Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Filter porn

12346

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Hoop66 wrote: »
    I maintain that these can be effects of exposure to hardcore pornography, especially at a young age.

    "Can" is a wishy washy word that tells us almost nothing however. Normalization to violence _can_ also be an effect of computer games or even many of our cartoons or programmes like Power Rangers or movies like James Bond.

    If we throw in the word "can" then we are able to claim just about anything and get away with it because we are essentially saying nothing but using a lot of words to say it. Hell even reading "Catcher in the Rye" _can_ make you go off and shoot someone given we have one example of that to draw from.

    The question is whether there is any significant numbers of any note that take us beyond the realm of _can_ and into the realm of taking claims against pornography seriously.
    Hoop66 wrote: »
    Are you saying that porn (not all but a majority) doesn't objectify women, for instance? Or that scenarios presented in porn are "natural"?[/QOUTE]

    It objectifies the men too... as well as the people watching the porn. So what?

    Also why do the scenarios have to be "Natural" or realistic? Is anything in James Bond, He-Man, Big Brother of X-Factor natural or realistic? This attempt to slip words under the radar like "natural" and "realistic" is useless. It is just an attempt to hope that people will automatically equate "unnatural" and "unrealistic" with "bad" as if the two are synonyms for each other. They are not.
    Hoop66 wrote: »
    I'm in no way anti-porn, but I do think it presents a warped view of human sexuality which isn't particularly healthy.

    And soap operas present a warped view of human society which isn't particularly healthy either.

    The trick of linguistics being played by both of us in these sentences is the attempt to pretend that "not particularly healthy" is the same as saying "Unhealthy".

    As with the "unnatural" and "unrealistic" trick above it is an attempt to get people to add 2 and 2 in their own heads and come out with 5. A propaganda trick to make people reach conclusions one is not actually saying oneself... but which one wants others to reach all the same.

    The question is not whether porn or soap operas are not healthy.... they could for example be health neutral. The question is whether these things are actively UNhealthy and I see nothing, much less from this thread, to suggest it is.

    The tone I am getting from your posts in general is one of making one set of points in the hope that other points will make themselves because you are unable to. For example the following....
    Hoop66 wrote: »
    But "what happens" in porn, isn't remotely like "what happens" in real life.

    .... lead instantly to the two obvious questions of "Who ever claimed it was, and why?" and "Who ever claimed it needs to, and why?" and without you answering those questions the only reply possible to your point is "So what?".


  • Registered Users Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Tordelback


    I don't want my kids watching porn. I also don't want them getting run over by cars, drowning, falling off cliffs etc. Is my best option educating them and supervising them myself, or lobbying 'the government' to ban cars/water/mountains?

    If porn becomes 'opt in', I'd suggest three things will happen:

    (1). It'll become a massive source of revenue for the porn industry when access is only permitted to 'legitimate', ie pay, sites, who in turn have to pay a licensing fee to ISPs or states for their certification. Increased profitability will lead to porn becoming far more mainstream. Whether this is a good or bad thing is an interesting question.

    (2). More 'opt in' schemes will be rolled out for anything controversial that you can think of, leading to complete corporate and political control of the legitimate internet (access will still continue for the tech savvy, but the majority will be cut off).

    (3). Kids will get access to porn anyway, through torrents, offline backups, stupid adults, mates with horny parents etc, but it will be even cooler and more desirable because it is taboo/difficult.

    I can't see any reason why such a scheme would be in the interests of those whose concern is protecting children. For corporations and governments, yes, it'd be great.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,274 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    I don't really get the argument that "well, they'll just get around it", yep, they will, same as U-18's still get their hand on booze and cigarettes despite bans on selling to U-18's, that doesn't mean ideas making it more difficult for teenagers to access porn sites are a bad idea in itself.

    If a teenager really wants to watch it, they'll find a way to, so no harm done. It would be great if the world was a libertarian idyll, but it isn't, often it is better society has to decide things, rather than leave it up to the individual.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,066 ✭✭✭Washington Irving


    Feck off, OP. Boobs for all!


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    K-9 wrote: »
    I don't really get the argument that "well, they'll just get around it", yep, they will, same as U-18's still get their hand on booze and cigarettes despite bans on selling to U-18's, that doesn't mean ideas making it more difficult for teenagers to access porn sites are a bad idea in itself.

    If a teenager really wants to watch it, they'll find a way to, so no harm done. It would be great if the world was a libertarian idyll, but it isn't, often it is better society has to decide things, rather than leave it up to the individual.
    I think you could impose laws on the types of porn allowed, most porn sites are legitimate businesses so they would follow guidelines if they had too.

    It's just where do you draw the line. Theres that japanese porn where women get tied up in elaborate knots, to call it porn may even be a bit much as the focus seems to be on the way they're tied up. But then there's the gonzo stuff where it looks like a borderline gang rape.

    But if you impose those kinds of controls they could be used in popular film to censor violent rape scenes. In film a violent rape scene has a completely different agenda, you're usually sympathising with the victim or watching someone descend into madness.

    I don't think it makes any sense to hide what happens in the real world from children too much. I don't think we're harming children by letting them see how the world really is, bringing them up in a fantasy land is more harmful I think. Eventually the fantasy will crumble and they'll feel completely disheartened about life.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,041 ✭✭✭who the fug


    K-9 wrote: »
    I don't really get the argument that "well, they'll just get around it", yep, they will, same as U-18's still get their hand on booze and cigarettes despite bans on selling to U-18's, that doesn't mean ideas making it more difficult for teenagers to access porn sites are a bad idea in itself.

    If a teenager really wants to watch it, they'll find a way to, so no harm done. It would be great if the world was a libertarian idyll, but it isn't, often it is better society has to decide things, rather than leave it up to the individual.

    If you cannot enforce a law, then you make an arse of the law, and if the general population don't believe in a law then you can't enforce it

    Things banned in Ireland , Contraceptives , drugs, books (Tailor & Ansty), abortion, divorce etc, have all made society consider the law an ass.

    Just because you shout very loudly and are well connected does not mean you should be listened to


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭St.Spodo


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I think you could impose laws on the types of porn allowed, most porn sites are legitimate businesses so they would follow guidelines if they had too.

    It's just where do you draw the line. Theres that japanese porn where women get tied up in elaborate knots, to call it porn may even be a bit much as the focus seems to be on the way they're tied up. But then there's the gonzo stuff where it looks like a borderline gang rape.

    But if you impose those kinds of controls they could be used in popular film to censor violent rape scenes. In film a violent rape scene has a completely different agenda, you're usually sympathising with the victim or watching someone descend into madness.

    I don't think it makes any sense to hide what happens in the real world from children too much. I don't think we're harming children by letting them see how the world really is, bringing them up in a fantasy land is more harmful I think. Eventually the fantasy will crumble and they'll feel completely disheartened about life.

    It must also be said that the fantasy land of porn often bears no resemblance to how the world is and can be very harmful to children. I say that as someone who is very skeptical towards attempts to bring in censorship laws.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    From the Daily Mail
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2344791/Education-minister-Dont-allow-TVs-computers-childrens-bedrooms.html
    'Don't allow TVs or computers in children's bedrooms': Education minister reveals concerns parents don't realise their offspring can access hard core material
    ...
    Baroness Benjamin asked: ‘Why is the government not insisting they should be offering filtering for their existing customers and block porn and adult material by default as part of the solution to protect all children before they end up in a moral wasteland?’


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭Flesh Gorden



    Daily Mail were trying for a while last year to shill their idea to block all internet porn

    About half way down: Link

    Ironically though, the majority of stories on the right hand column revolve around half naked celebrities and their sex lives


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,435 ✭✭✭wandatowell


    I've watched so much porn I dont even bother with it anymore.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    There are a few things I wish schools would really hammer into our heads....one of those things would be the basics of how computers and data security works.

    Bare with me on this....

    At a high level, encryption isn't hard to understand. So long as we have certain types of math problems that are 'difficult' to solve, we can encrypt data in a way that other people can't decrypt.

    You could monitor EVERYTHING sent between two computers and it wouldn't matter. Without any prior communication, they can agree upon a 'key' and communicate - and you can't decrypt it. Not just 'you' as a person - nobody, within reason. You could even calculate how many years/decades/lifetimes it would take super-computers to decrypt.

    What this means is you can NEVER ban something from the internet. As long as I'm able to communicate with other people on the internet, and so long as we haven't 'figured out ALL THE MATHS'.

    So, right off the bat; if you want to have a serious discussion about stuff on the internet - you need to understand and acknowledge this. You *can't* effectively ban something from the internet. I don't mean it's 'wrong' or 'hard' or 'takes a lot of effort' - I mean - you *can't*. You might as well pass a law that says 'The sun can't shine on Thursdays'.

    The good news is that there are still other ways to protect children.
    The bad news is that the effective ones require parents to...well....keep tabs on their children. And that's a lot more work than calling for the government to fix the internet.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    I don't understand why it needs to be an opt-out filter system. They already have this with some mobile internet providers in the UK, (O2 seem to be the worst) and its a massive nuisance as it also tends to block a lot of non-porn sites as well as the porn ones.

    Isn't a system where a person buying an internet connection is asked "would you like to opt-in for an adult content filter?" a better solution than one where a user has to opt-out? At least in that situation both groups are happy. The parents can opt-in for the porn filter for the kids and adults without kids can look at the content that they can legally look at anyway without the hassle of having to ring up or go into a store to ask for it to be turned off.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31 TheSB


    Just turn run OpenDNS on your computer, it will block porn and any other site you want.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange



    Isn't a system where a person buying an internet connection is asked "would you like to opt-in for an adult content filter?" a better solution than one where a user has to opt-out? At least in that situation both groups are happy. The parents can opt-in for the porn filter for the kids and adults without kids can look at the content that they can legally look at anyway without the hassle of having to ring up or go into a store to ask for it to be turned off.

    What system is best depends on what people proposing are really trying to achieve. One article I read on the UK proposal said when you opt into being an adult it will revert to PG internet the next day automatically. Clearly the intent is to have people generally viewing the censored internet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 412 ✭✭Fr Dougal


    There's porn on t'internet now? Whatever next..... :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,421 ✭✭✭major bill




  • Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 21,502 Mod ✭✭✭✭Agent Smith


    What we need to do is close the internet down and go back to innocent halcyon days when no-one had the butt-seks.

    and Listened to Orbital while popping yokes....



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,421 ✭✭✭ToddyDoody


    Porn is one of those things that needs to be dealth with differently between the (human) sexes. Women's porn is 0.005% of the problem, men's porn is 99.995% of the problem. I suppose the equality lobby disagrees?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭Doctor Strange


    I don't understand why it needs to be an opt-out filter system. They already have this with some mobile internet providers in the UK, (O2 seem to be the worst) and its a massive nuisance as it also tends to block a lot of non-porn sites as well as the porn ones.

    Isn't a system where a person buying an internet connection is asked "would you like to opt-in for an adult content filter?" a better solution than one where a user has to opt-out? At least in that situation both groups are happy. The parents can opt-in for the porn filter for the kids and adults without kids can look at the content that they can legally look at anyway without the hassle of having to ring up or go into a store to ask for it to be turned off.

    Why the hell should a company have to do that? Parents should get computer savvy and look after their own damn kids.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,274 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I think you could impose laws on the types of porn allowed, most porn sites are legitimate businesses so they would follow guidelines if they had too.

    It's just where do you draw the line. Theres that japanese porn where women get tied up in elaborate knots, to call it porn may even be a bit much as the focus seems to be on the way they're tied up. But then there's the gonzo stuff where it looks like a borderline gang rape.

    But if you impose those kinds of controls they could be used in popular film to censor violent rape scenes. In film a violent rape scene has a completely different agenda, you're usually sympathising with the victim or watching someone descend into madness.

    I don't think it makes any sense to hide what happens in the real world from children too much. I don't think we're harming children by letting them see how the world really is, bringing them up in a fantasy land is more harmful I think. Eventually the fantasy will crumble and they'll feel completely disheartened about life.

    A violent rape scene like The Accused is going to get an over 18 cert, and if parents think their 15/16 year old can watch it, the parents can decide to let them watch it.

    If kids want to know what the real world is like, they can get that from the news. I grew up watching the latest atrocity in N.I., and that's where I got my idea how violent the world can be.

    The other side to your argument, and this was borne out in a C4 programme about secondary school teenagers and their attitudes towards porn, because porn is so readily available it starts to pervade their thinking about sex. That's where the problem arises.
    If you cannot enforce a law, then you make an arse of the law, and if the general population don't believe in a law then you can't enforce it

    Things banned in Ireland , Contraceptives , drugs, books (Tailor & Ansty), abortion, divorce etc, have all made society consider the law an ass.

    Just because you shout very loudly and are well connected does not mean you should be listened to.

    Well contraceptives are now legal, we have little censorship on books or films, divorce is legal. Abortion yep, drugs still in step with international thinking, wrong as it maybe.

    The argument that tough censorship is wrong does not mean a libertarian idyll has to be right.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 899 ✭✭✭StickyIcky


    If you have kids put netnanny on the pc

    Problem solved


  • Registered Users Posts: 306 ✭✭Chrisbellew


    If you don't want your kids to see porn keep an eye on them, no point in subjecting everyone else to porn filtering..


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,274 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    If you don't want your kids to see porn keep an eye on them, no point in subjecting everyone else to porn filtering..

    You'll still get to see your porn, the withdrawal shakes might prove an added bonus.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭WumBuster


    What do you want to do OP,Its just one of those things that is there. having said that, it wont usually pop up in searches unless you go looking for it with the specific key words. trust me, i know.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    It this why I can't get porn/a lot of banal sites like urbandictionary on my phone via Three?
    If I call them will they flick the porn doomsitch back on??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    kids need to be educated, you cant fight change just head it off at the pass
    and this starts with sex education in schools.
    there was a really good channel 4 programme for teenagers on sex education
    'sex education for teenagers' I think it was called or something. very good it was.

    What should be thought is contraception and how to use it properly the reality that it isnt 100% safe, condoms break, how to avoid this happening

    the need for foreplay and methods [but keeping it to touching each other EVERYwhere [but not orally theyll learn that themselves later in time through exploration and curiosity/porn], and how to get your partner going - afterall this is the whole point of FP] kissing ect, the need for respect for your partner while having sex and finally the REPROCUSSIONS of having a baby so young especially, but what a baby means as parents with a family saying how life changed for them and the necessary sacrifices they had to make in order to properly look after their child once born, how their social life and life was turned upside down ect.

    basically give them the realities while at the same time giving them the information in an un biast way. sex after bodily functions is the most natural things you can do, nothing wrong with it - but it needs to be drilled into them that having a child is going to mean freedom taken away and a change in life style needed. basically give them the 'oh **** really?' side of the possible reprocutions of sex, including sti's ect.


    Also sex ed should start around 10, before puberty hits. instilling respect is the main thing though at that early age. you want to get in there before pron does
    after all the rest has been taught and sunk in over weeks or months, THEN move onto pron possibly and the reality that it is a FANTASY! and it is acting ect. but the issue needs to be addressed for society as a whole. the net has made things so much more accessible now, so sex ed needs to get ahead and head these things off at the pass before porn warps their ideas before they start having sex and they think that thats what its all about. in essence porn is not for young minds pre virginity which most of us know


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    ^ can't make sence of anything you said there

    Parents should install a good web filter and try keep an eye on their kids using the family computer. Logging history is useful too although that is pretty invasive. What's the average age kids get laptops these days, 14/15 ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,269 ✭✭✭GalwayGuy2


    I'm not entirely sure why there's so much attention on Porn, and absolutely none on Erotica novels/Urban fantasy and romance novels with erotic moments, so on so forth.

    Both contain BDSM elements, and yet only pornagraphy seems to warp young men people's mind.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4 Smarttt


    once you start filtering some kinds of content, it is very easy to start restricting all kinds of information. It is a slippery road, we should know go down. INFORMATION FREEDOM


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    All of this has to be taken in the context of TV,
    filtering out porn while leaving violence and casual sex ?

    http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/tv.htm
    An average American child will see 200,000 violent acts and 16,000 murders on TV by age 18
    Two-thirds of all programming contains violence
    Programs designed for children more often contain violence than adult TV
    Most violent acts go unpunished on TV and are often accompanied by humor. The consequences of human suffering and loss are rarely depicted.
    Many shows glamorize violence. TV often promotes violent acts as a fun and effective way to get what you want, without consequences
    ...
    Sexual content is a real presence on TV. Soap operas, music videos, prime time shows and advertisements all contain lots of sexual content, but usually nothing about contraception or safer sex.
    The number of sex scenes on TV has nearly doubled since 1998, with 70% of the top 20 most-watched shows by teens including sexual content. Fifteen percent of scenes with sexual intercourse depict characters that have just met having sex. Of the shows with sexual content, an average of five scenes per hour involves sex.
    Watching sex on TV increases the chances a teen will have sex, and may cause teens to start having sex at younger ages. Even viewing shows with characters talking about sex increases the likelihood of sexual initiation. (Read more about this study.)
    Watching sexual content on TV is linked to becoming pregnant or being responsible for a pregnancy. Researchers found that even after controlling for other risk factors, the chance of teen pregnancy went up with more exposure to sex on television .


Advertisement