty much what I'm saying, in a nutshell.

    To argue for complete abstinence from pornography the debate would become about morality, and that certianly isn't my intention (I'm not quite that stupid :D ). Many people would benefit from being a little more open-minded about the potential dangers of porn without seeing it as the work of the devil, or something similar. :thumb:
     
  20. Ayrto

    Ayrto New Member

    Joined:
    20 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    255
    Likes Received:
    3
    Two points

    1. Already by law, porn has to be at all stages consensual, producers , actors , consumers. Therefore quite frankly, it's nobodies business but the adults involved, in all those stages. It's not for some smug person to second guess someone's motivations as though only they possess clarity of mind and the necessary objectivity.

    2. This 'destroyed people' argument is built on supposition. Multiple factors or variables go in making an individual and their unique motivations, desires. People who have problems with porn , may well have had worse problems with something else in a porn free environment ; OCD, depression, self harm, violence, becoming a suicide bomber etc. , whatever .

    Until strict controls are put in place to create a Truman show like environment, in which identical individuals can be monitored (which obv you can't) the whole proposition that, "porn alone did this to Mr or Mrs X" is purely supposition (or conjecture). And conjecture, however seemingly well founded, is not a good enough basis for passing law on.
     
    Last edited: 14 Oct 2011
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page