UK to have "opt out" Porn filters

[Montmorency]

The argument runs that the violent porn normalises abuse of women.

Most porn is not violent, and anyway even non-violent pornography can be degrading to the actresses - or indeed the actors.

violent porn normalises abuse of women.

Porn doesn't substantially normalize anything, because porn itself is merely a reflection of the norms in which the creators are steeped. Anyway, as I said boys do not get most of their cues from porn; they get them from their parents, their peers, and the entertainment media. If a boy grows up to think that corporal abuse is A-OK, then it's probably a result of his 200,000-hour upbringing and the culture in which he was immersed far more than the result of all 100 hours of questionable porno he ever watched.

And finally, if we do differentiate between "violent" porn, and degrading porn in general, well, why do you think that very many men people prefer to consume violent porn to all the rest? It's honestly not a very big niche. And why are you suddenly singling out violent porn if this legislation is supposed to pertain to porn in general?

and parents have entirely given up on sex education.

The situation is far from optimal, but it certainly has improved. To think that it's worse now than it was in, say, the 50s is surely...

Having spent the last few daces pushing "no means no" we now have a generation exposed to exactly the opposite

They are exposed to it far more readily in television and film. They should really be explicitly taught this in school. Come on, they already tell us to try not to hate people who are different than us, right?

Imagine the headlines if they hadn't, "BT Refuses Cameron Request to block Porn".

You believe more than a tiny minority would have given it a second thought, let alone expressed outrage?

we're moving to the ISP's enforcing the same standards as youtube.

Youtube allows no pornography at all, technically, under any circumstances. There is no opt-in to YouPorn, the porn side of Youtube.

I still think that

A. Familiarizing children with all things reproductive and genderific should commence from early childhood, and this includes the concept (and even examples) of pornography.

B. The feminists should appropriate pornography for themselves and "clean it up", so to speak. If many of them believe that pornography is not merely epiphenomenal of culture, then surely this is the best way to nullify its 'evils': to make it 'good'.

are good ideas. Do you have a rebuttal?

[a completely inoffensive name]

If porn is banned on the internet you are going to have a lot more pregnancies and STD's going around. You have millions of 16-24 year olds (men and women) who are more or less slaves to their sexual appetite. That's not me being judgmental, as I am part of that group, that's just biology. If I didn't have porn as a release I wouldn't be here spending my free time reading and sharing ideas on the org. I would be clubbing every single night or even worse, using my imagination to get the job done. Young people are gonna be sexual, and I think that only the most socially isolated actually believe that porn is anything like real life.

Basically, implementing a porn filter is one tenant of an abstinence-only policy. All you Europeans love to criticize the US, yet you have seemed to over look the stupidity of American sex education in many places.

[Major Robert Dump]

I think it also depends on the society. I think in the Catholic, socially backwards Asian island where I am currently visiting, legalizing porn and removing the filters could possibly have a damaging effect on society. The rape rate here is very high, the incest/child abuse rate among locals is out of control, alcoholism in an epidemic and people here are generally very uneducated about sex as the schools teach NOTHING and expect parents to do it all.... ya know, those alcoholic parents with 8 children.

But rolling back the clock in a place like the UK would just be silly

[Crazed Rabbit]

This is all about normalizing government censorship of the internet.

The whole porn issue is invented as a means to get the government's foot in the door in terms of beginning censorship with the support of righteous moralists who think it right all of society be forced into something to allegedly protect "the children".

Governments and bureaucrats, once granted an immense power - internet censorship - have never and will never simply stop at the initial extent of the law. They will always push for more power, more control, and more censorship (in this case) of things they deem bad. After all, if censorship of one thing is good, then surely they are other things they can censor for "the greater good".

I mean, look at the growth of the US security state for crying out loud.

CR

[Brenus]

“All you Europeans love to criticize the US, yet you have seemed to over look the stupidity of American sex education in many places.” If we could pick ideas only for sex education!
I was wondering how this Puritans 19th Century Government would try to ban sex, after Alcohol and Cigarettes. Job done!

[Husar]

Basically, implementing a porn filter is one tenant of an abstinence-only policy. All you Europeans love to criticize the US, yet you have seemed to over look the stupidity of American sex education in many places.

Eh, Europeans?
This is happening in Britain, the only European country that's 60% European, 40% American and believes itself to be 100% unique island.

Our legalized and not regulated (thus self-regulating) prostitution is apparently not something people want to praise either, supposedly it breeds forced prostitution and human trafficking. Why would the porn industry be any different?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is all about normalizing government censorship of the internet.

The whole porn issue is invented as a means to get the government's foot in the door in terms of beginning censorship with the support of righteous moralists who think it right all of society be forced into something to allegedly protect "the children".

Governments and bureaucrats, once granted an immense power - internet censorship - have never and will never simply stop at the initial extent of the law. They will always push for more power, more control, and more censorship (in this case) of things they deem bad. After all, if censorship of one thing is good, then surely they are other things they can censor for "the greater good".

I mean, look at the growth of the US security state for crying out loud.

CR

And yet - the government is not imposing these filters - not making a change to the law.

The only proposed change to the law is to make "rape porn" illegal.

As far as government "pushing for more". Like everything else - this is the fault of the electorate. The people cry "do something" and that requires passing new laws.

[InsaneApache]

Claire Perry, who suggested this imbecilic idea, has made a bit of a chump of herself. Total ignoramus of how computers and the internet function. Moreover, these people make our laws and they don't know how things work.

Another case of politicians being the problem not the solution.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And yet - the government is not imposing these filters - not making a change to the law.

They aren't pressuring ISPs into compliance? Whether through the legislature or not, the government is the force behind this. The ISPs didn't think this up on their own.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They aren't pressuring ISPs into compliance? Whether through the legislature or not, the government is the force behind this. The ISPs didn't think this up on their own.

CR

Smaller ISP's have refused to do it - such pressure as has been applied has been of the PR variety. If the Big Four ISP's had refused they would have struggled to spin it as anything other than "neglecting the children". That would have left a gap for the mid-size ISP's to market themselves as "family friendly" and steal market share.

Basically - this measure is in line with the public mood.

It's also important to understand that these filters are already in place, all that is happening is that the default is being set to "on" like on websites like YouTube.

In this case - the government is not the force behind this, they are riding the wave of public feeling. This debate about access to pornography has been going this way for at least half a decade - which is about how long the talking heads have been demanding action. As action goes this is very restrained - no new laws - just ISP's being persuaded to bow to public pressure.

[Greyblades]

And once again government time and effort is wasted on futile efforts to tame the untameable. As I said earlier; the only real concern here is how much money was wasted, and fortunately all signs point to zero. There's a bright side to porn filter though: the impression given is that the government is smart enough to take the easy way out; making half measures to appease the moral guardians without annoying anyone else much. Just enough to appear to be doing something but not enough to change the status quo for the worse.

[caravel]

This is all about normalizing government censorship of the internet.

The whole porn issue is invented as a means to get the government's foot in the door in terms of beginning censorship with the support of righteous moralists who think it right all of society be forced into something to allegedly protect "the children".

Governments and bureaucrats, once granted an immense power - internet censorship - have never and will never simply stop at the initial extent of the law. They will always push for more power, more control, and more censorship (in this case) of things they deem bad. After all, if censorship of one thing is good, then surely they are other things they can censor for "the greater good".

I mean, look at the growth of the US security state for crying out loud.

CR

+1

I was wondering how this Puritans 19th Century Government would try to ban sex, after Alcohol and Cigarettes. Job done!

I doubt labour would have done much different... It's based on harnessing the emissions from morale outrage, bottling it and using it to win elections and at the time see how far the boundaries can be pushed with regard to censorship. Nothing new there.

It won't work of course, because people can use tor or other proxies, and of course they know that anyway, which is why this is tokenism at best. It's there to appease a certain type of tabloid reader and whether it works or not, there are people out there who are stupid enough to appreciate it.

Of course the answer to parents is simple: take some fecking responsibility. It's the same as letting your kid go and play on the railway lines or walk the streets at 2am - the ultimate responsibility lies with the parent to ensure that they know where they are and what they're doing. This kind of censorship simply perpetuates the culture of "it's up to the state to protect us from ourselves"...

[Sarmatian]

Right to porn should be in the constitution.

You may take our lives but you can never take our porn!

[rvg]

Of course the answer to parents is simple: take some fecking responsibility. It's the same as letting your kid go and play on the railway lines or walk the streets at 2am - the ultimate responsibility lies with the parent to ensure that they know where they are and what they're doing. This kind of censorship simply perpetuates the culture of "it's up to the state to protect us from ourselves"...

This is the answer to most of the world's problems.

[Rhyfelwyr]

@Montmorency: I'll give you a proper reply soon!

This is all about normalizing government censorship of the internet.

The whole porn issue is invented as a means to get the government's foot in the door in terms of beginning censorship with the support of righteous moralists who think it right all of society be forced into something to allegedly protect "the children".

Governments and bureaucrats, once granted an immense power - internet censorship - have never and will never simply stop at the initial extent of the law. They will always push for more power, more control, and more censorship (in this case) of things they deem bad. After all, if censorship of one thing is good, then surely they are other things they can censor for "the greater good".

I mean, look at the growth of the US security state for crying out loud.

CR

A few points of order...

1. State regulation of the internet is already normalized. It has to be, for example to ban things like abusive porn, animal abuse etc. Or do you think these things should be free and legal?
2. The state already has vastly more invasive laws and regulations in place when it comes to the internet. Unlike the 'war on terror', this adds no new powers, and is actually an example of the state using its given-powers appropriately.
3. While the slippery slope argument of increasing state regulation is a valid one, I think we can all agree that regulation is something to be tamed and minimized, not stamped out completely.
4. The UK is not the USA. The UK has a long history of moderate and limited government, and this seems to be the best protection against tyranny, as the experiences of the more radically liberal/secular/republican USA and France are testimony to. This dogmatic libertarianism (as demonstrated by InsaneApache IMO) that seems to have been imported from the US in the past few years through shared culture/the internet is a foreign and unwelcome innovation, and dangerous to British democracy.

Honestly, I find the general response in this thread to be bizarre. We live in such an artificial world, where the entirely of human life is completely subjected to a whole host of norms and restraints; from the hierarchical to the grassroots to the collective; from the government to the legal system to the corporation; from our social life to our work life to our private life - a thousand factors all mesh and strengthen and accelerate each other, limiting human life more and more till all social relations, all life is shaped entirely by some sort of Leviathan; at once intangible yet all too visible, simultaneously everywhere and nowhere, abstract yet real.

But instead of worrying about that people cry out:

"But no, all that's of no concern! The great tyranny is not having porn automatically accessible in every household with a computer! And what a tyrannical government it is that asks us if we choose to access it or not! We're living in 1984"!

1984... yes, you know what, it is 1984 indeed. Because the whole of humanity can live under such a malicious behemoth, and be so blinded to the superstructure around them, that they deem policies like this to be the most tyrannical and oppressive imaginable. And so they happily consume their opiates and wallow in some sort of outrage/paranoia-based collective stupidity, while their elected government panders to another corporation, another entrepreneur is forced into wage labour, minorities are incarcerated en masse, and the like. Ye blind guides, which straw at a gnat, and swallow a camel!

I hate tyranny as much as anybody in this thread. Ever since Lemur posted that thread with the Brazil song, it keeps popping into my head while I enclose the 1,000th envelope for the day, when I enter number 5,000 onto the database, when I send out that standard response for the 500th time that week. And I do all that not even for a wage, but just the hope that someone might see fit to grant me one, being left destitute of any other means of sustaining myself.

We have tyranny all right, but this opt out system is not it. I have to say, its a strange tyranny that lets you choose whether to opt-in to it or not. Start worrying about the one you are born into whether you like it or not.

[Montmorency]

1984... yes, you know what, it is 1984 indeed. Because the whole of humanity can live under such a malicious behemoth, and be so blinded to the superstructure around them, that they deem policies like this to be the most tyrannical and oppressive imaginable. And so they happily consume their opiates and wallow in some sort of outrage/paranoia-based collective stupidity, while their elected government panders to another corporation, another entrepreneur is forced into wage labour, minorities are incarcerated en masse, and the like. Ye blind guides, which straw at a gnat, and swallow a camel!

Red herring. Because there are other problems, we should ignore this one?

We have tyranny all right, but this opt out system is not it.

Strawman. I don't see many calling the policy tyrannical in itself.

While the slippery slope argument of increasing state regulation is a valid one

I don't get the sense from their posts that it's regulation in general they're worried about, but censorship in particular.

But fundamentally, aside from the libertarianism of some here, the deal is that we simply don't find your moral strictures congenial.

is actually an example of the state using its given-powers appropriately.

And so, we can by no means agree with this.

[Beskar]

I put shortly. How do I make Christian landlord go to the ISP, most likely using the phone, and ask them to turn off Porn-Filters so I can access sites which may possess such things (like the Babe Thread) but their content is unrelated (Like Total War) just so I can view the (Total War) aspects ?

That is why the censorship makes a big difference, especially with the growing numbers in rented accommodation or not having access to the primary means of internet access (so like a university dorm).

Also, I know from public-sector internet, the filters are really restrictive. Facebook, Twitter, Forums, Blogs and Social Communication websites are generally banned. Only things you can actually access are the likes of wikipedia-only. Quite a number of the 'Opt-Out' filters include these.

[Rhyfelwyr]

******************************************reply to 2nd last post************************************************8

Well, I'll go by the original post.

The substance of my previous post dealt with this [that porn is socially damaging].

I wouldn't say that you dealt with it as such. You offered a contrary opinion, you didn't debunk my own, and so I think it is fair for it to play a part in my argument.

I was skimming anatomy books when I was 5. There's far more worrisome content in those than in most pornography, unless it's the snuff or torture kind. In fact, I expect that widespread exposure to pornography - as part of exposure to sexual realities more generally - would be extremely beneficial to young children, who don't tend to receive proper sex ed from their parents anyway. Proper sex ed would include treatment of pornography. Since you discount the neurophysiological effects for broader ones of 'social corruption', I will just mention that they closely mimic those of addictive syndromes, and reduce capacity for attention and impulse control. With that said, why do kids get into porn? Mostly, it's because their friends tell them about it, because there's a certain mystery to it, a sense of the forbidden. If children were familiarized with pornography at a young age, they would not be, uh, enthralled by it so easily. Being furthermore conditioned with extensive education on gender issues and sexual politics, they would be resistant to any putative pernicious effect that may stem from the nature of the content. And I'm not so sure that this even now is a significant effect.

Well if the content of these anatomy books is worse than porn, I doubt it is good for kids to see them either. You say you were exposed to them from age 5, and later you admit you had an unhealthy relationship with pornographic material during your teenage years. Maybe this should challenge your notion that early exposure leads to a healthier outlook on sex.

Don't get me wrong, like you say there's a whole host of reasons that lead kids into pornography as they get a bit older. I wouldn't mean to suggest that the curiosity is unnatural. Of course education on whole sorts of aspects of sex and relationships is helpful. But I don't think exposure to the world of online porn is a part of that.

I'm of the opinion that the character of pornography available today is almost entirely epiphenomenal, and so has almost no effect on society in itself - rather the reverse. The character of a country's or civilization's pornography merely reflects the underlying social mores. As for children, I can assure you that entertainment media, parents, and peers have a far more substantial impact on their understanding of gender issues than pornography does. We won't be seeing Jim Carrey starring in any films entitled "The Porn User", if you know what I mean...

Take Japanese pornography - clearly, the existing pornography is merely created by individuals steeped in a patriarchal and chauvinistic culture wherein women by expectation have no sexual agency, and for the very same sorts of individuals. Remember a few years back, when UN pressure got Japan to explicitly ban drawn child pornography? Even now, this sort of "hentai" continues to be produced, either secretly or under loopholes. Would you really conclude that this genre of porn was inducing pedophilia in developing young Japanese (boys), rather than that this was merely created to appeal to a culture overly infatuated with youthfulness in women? And after all, who could have less sexual agency than pre-adolescent minors, eh? Myself, I got into Japanese porn, both live and drawn, around age 13. It shaped quite a lot of my sexual appetite. Then, as I became more educated, I realized, 'Hey, this is pretty creepy', and dropped it around 17. Now of course I'm not so sensitive on those terms, but it still makes me vaguely uneasy to watch it - so I don't.

While American porn is a far cry from whatever goes on in Japan, to be sure you could find that most of it is perhaps regressive in content, or even outright demeaning or exploitative. Even softcore could be charged.

Again, I don't contest that porn reflects the society it comes from. But as far as porn is an expression of that culture, then it naturally strengthens that same culture by manifesting its characteristics in another area of human life. Much as violence begets violence, etc...

It is indeed no surprise, considering that in Iceland organized feminism has reached a perigee. The problem is that organized feminism tends to think of pornography as a problem, and one that ought to be solved with bans. It's a very backward mindset, and unfortunately many of the same individuals would endorse banning racial slurs in a nugatory and perhaps even counter-productive attempt to reduce racism. In truth, since Iceland is apparently so sexually enlightened, they should be taking it upon themselves to improve pornography. They should be striving to become leaders in global directing and production of pornography, but now with more sensitivity toward women. They could be using pornography as a tool to advance women's rights, squeezing out whatever cultural impact pornography is capable of and directing it toward their own ends. Just how much less effective, though, is 'Don't do that, it's bad' than 'Don't do that, it's bad. Now here's how you do it'? Trying to ban pornography is definitely counterproductive, as could only be so when one attempts to destroy rather than innovate. I mean, have you seen all the aggressively sexist comments engendered throughout the Internet

Feminists need to realize that they must bend social phenomena to their cause, not merely attempt to suppress them. Suppression is something which organized feminism in the world simply does not have sufficient power, and attempts at it merely damage their own political and moral capital.

To be clear, I only mentioned Iceland to point out Panzer's incorrect assumption. I don't think we need to get into critiques of Iceland's feminism - my point was simply that regulation/bans on pornography is clearly not the preserve of the hardline religious.

You probably won't be surprised to hear from me that I take this to be a rather jejune precedent and a poor use of the government's time and resources.

No, but then its not like they were ever going to use them well anyway.

Yes, it is damaging, but only as an extension of the Internet, which as a whole surely is more damaging.

I would also contend that the majority of humans, male and female, are either ambivalent or positive toward pornography.

As I noted previously, pornography is almost entirely reflective and can really have very little impact with respect to perpetuation of anything.

I don't see the problems of the internet in general as a reason to ignore the problems of pornography in particular. It is easier to single pornography out itself, since unlike the internet more generally, it is not an essential part of how the modern world functions. And anyway, the problems of the general internet are pretty vague and hard to address. With pornography, the aim is clear - take basic measures to protect children from being exposed to it.

No, what I said is that Internet pornography has the aforementioned neurophysiological effects of Internet usage more generally, and so there's not much point in keeping one while declaring a fruitless war on the other - despite, as I mentioned, the small number of reactionaries who genuinely aspire to dismantle modern civilization, meaning no Internet, powered transportation, enhanced agricultural techniques, and however many other modern amenities you can think of.

Frankly I do often aspire to those latter things you listed, though I do not believe that it is out of reactionary sentiment. Anyway, like I said, pornography is far less essential to the modern world than the internet as a whole, and that distinction alone is I think sufficient grounds for me to dismiss the above argument.

Gestures from states are an incredible waste of time and money unless they are used as tokens to pacify targeted demographics. To be honest, I don't think there are very many of your ilk in the UK, especially among the working class, and I also doubt that you or your ilk would cause extensive national turmoil and property damage through massive riots or whatnot, should the legislation fall through. So, uh, this is definitely just a waste of time and money.

I doubt it will take much time or money to implement in the large scheme of things. If it protects children from being exposed to damaging things, its worth it IMO. Its hardly much hassle at all, is it really?

On what basis do you think so [that most people will want to opt-in for the filters]?

Well I'm not sure on that, but beyond those living alone, I think wives will tend to whip their husbands in line on this issue.

We're all just speculating here. Insofar as pornography increases sexual satiety and fantasy fulfilment, it decreases the impetus for many males to violate strangers, friends, and/or family.

I'll also speculate that FPS proliferation has lowered the incidence of violent crime among young males in the West, even as they have heightened aggressive impulses and so on.

There's always a trade-off, and I certainly do not see that the balance is very far into the negative, even as I see a potential for a modest positive net.

Well I see the reverse. This reminds me of that Cracked article where it pointed out that punching stuff and lashing out when you are angry only actually makes you angrier in the long-term, and you only calm down in the short-term because you are physically tired. We are of course both just speculating here, but I suspect it may be the same with sex.

************************************************reply to last post***************************************************

Red herring. Because there are other problems, we should ignore this one?

It's not a red herring, its a narrative that explains why they focus so much on minor things when there are bigger issues, as well as demonstrating their hypocrisy. Not unlike your own claim that there's no point talking the ills of porn without talking the broader ills of the internet in general.

Their very views on porn and the role of the government are forged by the same beast they claim to tame in protesting these measures. Hence they protest against tyranny by expressive their slavish nature towards it. Porn itself is a product of this age with all its exploitation, pervasiveness throughout society, and perversion of natural human relations. I believe if we were not corrupted so much by this world in general, we wouldn't even desire it.

Of course I know that you disagree with this narrative, but it is not a red herring.

Strawman. I don't see many calling the policy tyrannical in itself.

They seem to regard it as the beginning of tyranny, part of a conspiracy on the government, where the true motives are indeed a drive at tyranny.

I don't get the sense from their posts that it's regulation in general they're worried about, but censorship in particular.

I think you're just being nitpicky now. I wouldn't be wrong to say that CR does oppose regulation in a broader sense, although in the context of my post it is primarily about censorship as a form of regulation.

But fundamentally, aside from the libertarianism of some here, the deal is that we simply don't find your moral strictures congenial.

And so, we can by no means agree with this [that this policy is appropriate use of government powers].

I think that (given overwhelming attitudes in society), the protection of children from porn comes less under the umbrella of "moral strictures" and more under child protection/basic decency/not frightening the horses.

I think we both agree that it is more appropriate for the government to be involved in the latter than the former there, we just disagree on what this topic comes under.

[Greyblades]

I put shortly. How do I make Christian landlord go to the ISP, most likely using the phone, and ask them to turn off Porn-Filters so I can access sites which may possess such things (like the Babe Thread) but their content is unrelated (Like Total War) just so I can view the (Total War) aspects ?

Step 1:Google proxy server
Step 2:Use any you find to browse internet porn.
Step 3: ???
Step 4:Profit.

[Montmorency]

Maybe this should challenge your notion that early exposure leads to a healthier outlook on sex.

Earlier exposure guided by parents. My parents would ignore the topic or discuss it jokingly, leaving me with a very childish impression of sexuality.

At age 11, while discussing the pompous behavior of a female classmate with another classmate, the second remarked, "She'll be sucking dicks in a few years anyway."

My response was, "EWWWWW why would she do that?!"

Half a year later, in the next grade, I was prompted to investigate porn sites after constantly hearing about them from a few of my raunchier classmates. I was at first disgusted to see genitalia, but of course I eventually returned - and returned again.

I began masturbating 9 months after this exposure. For the first year or so, I would persistently feel shame after masturbating, as though it were a betrayal of my childhood. Rather silly stuff, fed by a poisonous conception of the coddled and sheltered childhood.

Need I remind you:

With that said, why do kids get into porn? Mostly, it's because their friends tell them about it, because there's a certain mystery to it, a sense of the forbidden. If children were familiarized with pornography at a young age, they would not be, uh, enthralled by it so easily.

It was my very ignorance that led to the 'problem', if we should call it that. And my parents, following adolescence, handled sexuality even more poorly. At first, my father yelled at me for using porn, called me a degenerated and so on. Later, he encouraged me to look at porn to "learn how it works" - to no surprise, I later discovered on his computer no evidence of porn use - and prodded me to "look at women", boasting about how he was already having sex at age 16.

Again, I don't contest that porn reflects the society it comes from. But as far as porn is an expression of that culture, then it naturally strengthens that same culture by manifesting its characteristics in another area of human life. Much as violence begets violence

For some, surely yes. But the sort of people who look at pornography far in excess of the population average, I think, aren't really being 'taught' anything so much as reinforced in their preconceptions. For the rest, such a trivial pastime shouldn't be having very much impact. So my point is that yes, there is some feedback into the society, but really very little.

its not like they were ever going to use them well anyway.

Libertarian fiend!

It is easier to single pornography out itself

What we're saying is that not only is it impossible, the very attempt is counter-productive.

Its hardly much hassle at all, is it really?

Again, we're saying that it's impossible and counterproductive.

If you really want to protect children, then educate them, just as I recommended earlier.

I think wives will tend to whip their husbands in line on this issue.

Increasingly, couples are consuming pornography together to stimulate their sexual experiences. Hell, let's encourage that.

Not unlike your own claim that there's no point talking the ills of porn without talking the broader ills of the internet in general.

The sense of that point is that the problems of one and the other are similar and difficult to individuate (neurophysiologically, as I mentioned), and anyway to bring down Internet porn you would really have to bring down the Internet as a whole.

and perversion of natural human relations.

Hence they protest against tyranny by expressive their slavish nature towards it.

In principle, I agree with you.

I've posted this before:

The bondage we are born into is the bondage we cannot see. Verily, freedom is little more than the ignorance of tyranny. Live long enough, and you will see: Men resent not the whip so much as the hand that wields it.

protection of children from porn

Gah

I think we both agree that it is more appropriate for the government to be involved in the latter than the former there

Children need more protection from their family and friends than anything.

**************************************
Oh, and while skimming this book I've decided to make a few comments:

1. From the 1950s on, sexual violence in cinema became commonplace. From that time also, porn became tamer in that respect as it became itself more common, and so available to a wider audience than previously. Basically, in the past two generations cinema has overall gotten more extreme in sexual violence and porn less so. So even with the latter, exposure to simulated sexual violence increased considerably. It is interesting to note, however, that in silent porn-films (of the silent-film era :P), more affection is displayed between partners than in the mainstream (i.e. big-name producer) porn productions of the past generation.

The move from the porn industry to mainstream cinema of the sexualisation of violence had begun,
with the consequence that acts of sexual violence had also been moved ‘from the sphere of solitary,
unadmitted fantasy into the domain of shared experience’

2.

Arguably, the biggest change which has taken place since the 1970s is the
colossal expansion in information technology – particularly the arrival of the
Internet, which has rendered campaigns and protests against pornographic
images in the public sphere almost meaningless, since the entire range from
soft to hard-core porn can now be delivered directly ‘to everyone’s desk’
(Walter 2010: 102). Put simply, the Internet has enabled a massive expansion in,
and normalisation of, the porn industry which in turn has, arguably, made the
biggest single contribution to the increasing sexualisation of popular culture
and wider social relationships. That sexualisation is both inspired and informed
by porn and can be understood as operating on a continuum around women’s
bodies from pubic waxes, bondage-inspired clothing and footwear, surgically
enhanced breasts and lips through to extreme forms of sexual violence:
Through the mainstreaming of pornography and the new acceptability of
the sex industry, through the modishness of lap and pole-dancing,
through the sexualisation of young girls, many young women are being
surrounded by a culture in which they are all body and only body. (Walter 2010: 125)

In turn, this ‘pornification of our culture’ is tolerated, indeed celebrated,
because it is being sold back to us as evidence that full equality between men
and women has finally been reached (Walter 2010: 117). Women have become
‘liberated’ to the point where they now have the freedom to explore ‘their
bodies more’ and ‘to concentrate on their sexual allure’ (Walter 2010: 103, 108).
The particular form this liberation has taken can, however, equally be
understood to reinforce existing inequalities within heteropatriarchy, because
what is being sexualised is the power relationship within which women are
subordinate, objectified and dehumanised. In short, the specific form this
hypersexualisation takes reinforces the dominant heteropatriarchal social order
by eroticising male power and female subordination.

I disagree with Brown & Walklate on two points:

*Pornification is not a genuine trend, in that the availability of pornography has only been tolerated or "celebrated" due to changing social norms which porn did not significantly influence; it is not the case that porn's availability has itself primarily contributed to a sexualized culture.
*Not all pornography shows, explicitly or implicitly, men taking the position of power over the females, unless one takes everything but the cowgirl position to be an expression of masculine domination. Think of how much pornography is solo: women pleasuring themselves. Less markedly, there is porn in which women seduce men, or even dominate them. But where they really fall through (elsewhere in the book) is to claim that pornography depicts women's suffering more than women's pleasure. This is not at all the case, as I mentioned in an earlier post. A far greater problem is surely that much porn is characterized by fake displays of pleasure by both parties, implicit chauvinism, and an overall emphasis on the male experience. Finally, we're still really speaking of the hardcore mainstream porn, which I believe by now has been overwhelmed by amateur porn. Perhaps someone should do a study of amateur porn to investigate the sexual habits and mores displayed therein? Certainly, these would be more generalizable to the population at large than mainstream porn, though admittedly most ers don't film themselves and those that do might not be representative and so on and so forth...

I will own this much, though: 15 years of widespread pornography, or really just 5 if you think about it, is not enough time to draw conclusions. Only by the time the first porn-generation's children have children of their own will there be enough data and development of social trends to make serious generalizations about the possible social impacts of the Internet, Internet social media, Internet porn, video games, etc.

The way forward is to make porn more appetizing to feminist values and to convince the rest of the women that porn is for them too. These two are not necessarily identical goals.

Trivia:

*The majority of US porn users had yearly incomes above the US GDP per capita in 2006
*The majority of US porn users were middle aged or older in 2006
*In a survey of hundreds of college students, 93% of boys and 62% of girls said they were exposed to pornography before they turned 18. In the same survey, 83% of boys and 57% of girls said they had seen images of group sex online
*About 64-68% of young adult men and about 18% of women use porn at least once every week. Another 17% of men and another 30% of women use porn 1-2 times per month
*Two-thirds of college-age men and half of college-age women say viewing porn is an acceptable way to express one’s sexuality

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I put shortly. How do I make Christian landlord go to the ISP, most likely using the phone, and ask them to turn off Porn-Filters so I can access sites which may possess such things (like the Babe Thread) but their content is unrelated (Like Total War) just so I can view the (Total War) aspects ?

That is why the censorship makes a big difference, especially with the growing numbers in rented accommodation or not having access to the primary means of internet access (so like a university dorm).

Also, I know from public-sector internet, the filters are really restrictive. Facebook, Twitter, Forums, Blogs and Social Communication websites are generally banned. Only things you can actually access are the likes of wikipedia-only. Quite a number of the 'Opt-Out' filters include these.

You could get porn in my Dorm - they only got upset if what you were doing was illegal.

As regards the filters - you explain to the Christian landlord that you use the Org forum to argue about religion, but it has a place in another section where members place images of scantily clad women.

Really though, what you're saying is that previously you were taking advantage of the Landlord's ignorance to browse content he would have blocked had he known he could.

That argues in favour of Cameron's stance - lots of parents would like to be able to block pages, but aren't aware they can.

Lets be honest though - this isn't about the Org, this is about your need to refresh your porn collection when it becomes stale.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Earlier exposure guided by parents. My parents would ignore the topic or discuss it jokingly, leaving me with a very childish impression of sexuality.

At age 11, while discussing the pompous behavior of a female classmate with another classmate, the second remarked, "She'll be sucking dicks in a few years anyway."

My response was, "EWWWWW why would she do that?!"

Half a year later, in the next grade, I was prompted to investigate porn sites after constantly hearing about them from a few of my raunchier classmates. I was at first disgusted to see genitalia, but of course I eventually returned - and returned again.

I began masturbating 9 months after this exposure. For the first year or so, I would persistently feel shame after masturbating, as though it were a betrayal of my childhood. Rather silly stuff, fed by a poisonous conception of the coddled and sheltered childhood.

Well, it is a tough topic looking into what is healthiest in these regards. Often, all we have is only anecdotal, or even our own personal experience. I was a bit of a late developer, living in my world of STW and Age of Empires, so I think sex ed classes flew over the top of my head. I honestly don't remember anything about them.

Obviously I get a lot of my view in this regard from my faith, but I do certainly think that we live in an overly-sexualised world, and that somehow it isn't good.

It was my very ignorance that led to the 'problem', if we should call it that. And my parents, following adolescence, handled sexuality even more poorly. At first, my father yelled at me for using porn, called me a degenerated and so on. Later, he encouraged me to look at porn to "learn how it works" - to no surprise, I later discovered on his computer no evidence of porn use - and prodded me to "look at women", boasting about how he was already having sex at age 16.

In my case, I consider it one of the greatest blessings God ever bestowed upon me that my parents never said a word on these matters. It confirmed me in the happy knowledge that God will never place on me more than I can bare.

I'll be honesty, I don't really know how to deal with this topic. I just think everything would be easier if it wasn't for this world and all its problems. Ideally, you be self-sufficient and marry young, figure it out together, and then there's no need for porn or casual sex.

Now I will get slated for being horrendously naïve. But not knowing what I want makes me no less confident in knowing what I don't want.

For some, surely yes. But the sort of people who look at pornography far in excess of the population average, I think, aren't really being 'taught' anything so much as reinforced in their preconceptions. For the rest, such a trivial pastime shouldn't be having very much impact. So my point is that yes, there is some feedback into the society, but really very little.

Maybe, but some things are very hard to measure. I think for example that being used to pornography must cheapen your real relationships, or at least some people will feel that way. And as Philipvs noted, the nature of existing porn does tend to create a 'no means yes' attitude, where women are just objects for gratification. I think this may be something inherent in the porn industry rather than it merely reflecting society. Just like films don't get audiences by portraying everyday life, I suppose porn gets attention from delving into more 'exciting' territory.

What we're saying is that not only is it impossible [to single out porn for filters and regulation], the very attempt is counter-productive.

Again, we're saying that it's impossible and counterproductive.

I think that this particular policy is to particular in its scope to prove counter-productive. It's not like it is going to drive porn underground - it just makes it harder for minors and maybe some adults to access it.

If you really want to protect children, then educate them, just as I recommended earlier.

Education is fine, but I still like this policy as a safety net to protect children from stumbling upon it.

Increasingly, couples are consuming pornography together to stimulate their sexual experiences. Hell, let's encourage that.

Well you know I won't because that doesn't fit with my view on things. I'll grant it may be less damaging when used in this way, but I would still avoid it personally. But now this is just down to personal preferences.

The sense of that point is that the problems of one and the other are similar and difficult to individuate (neurophysiologically, as I mentioned), and anyway to bring down Internet porn you would really have to bring down the Internet as a whole.

Or change society. Little steps still count for something.

In principle, I agree with you.

That's nice, because people rarely agree with me on anything.

Gah [about me saying "protection of children from porn"]

Yeah, yeah, I know, you kind of lose if you talk about protecting the children, its almost like a mini-Godwin. But I maintain that it is a noble principle and one worth defending.

Children need more protection from their family and friends than anything.

Indeed, and I wish I could change the world to do so.

Oh, and while skimming...

Interesting stuff, and like you said, we can't study much since the 'porn generation' is still pretty young. While I understand your drive for 'better' porn, I still think that porn is inherently damaging. Not just in terms of the realities of the porn industry. I think sex should be something intimate - a private thing between you and your partner. That is what natural human sexual relations are. If you start adding porn and strange things it becomes something else.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think sex should be something intimate - a private thing between you and your partner. That is what natural human sexual relations are. If you start adding porn and strange things it becomes something else.

Why do I agree with this so much, even though I am not religious at all?

[HoreTore]

Step 1:Google proxy server
Step 2:Use any you find to browse internet porn.
Step 3: ???
Step 4:Profit.

....or just do it like everyone else and torrent it.

Come on, who pays for porn??

[HoreTore]

Why do I agree with this so much, even though I am not religious at all?

I have no problems with fetishes, but I would like people(like you two) to keep them to yourselves and not force them on the rest of us.

We've all got our kinks, but they belong in the bedroom.

[Montmorency]

a private thing between you and your partner

I just recalled something: didn't cottage-dwellers back in the early modern period - to say nothing of the ancient period - fornicate with children in the vicinity pretty much all the time? Those domiciles, being small, of as little as one room, privacy not then what it is now...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why do I agree with this so much, even though I am not religious at all?

Well you know that better than anybody else can and I won't use your own feelings as a platform for my views, but I do think we all have to some degree a natural longing to have an intimate, monogamous relationship. Even when, in this present age of ideology and fanaticism, HoreTore would have that branded a fetish!

You can't blame other stuff for personal moral failings. If it wasn't porn corrupting us, it would be sex scenes in TV, or in books, or whatever. It is a slippery slope of thought.

I would think of it less as sliding down a slippery slope, and more as taking positive steps. A while ago I increasingly found myself switching off the TV, or at least changing the channel, because I realised that I was just spoon-feeding myself complete bile.

At first I wondered at the Brethren assemblies I used to attend in Northern Ireland because most of their congregation would not own TV's or bother with modern media (over there they are kind of half-Amish). But I really now see why - I only ever accepted these things because I was used to them.

[HoreTore]

I just recalled something: didn't cottage-dwellers back in the early modern period - to say nothing of the ancient period - fornicate with children in the vicinity pretty much all the time? Those domiciles, being small, of as little as one room, privacy not then what it is now...

With children in the vicinity?

They used to do it with childrens bums as well, so I'm guessing having them around wasn't a big issue...

[HoreTore]

Well you know that better than anybody else can and I won't use your own feelings as a platform for my views, but I do think we all have to some degree a natural longing to have an intimate, monogamous relationship. Even when, in this present age of ideology and fanaticism, HoreTore would have that branded a fetish!

Of course it's a fetish. It makes sexual relations special for you, doesn't it? Things, situations or whatever that makes sex special for you is called a fetish.

It doesn't have to be all fecal matter and leather to be called a fetish, you know...

[Montmorency]

Going down Horetore's line, I'll admit it once and for all:

I get off at the thought of a man and a woman having missionary sex for the purpose of procreation, while the woman is ovulating. I have an impregnation fetish.